Edited by: Wenjie Duan, Wuhan University, China
Reviewed by: Jesús Nicasio García Sánchez, Universidad de León, Spain; Michael S. Dempsey, Boston University, United States
This article was submitted to Educational Psychology, a section of the journal Frontiers in Psychology
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
The present study examines the structure of negative affect regulation strategies by confirmatory factor analysis. A total of 264 students (
The way positive and negative emotions are regulated can have a crucial impact on our well-being (
Hedonic well-being is typically referred to as being composed of two different elements, emotional well-being (positive/negative affect) and cognitive well-being or life satisfaction (
Following the taxonomy of regulation proposed by
Modification of situation is a psychological process similar to a functional problem-focused coping strategy and improves negative affect (
Affect regulation could seek to change how a person perceives an emotional situation (
Response modulation includes modification of physiological, subjective and expressive reactions (
Based on the above, the research question of this study is to examine (1) whether emotional regulation strategies are structured in the phases of regulation proposed by
The aim of the present research is to examine (a) the psychometric properties and the structure of regulation of negative affect in the different facets of Gross’ model (2015) and (b) the association with hedonic and eudemonic well-being. While previous literature has usually analyzed dispositional regulation strategies (
We also expect to find a congruent relationship between the use of functional and dysfunctional strategies in episodes of anger and sadness with dispositional indicators of emotional regulation and hedonic and psychological well-being.
The total sample is composed by 264 students (
The instruments applied include an affective regulation scale (MARS), a dispositional regulation criterion variable (ERQ) and two indicators of wellbeing, one related to hedonic (PANAS) and another psychological (PWB) wellbeing. Two simple questions were also included to measure the intensity of negative events (sadness and anger) (1: low intensity and 10: high intensity) and how (un)pleasant emotional experiences were (1: unpleasant- 8: pleasant).
The MARS scale is originally made up of 32 items, to which a further 24 items version was added, generated on the basis of the previous emotional regulation scales (
Descriptive statistics for each item.
Item | Anger and sadness |
||
---|---|---|---|
α | |||
5.63 | 3.18 | ||
6.01 | 3.16 | ||
06. I made a plan or resolution to avoid such problems in the future or to maintain a positive situation | 6.17 | 3.11 | |
6.06 | 3.43 | ||
53. I spoke in order to get understanding and support | 5.62 | 3.41 | |
54. I talked to someone in order to resolve or improve the situation that triggered my mood | 4.64 | 3.46 | |
5.41 | 3.50 | ||
56. I asked someone who had faced a similar problem or situation what they did | 4.16 | 3.38 | |
2.88 | 2.42 | ||
08. I carried on as if nothing had happened | 2.65 | 2.66 | |
09. I gave up, did nothing; I did not attempt to control the situation | 2.17 | 2.26 | |
4.81 | 3.24 | ||
13. I withdrew from or avoided the persons related to the situation | 3.52 | 2.70 | |
3.61 | 2.94 | ||
3.20 | 2.86 | ||
01. I thought about how I could have done things differently | 5.29 | 3 | |
6.49 | 3.08 | ||
03. I thought quickly about what had happened, about the emotional effects of the situation | 6.49 | 2.83 | |
5.63 | 2.98 | ||
5.70 | 2.85 | ||
5.43 | 2.92 | ||
5.33 | 2.72 | ||
5.93 | 2.84 | ||
4.91 | 3.08 | ||
32. I counted to 10 before answering, in an effort to avoid overflowing emotionally, to control my reaction | 4.14 | 3.41 | |
33. I wrote about what had happened to me, about the feelings it triggered in me, in an effort to avoid overflowing emotionally, to control my reaction | 2.68 | 3.24 | |
34. I accepted and endured the situation, trying to get on with normal life | 6.54 | 2.97 | |
4.23 | 2.95 | ||
5.47 | 3.05 | ||
6.16 | 3.41 | ||
2.23 | 3.20 | ||
40. I read or did something religious, of a spiritual nature. | 1.73 | 2.78 | |
5.02 | 3.09 | ||
5.69 | 3.08 | ||
4.95 | 3.35 | ||
3 | 2.78 | ||
43. I compared myself to people who have more resources, personal resources, and done better than me, to improve the situation. | 2.39 | 2.58 | |
10. I tried not to think about what had happened, to ignore the emotions I was feeling | 2.95 | 2.34 | |
3.58 | 2.83 | ||
12. I faked, or expressed emotions opposite to those I was feeling | 2.75 | 2.69 | |
3.02 | 3.04 | ||
16. I practiced relaxation, meditation | 2.61 | 3.05 | |
3.35 | 3.15 | ||
3.24 | 3.19 | ||
2.36 | 3.08 | ||
1.56 | 2.39 | ||
5.03 | 3.07 | ||
27. I expressed myself or behaved more affectionately, sought erotic enjoyment. | 2.92 | 2.62 | |
4.89 | 3.16 | ||
45. I made my emotion clear, verbalizing it and expressing it as strongly as I could with my face, my gestures and my way of behaving | 4.16 | 3.01 | |
46. I expressed my feelings to the person(s) responsible for the situation or tried to get them to change their minds or to improve the situation | 4.42 | 3.17 | |
47. I spoke sarcastically or ironically to/about the person(s) responsible for the situation | 2.91 | 2.61 | |
48. I showed my emotions to the person(s) responsible for the situation, behaving differently toward them | 3.17 | 2.84 | |
49. I kept my feelings under control while it was convenient, and later, when they would not make matters worse, I expressed them | 4.46 | 3.06 | |
2.52 | 3.32 | ||
51. I calmly apologized for what was done and said | 3.32 | 2.94 |
The ERQ is a self-report questionnaire that measures dispositional emotional regulation, which consists of two scales corresponding to two different emotion regulation strategies: reappraisal (e.g., ‘When I want to feel more positive emotion I change what I’m thinking about’) and expressive suppression (e.g., ‘I keep my emotions to myself’). It has 10 items which are answered using a 7 point scale, from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). In this study alpha coefficients were 0.69 and 0.57, respectively. High scores indicated greater dispositional emotional regulation.
This scale contains 20 mood descriptors (e.g., active, excited, hostile, etc.) which are relatively pure markers of either high negative affect (NA) or high positive affect (PA). In the Spanish version Cronbach alpha for NA was 0.80 and 0.68 for PA (
The study used a descriptive, correlational, and cross-sectional design. Participants were recruited from local universities, where research assistants administered the questionnaire during lectures. We included adults (≥18 years of age) without diagnosed personality or anxiety disorders. Instruments were administered with pencil and paper, in groups and under the supervision of research assistants. The data were collected at two moments. Participants used a code to identify themselves at both moments. First, participants were asked to select and describe an event that had caused them anger, and another sadness, choosing from a list of 12 life changing episodes. With regard to that event, they were to provide information on the type of event, its intensity, pleasant or unpleasant emotions, and the date on which it occurred. The list included negative events like problems with personal relationships, studies or work, diseases and deaths, which could be related either to anger or sadness. All participants responded with regard to each of the two emotional episodes on the same day. With regard to each of the emotional events, students were instructed to provide information on the type of event and to inform when the event had occurred. Then, they responded to MARS in relation to each specific emotional event. The data from the well-being and dispositional emotional regulation scales were collected in the class sessions 2 weeks prior to the participants completing the MARS scale. Participants (adults and students) took an average of 30 min for each practice session to complete the questionnaire. The students and adults completed the questionnaires following the same procedure. Filling in the questionnaire was volunteer. This study was carried out in accordance with the recommendations of university’s bioethical committee with written informed consent from all subjects. All subjects gave written informed consent in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. The protocol was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of Basque Country University.
As anger evoking episodes, participants mainly selected problems related to personal relationships as triggers (66.7%). Regarding to sadness episodes, participants mainly selected experiences associated with deaths (38.6%) and personal relationships (40.5%). Both episodes had occurred over the previous 6 months. Paired
Two different theoretical models are examined by a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) with Maximum Likelihood estimation using the Mplus 7.11 software package (
Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Affect regulation strategies: direct and indirect modification of situation.
Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Affect regulation strategies: attentional deployment and cognitive change.
Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Affect regulation strategies: emotional response modulation.
The original one-factor structure composed by eight items finds to be a poor fit (Model 1) (
The model 2 (see
Firstly, the 1-factor, 15-item model 1 shows that, the goodness of fit indices are not adequate: χ2(119,
The second model analyses a structure with 7 dimensions and 21 items (
The original one-dimensional structure (Model 1) includes nine items. The Model 1 fit indices are acceptable: χ2(27,
In addition, MARS model 2 includes 18 items and seven dimensions in the emotional response modulation facet. Item 46 is eliminated due to it increases the error variance (RMSA = 0.09) and decreases the model fit (CFI = 0.87, TLI = 0.84). The final CFA shows a good fit with the data: χ2(127,
To obtain evidence of the convergent validity of the instrument, Pearson correlations were calculated between the scores of MARS dimensions and ERQ (reappraisal and suppression) as dispositional indices of affect regulation (see
Correlations between MARS and ERQ, PANAS and PWB Ryff scales.
ERQ |
PANAS |
PWB Ryff | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Reappraisal | Suppression | Positive | Negative | ||
Problem-directed action | 0.24*** | -0.09 | 0.22*** | 0.18** | 0.21*** |
Withdrawal and social isolation | 0.03 | 0.26*** | 0.02 | 0.33*** | -0.17*** |
Social support | 0.26*** | -0.33*** | 0.27*** | 0.11 | 0.26*** |
Distraction | 0.31*** | -0.03 | 0.17** | 0.24*** | 0.14* |
Acceptance and self-control | 0.32*** | -0.02 | 0.26*** | 0.15* | 0.25*** |
Gratitude and self-reward | 0.36*** | -0.01 | 0.22*** | 0.11 | 0.19*** |
Spiritual activities | 0.20*** | 0.03 | 0.02 | 0.10 | 0.12 |
Rumination | 0.22*** | -0.02 | 0.19** | 0.28*** | 0.13 |
Reappraisal | 0.36*** | -0.07 | 0.20*** | 0.06 | 0.25*** |
Social comparison | 0.11 | -0.05 | -0.044 | 0.01 | -0.05 |
Inhibition and suppression | 0.05 | 0.43*** | -0.64 | 0.33*** | -0.18** |
Active physiological regulation | 0.25*** | 0.06 | 0.16* | 0.16* | 0.18*** |
Passive physiological regulation | 0.17*** | -0.02 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.03 |
Humor, Warm | 0.25*** | 0.01 | 0.17** | 0.16* | 0.13 |
Venting | 0.10 | -0.36*** | 0.26*** | 0.05 | 0.28*** |
Confrontation | 0.11 | 0.06 | 0.06 | 0.08 | 0.07 |
Regulated expression | 0.29*** | 0.1 | 0.19*** | 0.09 | 0.20*** |
In order to contrast the association between coping and affect regulation strategies with hedonic adaptive goals, factor scores are correlated with PANAS positive and negative affect scores (see
With the goal of examining the association between previously described forms of regulation and instrumental and social-adaptive goal factors, scores were correlated with Ryff’s PWB scores (see
Discriminant function analysis (DFA) and analysis of variance (ANOVA) are used to examine the differences in affect regulation between groups. Hence, the overall analyses sought to answer the questions of how each strategy: (a) contributes to predicting group assignment and (b) represents significant mean differences among groups.
To explore a combination of well-being, we create four groups based on the median of PWB and PANAS (high PWB and PANAS; high PWB and low PANAS; low PWB and high PANAS, and low PWB and PANAS). Discriminant analysis between these groups found one statistically significant canonical discriminant function (see
Items discriminating between Flourishing group, low PANAS and high PWB, high PANAS and low PWB, and languishing group.
Item | PWB Ryff ∗PNAS |
|||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
High PWB∗PANAS ( |
High PWB∗low PANAS ( |
Low PWB∗ high PANAS ( |
Low PWB∗PANAS ( |
Function Loading | η2 | |||||||
Problem-directed action | 3.72 | 1.43 | 4.18a | 1.18 | 3.47b | 1.25 | 3.68b | 1.37 | 0.95 | 3.36** | 0.07 | 2.35 |
Social support | 3.52 | 1.70 | 3.90a | 1.59 | 3.28 | 1.70 | 3.34b | 1.55 | 0.96 | 2.98* | -0.36 | 2.06 |
Withdrawal and social Isolation | 1.72a | 0.96 | 1.93 | 0.99 | 2.30 | 0.86 | 2.74b | 1.15 | 0.93 | 4.23** | -1.02 | 2.97 |
Distraction | 3.58 | 1.25 | 3.77 | 0.94 | 3.70 | 0.92 | 3.67 | 1.14 | 0.97 | 2.41 | -0.11 | – |
Acceptance and self-control | 2.86 | 1.08 | 3.29a | 1.34 | 2.50b | 1.01 | 2.53b | 1.04 | 0.91 | 6.52*** | 1.03 | 4.05 |
Gratitude and self-reward | 3.45a | 1.30 | 3.55b | 1.19 | 3.28 | 1.29 | 2.99b | 1.36 | 0.95 | 3.53* | 0.38 | 2.41 |
Spiritual activities | 1.04 | 1.58 | 1.55a | 1.91 | 0.69b | 1.04 | 0.85b | 1.38 | 0.95 | 3.67* | 0.51 | 2.42 |
Rumination | 3.60b | 1.21 | 4.29a | 0.91 | 3.76b | 0.93 | 3.99b | 1.08 | 0.95 | 4.23** | 0.09 | 2.97 |
Reappraisal | 3.39 | 1.52 | 3.73a | 1.51 | 3.20b | 1.11 | 2.94b | 1.42 | 0.93 | 5.88** | -0.11 | 4.03 |
Social comparison | 1.62 | 1.37 | 1.64 | 1.50 | 1.88 | 1.54 | 1.95 | 1.46 | 0.99 | 0.21 | -0.05 | – |
Inhibition and suppression | 1.59 | 1.28 | 1.77a | 1.11 | 2.02 | 1.29 | 2.50b | 1.51 | 0.96 | 2.78* | -0.14 | 1.91 |
Active physiological regulation | 1.82 | 1.43 | 1.92 | 1.80 | 1.69 | 1.40 | 1.46 | 1.46 | 0.97 | 1.72 | 0.22 | – |
Passive physiological regulation | 1.51 | 1.27 | 1.78 | 1.58 | 1.55 | 1.33 | 1.93 | 1.16 | 0.98 | 1.01 | -0.33 | 1.91 |
Humor, warmth | 2.49 | 1.31 | 2.65 | 1.26 | 2.73 | 1.25 | 2.46 | 1.42 | 0.96 | 2.78* | -0.06 | – |
Venting | 3.21 | 1.63 | 3.15 | 1.51 | 2.74 | 1.58 | 2.89 | 1.51 | 0.97 | 2.15 | 0.11 | – |
Confrontation | 1.96 | 1.75 | 1.87 | 1.14 | 2.19 | 1.64 | 2.39 | 1.88 | 0.99 | 0.02 | 0.21 | – |
Regulated expression | 2.2 | 1.43 | 2.44a | 1.32 | 1.87b | 1.09 | 2.11b | 1.26 | 0.96 | 2.69* | -0.12 | 1.90 |
Specific items comprising Function 1 can be found in
This paper empirically evaluates Gross’s Process Model of Emotion Regulation and validates an expanded version of the MARS in negative emotional episodes. Globally, our results confirm the structural validity of dimensions of regulations and types of strategies. One of the most important findings of this study is that various forms of affect regulation show a reliable structure in different aspects or phases of affect regulation. Also, it provides an instrument that enables reliable diagnoses of functional self-regulation. Confirmatory factor analyses support the structure of expanded MARS (
First, the data show that both emotional and cognitive instrumental social support load together in the second factor, differentiating between instrumental/informative and emotional social support. Unfortunately, and at odds with the conception that receiving and giving social support are integrated in a common process, coping by helping others or altruism did not fit adequately. Only one item was used which did not allow testing the existence of a separate dimension. Asking for social support during distress does not necessarily imply a similar orientation toward giving social support – the latter is probably associated with high self-efficacy and prosocial values. Furthermore, CFA also suggests that withdrawal and social isolation should be considered together, forming an avoidance dimension strategy that is clearly dysfunctional. Both of them refer to taking actions that directly alter a situation in order to change its emotional impact, and although these situation-modifying behaviors lead to short-term relief, they prevent full exposure to the feared situations, preventing longer term benefits of exposure (
Finally, the items related to dimensions of emotional response modulation show good fit with the data. The final model includes 18 items and 7 dimensions; suppression, active and passive psychological regulation, humor and warm, venting, confrontation and regulated expression. All of these coping strategies involve attempts to directly influence emotional response system (
Convergent validity of the scales is also confirmed. Results suggest that there is a congruent relationship between dispositional indicators of emotional regulation and using functional and dysfunctional strategies in episodes of anger and sadness. Reappraisal is associated with high use of problem-directed action and social support, and attentional deployment and cognitive change strategies (except social comparison); moreover, it is associated with high active and passive psychological regulation, humor, warmth and regulated expression. Suppression is associated not only with withdrawal, social isolation and inhibition, but also with low social support and venting (
Results support a congruent relationship between the use of functional and dysfunctional strategies in episodes of anger and sadness and indicators of hedonic and psychological well-being (
Problem-directed action, distraction, acceptance and self-control, rumination, active physiological regulation, use of humor and affection were related to positive and negative affect. Most of these forms are a response to emotional stress and are associated with negative affect as a coping response. Social support, gratitude and self-reward, reappraisal, and regulated expression are only associated with positive affect and not to negative affect (
As expected, psychological well-being was associated with modifying the situation through problem-directed action and seeking social support. PWB was also associated with attentional deployment through distraction, acceptance/self-control and gratitude/self-reward and to cognitive change by reappraisal (
Venting, thought as to be a negative form of regulation, was associated with psychological well-being, positive affect and low suppression. Results suggest that intense emotional expression is not necessarily dysfunctional. This is congruent with a non-significant positive association between venting and affect balance (
Discriminant analysis shows an interesting result. The forms of affect regulation that most significantly characterize languishing participants with low PWB and hedonic well-being were high psychological abandonment, social isolation, low social support and high inhibition/suppression. This is an important finding, because it reaffirms the central role of social relations and low helplessness for well-being. Furthermore, this group usually used gratitude and self-reward less than other groups (except low PWB, high PANAS). Flourishing subjects (high PWB and PANAS) report highest gratitude and low social isolation and psychological abandonment. Attentional deployment positively oriented and absence of social and behavioral avoidance, appeared as the mark of subjects with the most positive well-being profile when regulating negative events. The most adaptive profile was reported by participants with high PWB and low positive affect, which reported highest modification of situation (problem-directed action and social support), acceptance and self-control, gratitude and self-reward, spiritual activities, rumination, reappraisal and regulated expression, and lower inhibition. The fact that an adaptive profile was showed by participants with high psychological well-being (
In conclusion, the results show a significant, medium-low correlation between forms of regulation with hedonic and psychological well-being. At the same time, the study replicates the association of adaptive regulation with well-being, and supports the structural validity of the MARS scale, as well as convergent validity with ERQ’s suppression and reappraisal. There is an association between dysfunctional emotional regulation (high coping by withdrawal and social isolation and suppression) and low hedonic and psychological well-being. In addition, the measure was found to be reliable and valid, with the construct validity supported by associations with conceptually relevant constructs accessed via self-report measures. Information regarding the specific difficulties that participants experience in response to particular types of cues or stressors could also be used to enhance the targeted and tailored nature of interventions in other contexts (i.e., clinical). The results of this study are useful for promoting emotional capacities for coping more effectively with negative situations in educational contexts. These results provide guidance on how to implement intervention programs, aimed at enhancing well-being and reducing psychosocial maladjustment in negative situations. Adaptive strategies are forms of regulation that should be reinforced as ways to improve affective well-being. To help people overcome a state of low emotional and psychological well-being, it is essential to reduce their tendencies toward psychological abandonment, social isolation, low social support and high inhibition/suppression. This means that increasing successful social integration and self-efficacy is essential for well-being. In this line of reasoning, teaching students to use positive reappraisal and acceptance can foster healthy skills to help them face adverse circumstances in the future.
In contrast, this study has clear limitations: the conclusions are based on the correlational analysis of self-reports. The sample size may have been too small, and further larger studies are required to confirm these results. More research is needed to fully understand the complex relationships among these constructs. The cross-sectional design of the study limits any conclusion about causality and direction of relationships. Measuring affect regulation with retrospective self-reports is another limitation because self-reported emotion regulation is not the same as actual measurement of affect regulation on-line. On-line experimental studies, as well as observational longitudinal studies, are needed to expand our understanding of affect regulation. Nevertheless, our results are globally congruent with the findings of both experimental (
AP-M data analysis and wrote the paper. DP and SU-L wrote the paper. SDC-D collected the data.
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.