Emotion regulation choice: the role of environmental affordances

Suri, Gaurav; Sheppes, Gal; Young, Gerald; Abraham, Damon; McRae, Kateri; Gross, James J.

doi:10.1080/02699931.2017.1371003

Cited by 91 publications

(83 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The availability of strategies can vary between situations as well as individuals. For instance, cognitive strategies are more likely to be considered in situations that have multiple interpretations. Different individuals may consider different strategies based on their skills and abilities.…”

Section: Affect Regulationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mental illness and well‐being: an affect regulation perspective

2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mental health crucially depends upon affective states such as emotions, stress responses, impulses and moods. These states shape how we think, feel and behave. Often, they support adaptive functioning. At other times, however, they can become detrimental to mental health via maladaptive affect generation processes and/or maladaptive affect regulation processes. Here, we present an integrative framework for considering the role of affect generation and regulation in mental illness and well-being. Our model views affect generation as an iterative cycle of attending to, appraising and responding to situations. It views affect regulation as an iterative series of decisions aimed at altering affect generation. Affect regulation decisions include identifying what, if anything, should be changed about affect, selecting where to intervene in the affect generation cycle, choosing how to implement this intervention, and monitoring the regulation attempt to decide whether to maintain, switch or stop it. Difficulties with these decisions, often arising from biased inputs to them, can contribute to manifestations of mental illness such as clinical symptoms, syndromes and disorders. The model has a number of implications for clinical assessment and treatment. Specifically, it offers a common set of concepts for characterizing different affective states; it highlights interactions between affect generation and affect regulation; it identifies assessment and treatment targets among the component processes of affect regulation; and it is applicable to prevention and treatment of mental illness as well as to promotion and restoration of psychological well-being.

show abstract

Section: Affect Regulationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mental illness and well‐being: an affect regulation perspective

2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although the tendency to suppress negative emotion is one characteristic of depression and anxiety (Amstadter, 2008;Cisler & Olatunji, 2012;Gross, 2002;Gross & Levenson, 1997;Troy et al, 2010), healthy adults may also use suppression in certain situations (Doré, Silvers, & Ochsner, 2016;Suri et al, 2018). Although the tendency to suppress negative emotion is one characteristic of depression and anxiety (Amstadter, 2008;Cisler & Olatunji, 2012;Gross, 2002;Gross & Levenson, 1997;Troy et al, 2010), healthy adults may also use suppression in certain situations (Doré, Silvers, & Ochsner, 2016;Suri et al, 2018).…”

Section: F I G U R E 2 (A)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Importantly, the neural signature of dispositional suppression remained significant after excluding participants with psychiatric diagnoses, suggesting that clinical manifestations associated with suppressing emotion are not driving the predictive relationship between patterns of functional connectivity and suppression tendency. Although the tendency to suppress negative emotion is one characteristic of depression and anxiety (Amstadter, 2008;Cisler & Olatunji, 2012;Gross, 2002;Gross & Levenson, 1997;Troy et al, 2010), healthy adults may also use suppression in certain situations (Doré, Silvers, & Ochsner, 2016;Suri et al, 2018). Thus, the use of suppression is likely not categorically maladaptive and, indeed, may be adaptive in particularly stressful situations (Doré et al, 2016).…”

Section: F I G U R E 2 (A)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Functional connectivity predicts the dispositional use of expressive suppression but not cognitive reappraisal

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction Previous research has identified specific brain regions associated with regulating emotion using common strategies such as expressive suppression and cognitive reappraisal. However, most research focuses on a priori regions and directs participants how to regulate, which may not reflect how people naturally regulate outside the laboratory. Method Here, we used a data‐driven approach to investigate how individual differences in distributed intrinsic functional brain connectivity predict emotion regulation tendency outside the laboratory. Specifically, we used connectome‐based predictive modeling to extract functional connections in the brain significantly related to the dispositional use of suppression and reappraisal. These edges were then used in a predictive model and cross‐validated in novel participants to identify a neural signature that reflects individual differences in the tendency to suppress and reappraise emotion. Results We found a significant neural signature for the dispositional use of suppression, but not reappraisal. Within this whole‐brain signature, the intrinsic connectivity of the default mode network was most informative of suppression tendency. In addition, the predictive performance of this model was significant in males, but not females. Conclusion These findings help inform how whole‐brain networks of functional connectivity characterize how people tend to regulate emotion outside the laboratory.

show abstract

“…15 Importantly, the neural signature of dispositional suppression remained significant after excluding participants with psychiatric diagnoses, suggesting that clinical manifestations associated with suppressing emotion are not driving the predictive relationship between patterns of functional connectivity and suppression tendency. Although the tendency to suppress negative emotion is one characteristic of depression and anxiety (Amstadter, 2008;Cisler & Olatunji, 2012;Gross, 2002;Gross & Levenson, 1997;Troy, Wilhelm, Shallcross, & Mauss, 2010), healthy adults may also use suppression in certain situations (Doré, Silvers, & Ochsner, 2016;Suri, Sheppes, Young, Abraham, McRae, & Gross, 2018). Thus, the use of suppression is likely not categorically maladaptive and, indeed, may be adaptive in particularly stressful situations (Doré, Silvers, & Ochsner, 2016).…”

Section: Functional Connectivity Predicts Suppressionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Functional connectivity predicts the dispositional use of expressive suppression but not cognitive reappraisal

Burr¹,

d’Arbeloff²,

Elliott³

et al. 2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous research has identified specific brain regions associated with regulating emotion using common strategies such as expressive suppression and cognitive reappraisal. However, most research focuses on a priori regions and directs participants how to regulate, which may not reflect how people naturally regulate outside the laboratory. Here, we used a data-driven approach to investigate how individual differences in distributed intrinsic functional brain connectivity predict emotion regulation tendency. Specifically, we used connectome-based predictive modeling to extract functional connections in the brain significantly related to the dispositional use of suppression and reappraisal. These edges were then used in a predictive model and cross-validated in novel participants to identify a neural signature that reflects individual differences in the tendency to suppress and reappraise emotion. We found a significant neural signature for the dispositional use of suppression, but not reappraisal. Within this whole-brain signature, the intrinsic connectivity of the default mode network was most informative of suppression tendency. In addition, the predictive performance of this model was significant in males, but not females. These findings help inform how whole-brain networks of functional connectivity characterize how people tend to regulate emotion outside the laboratory.

show abstract

Emotion regulation choice: the role of environmental affordances

Cited by 91 publications

References 26 publications

Mental illness and well‐being: an affect regulation perspective

Mental illness and well‐being: an affect regulation perspective

Functional connectivity predicts the dispositional use of expressive suppression but not cognitive reappraisal

Functional connectivity predicts the dispositional use of expressive suppression but not cognitive reappraisal

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About