Monitoring in emotion regulation: behavioral decisions and neural consequences

Abstract

Monitoring and deciding how to adjust an active regulatory strategy in order to maximize adaptive outcomes is an integral element of emotion regulation, yet existing evidence remains scarce. Filling this gap, the present study examined core factors that determine behavioral regulatory monitoring decisions and the neuro-affective consequences of these decisions. Using a novel paradigm, the initial implementation of central downregulation strategies (distraction, reappraisal) and the emotional intensity (high, low) were manipulated, prior to making a behavioral decision to maintain the initial implemented strategy or switch from it. Neuro-affective consequences of these behavioral decisions were evaluated using the Late Positive Potential (LPP), an electro-cortical measure of regulatory success. Confirming predictions, initial implementation of reappraisal in high intensity and distraction in low intensity (Strategy × Intensity combinations that were established in prior studies as non-preferred by individuals), resulted in increased behavioral switching frequency. Neurally, we expected and found that in high (but not low) emotional intensity, where distraction was more effective than reappraisal, maintaining distraction (relative to switching to reappraisal) and switching to distraction (relative to maintaining reappraisal) resulted in larger LPP modulation. These findings suggest that monitoring decisions are consistent with previously established regulatory preferences and are associated with adaptive short-term neural consequences.

Components of Emotion Regulation Flexibility: Linking Latent Profiles to Depressive and Anxious Symptoms

“…Research has shown that the self-reported ability to discontinue maladaptive strategies and switch to adaptive strategies is associated with fewer depressive symptoms (Kato, 2015, 2017). Although experimental research on this component is relatively sparse, a few recent studies demonstrated that switching from reappraisal to distraction in the face of high-intensity negative images was associated with larger modulation in neural activity associated with emotional processing (Ilan, Shafir, Birk, Bonanno, & Sheppes, 2019) and that the switching frequency predicted better adjustment when it was in accord with internal physiological response (Birk & Bonanno, 2016). These findings provided support for the importance of monitoring the efficacy of an initial strategy and modifying or replacing ineffective strategies when necessary.…”

Identifying the determinants of emotion regulation choice: a systematic review with meta-analysis

“…Mehta et al, 2017;Milyavsky et al, 2019) with evidence that participants are more willing to regulate their emotional responses to high-intensity images compared to low-intensity images (Mehta et al, 2017) and that intensity influences whether people choose to switch or maintain a regulation strategy (e.g. Birk & Bonanno, 2016;Dorman-Ilan et al, 2020;Murphy & Young, 2020). The intensity of the emotion was found to have a very large-sized relationship with both intentions to regulate (r + = 0.46) and the choice of strategy (r + = 0.61) (see Table 2).…”

“…prompt people to consider whether to continue regulating and, if so, how), studies which examine the monitoring stage of emotion regulation (e.g. Dorman-Ilan et al, 2020) can also help us to understand whether and how people choose to regulate their emotions.…”

Flexible emotion regulatory selection when coping with COVID-19-related threats during quarantine

“…12 participants were excluded because they had significant completion time delays, defined as 30 min or more than the expected 45 min duration (note that actual average completion duration was 47 min, and that for 11 of these participants, it took 80 min or more to complete the study). Three participants were excluded due to failure to comply with the experimental instructions: when describing how they implemented their chosen strategies (see details below), these participants made more than 50% errors in total and/or more than 50% errors for a specific strategy (i.e., a conservative exclusion criterion in previous emotion regulation studies 33 , 37 ). Last, three participants were excluded because they failed 50% or more of random attention checks (in which they were instructed to press a certain number) that were embedded in a set of questionnaires filled out at the end of the experiment (see details below).…”

“…Participants first learned how to implement distraction and reappraisal (two examples for each strategy, order of learning was randomized across participants 33 , 37 . Distraction instructions involved disengaging attention from the negative content of the sentences by producing unrelated neutral thoughts (e.g., thinking about daily activities, familiar places, or geometric shapes).…”