Individual differences in self-reported self-control predict successful emotion regulation

Abstract

Both self-control and emotion regulation enable individuals to adapt to external circumstances and social contexts, and both are assumed to rely on the overlapping neural resources. Here, we tested whether high self-reported self-control is related to successful emotion regulation on the behavioral and neural level. One hundred eight participants completed three self-control questionnaires and regulated their negative emotions during functional magnetic resonance imaging using reappraisal (distancing). Trait self-control correlated positively with successful emotion regulation both subjectively and neurally, as indicated by online ratings of negative emotions and functional connectivity strength between the amygdala and prefrontal areas, respectively. This stronger overall connectivity of the left amygdala was related to more successful subjective emotion regulation. Comparing amygdala activity over time showed that high self-controllers successfully maintained down-regulation of the left amygdala over time, while low self-controllers failed to down-regulate towards the end of the experiment. This indicates that high self-controllers are better at maintaining a motivated state supporting emotion regulation over time. Our results support assumptions concerning a close relation of self-control and emotion regulation as two domains of behavioral control. They further indicate that individual differences in functional connectivity between task-related brain areas directly relate to differences in trait self-control.

Emotions and Behavior Regulation in Decision Dilemmas

“…In some cases we can find inter-individual differences characterized by vary different stable habits for different individuals (e.g., the impulsive spendthrift vs. the miser) and in other cases we find intra-individual differences in behavior from one time to another, or from one decision domain to another. As suggested by our model and corroborating evidence, people facing decision dilemmas may differ in the degree to which they anticipate and are motivated by either of two conflicting utilities and the degree to which they experience and can regulate emotional consequences of past decisions [5], and perhaps because of sex differences affecting the perception of different emotions [149]. The conflicted goal approach of considering a DMs utility function may be even more important for understanding intra-individual differences revealed at 13 Soutschek and colleagues [59] have suggested that the brain regions underlying self-control mechanisms involved in individual decision dilemmas (e.g., trading off impulsive short vs. restrained long-term goals) are also underlying decisions in social dilemmas (e.g., trading off exploitative and individually beneficial vs. cooperative and mutually beneficial goals).…”

“…Also puzzling is how, under dilemma conditions, "extreme" behavior is commonly chosen, despite available options for more moderate behavior. Others have also found anomalous effects on behavior by altering the set of available options (e.g., [2,3]) or by manipulating the strength and decay rate (or memory) of recent emotions (e.g., [4,5]). …”

“…4 Our thesis is that, across most dilemmas, DMs struggle to choose a preferred course of action because they are dually motivated by two different and mutually exclusive ideals: self-control (needed to restrain temptation-control) and temptation-control (the innate reaction to tempting stimulus). 5 We represent these ideals as utility functions: u (the self-control utility) and v (the temptation utility), each a distinct goal and located at the extremes of the Hotelling line. We assume that, under dilemma conditions, the goals associated with our evolved cognitive modules are differentially aligned with the extremes of the Hotelling line (see Figure 1).…”

“…5 Automatic and mindless behavior, triggered by a stimulus, has been described by others [62][63][64][65]. Gómez-Miñambres [66] considers a similar modeling approach to formalize dual-system preferences in a monopoly pricing model where products are horizontally differentiated.…”

A Study of the Perception, Level of Satisfaction and Control Requirements of a Self-Fitting Hearing Aid (A Qualitative Study)

“…give them power over the hearing aid, supporting research by [ [20][21][22][23]. According to one participant, having this control will reduce the need to articulate preferences for settings to an audiologist, whom he relies on to interpret them.…”