Estimating individual subjective values of emotion regulation strategies

Abstract

Individuals have a repertoire of emotion regulation (ER) strategies at their disposal, which they can use more or less flexibly. In ER flexibility research, strategies that facilitate goal achievement are considered adaptive and therefore are subjectively valuable. Individuals are motivated to reduce their emotional arousal effectively and to avoid cognitive effort. Perceived costs of ER strategies in the form of effort, however, are highly subjective. Subjective values (SVs) should therefore represent a trade-off between effectiveness and subjectively required cognitive effort. However, SVs of ER strategies have not been determined so far. We present a new paradigm for quantifying individual SVs of ER strategies by offering monetary values for ER strategies in an iterative process. N = 120 participants first conducted an ER paradigm with the strategies distraction, distancing, and suppression. Afterwards, individual SVs were determined using the new CAD paradigm. SVs significantly predicted later choice for an ER strategy (χ2 (4, n = 119) = 115.40, p < 0.001, BF10 = 1.62 × 1021). Further, SVs were associated with Corrugator activity (t (5, 618.96) = 2.09, p = 0.037, f2 = 0.001), subjective effort (t (5, 618.96) = − 13.98, p < 0.001, f2 = 0.035), and self-reported utility (t (5, 618.96) = 29.49, p < 0.001, f2 = 0.155). SVs were further associated with self-control (t (97.97) = 2.04, p = 0.044, f2 = 0.002), but not with flexible ER. With our paradigm, we were able to determine subjective values. The trait character of the values will be discussed. Protocol registration The stage 1 protocol for this Registered Report was accepted in principle on July 19, 2022. The protocol, as accepted by the journal, can be found at: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/FN9BT.

The role of cognitive effort in emotion regulation

“…Furthermore, this complex interplay emphasises that a chosen strategy must not only be effectiveanchored in the anticipation of goal achievement, which is the driving forcebut should also require minimal cognitive effort, which is the restraining force. This dynamic interaction resonates with the findings of Scheffel et al (2021Scheffel et al ( , 2023. During these studies, participants were given the opportunity to choose between several strategies and were then asked to provide reasons for their decision.…”

“…Troy et al (2018) found no effects of the strategies reappraisal and acceptance on self-reported effort, but on self-reported difficulty. Scheffel et al (2021Scheffel et al ( , 2023 found slight differences in subjective effort between strategies, but above all large inter-individual differences in effort during implementation. This observation is crucial, as effort is costly (Inzlicht et al, 2018).…”

“…The role of cognitive effort in emotion regulation 6 (Scheffel et al, 2021(Scheffel et al, , 2023. One important criterion according to which the strategies differ is therefore the required cognitive effort.…”

“…Numerous studies have investigated the assumption that emotion regulation necessitates the engagement of cognitive effort, thereby entailing the expenditure of cognitive resources (e.g., Gyurak et al, 2011;Kinner et al, 2017;Ortner et al, 2016;Troy et al, 2018;Webb et al, 2012). It has been shown that subjective effort is reported during the implementation of ER strategies (e.g., Scheffel et al, 2021Scheffel et al, , 2023Troy et al, 2018;Urry et al, 2009) and that this effort is expressed in peripheral physiological markers, in particular in the pupillary response (e.g., Johnstone et al, 2007;Kinner et al, 2017;Richey et al, 2015;Scheffel et al, 2021;Urry et al, 2006Urry et al, , 2009van Reekum et al, 2007).…”

“…The role of cognitive effort in emotion regulation 9 individuals in negative affective states tend to experience cognitive tasks as more effortful (Grahek et al, 2020;Inzlicht et al, 2015). Consequently, cognitive effort proves to be a central determinant for emotion regulation choice (Matthews et al, 2021;Scheffel et al, 2021Scheffel et al, , 2023Sheppes, 2020).…”