Emotion Regulation Strategies - Essay Example

Interoceptive Sensitivity Facilitates Both Antecedent- And Response-Focused Emotion Regulation Strategies: A Critical Evaluation Introduction The term Emotion is often considered as synonymous with the word "feeling" even though this is not accurate. APA (2015) makes this clear in its definition of the term whereby it defines emotion first and foremost as a pattern in which changes that involve/concern cognitive processes, psychological arousal, and behavioral reactions in addition to feelings occur or are made in response to something which is considered as significant to an individual. Since it would appear that emotions are inevitable for a normal, fully functioning human being, then this implies that emotions must at one point in time be dealt with. The strategies used to deal with emotions are collectively known as emotion regulation strategies. Emotion regulation is a term signifying the process by which one influences/changes the emotions that they are experiencing in terms of how and when they express and experience them respectively (Gross 2002). In studying emotion regulation strategies, the greatest challenge lies in finding a logically consistent means by which to organize the myriad of emotion regulation strategies (Gross 2002). In response to this challenge Gross (1998b; 2001) proposes a model of emotion regulation focusing on the different strategies that are employed on a time scale of an emotion - that is to say, from before its generation to the reactive phase once the emotion has already been created. This model's most fundamental claim is that strategies of emotion regulation differ when their primary impact is on the process that generates the emotion. As such, a broad distinction has been drawn between antecedent-focused strategies (used before the emotion fully takes root) and response-focused strategies (those generally dealing with how the emotion is expressed or experienced). This paper will contain a critical analysis of Kever et al.’s findings (2015). It will do this by examining and discussing the purpose, methodology and findings of the paper. It will also focus on specific aspects of the paper such as the heartbeat perception task and the theory behind it, emotion regulation strategies and definition and differentiation of such important terms as “introceptive sensitivity”, “introceptive awareness” and “introceptive accuracy”. It will also include a conclusion section in which a summary of the discussion will be contained. Introceptive Sensitivity As It Relates To Antecedent- and Response-Focused Emotion Regulation Strategies As Kever, Pollatos, Vermeulen, and Grynberg (2015) make note, there has been a fair share of research that has been done on emotion and the strategies that go into its regulation. However, the studies conducted on if and how introspective sensitivity influences the emotional experience have been less than exhaustive. To this end, Kever, Pollatos, Vermeulen, and Grynberg (2015) conducted a study to investigate whether individual differences in introceptive sensitivity (IS) are linked to the habitual employment of two particular strategies of emotion regulation which have been briefly discussed before—antecedent-focused strategies (reappraisal) and response-focused strategies (suppression). Previous studies on emotion regulation and IS had focused mainly on the relationship between IS and reappraisal strategies of emotion regulation but failed to draw connections between IS and suppression strategies. The present study thus sought to bridge the gap left by former studies by investigating the relationship between IS and the inveterate application of suppression as well as reappraisal strategies. Füstös et al. (2013) have already established that IS facilitates the regulation of emotions through reappraisal, while Herbert et al. (2013) have established that there is a positive correlation between IS and the favorable effects of reappraisal. Kever, Pollatos, Vermeulen, and Grynberg (2015) in the present study therefore hypothesized that IS and the habitual use of reappraisal strategies will be positively correlated while IS and the habitual use of suppression will have a negative correlation. The latter hypothesis was built on the foundation laid by Aldao, Nolen-Hoeksema and Schweizer (2010) who found that there is a negative correlation between IS and the harmful effects of the suppression of emotional expression. IS is described as the ability to perceive internal body signals such as cardiac signals in the form of the heartbeat, for example (Katkin, Cestaro and Weitkunat, 1991). Another term that inevitably rears its head in the study of emotion regulation is “introceptive awareness” (IA). These two are sometimes used interchangeably which is a mistake as doing so does not fully take into account whether the means of evaluation measures subjective sensibility, introceptive accuracy or metacognitive awareness. In recent times, however, introceptive accuracy has been used to signify introceptive behavioral performance (Ceunen, Van Diest & Vlaeyen 2013). IS is however only synonymous to introceptive accuracy, and these two terms refer to the process by which one is able to accurately detect and track their internal bodily sensations (Garfinkel & Critchley 2013; Garfinkel et al. 2015). For their study, Kever, Pollatos, Vermeulen, and Grynberg (2015) study population was composed of four hundred and two participants—158 of who were men while the rest (244) were women and their mean age was 23.27 (SD=4.58). In order to qualify to participate in the study, it was required that none of the participants had a history of Axis 1 psychiatric disorders (which include all primary Psychiatric disorder except personality disorders and mental retardation) (American Psychiatry Association 2013). To filter out those who did not fulfill this requirement an anamnestic questionnaire was administered to all the participants prior to their participation, and they were only included in the study if they qualified. To the qualified participants, a German translation (Abler & Kessler 2009) of Gross and John’s (2003) ERQ (Emotion Regulation Questionnaire) was administered. This questionnaire assessed their inveterate use of suppression and reappraisal. The ERQ consists of 10 items: six of which measure the latter using statements like “I control my emotions by changing my way of thinking in a situation I’m in”, for example, while 4 measure the former by, for example, “I control my emotions by not expressing them”. The participants were required to rate the items using a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1=strongly disagree to 7=strongly agree (Likert 1932). The scale’s reliability has been tested and proven (Abler & Kessler 2009). A heartbeat perception task was also done by the participants. This entailed sitting in a chamber which was sound-attenuated, and four phases of varying length during which heartbeats were counted were used to measure IS (Kever, Pollatos, Vermeulen & Grynberg 2015) in accordance with the mental tracking method (Schandry 1981). This is known as cardiac awareness whereby one’s sensitivity for their own “cardiac signals” is measured in a non-invasive manner via heartbeat perception tasks (Garfinkel et al. 2013; Herbert et al. 2012). The participants were instructed to count their heartbeats during the onset and offset of a sound signal. At the end of each phase, they were then asked to verbally report the number of heartbeats that were counted, and this was checked against an ECG reading to which the participant was hooked up. IS was therefore estimated to be the average score of heartbeat perception which was calculated using the following formula: 1/4 Σ (1 − (|recorded heartbeats – counted heartbeats|) / recorded heartbeats). The results of the IS score ranged between O-1 and the higher the score was, the higher the IS. Each participant took the heartbeat awareness test before they filled the ERQ (Kever, Pollatos, Vermeulen & Grynberg 2015). The results of the study revealed that the mean score of heartbeat perception was 0.69 while the range was 0.16-1.00. The means scores (SD) for suppression and reappraisal were 3.45 (1.24) and 4.42 (1.05) respectively. There was significant correlation found between IS and scores on reappraisal and between IS and suppression scores as well. Is was also found that more of the female participants used suppression than males with the suppression means for females at 3.65 while that of males was 3.37 (though it should be noted that female participants were higher in number than males) (Kever, Pollatos, Vermeulen & Grynberg 2015). The findings of the study were that there was a positive correlation between IS and the employment of reappraisal as well as a positive correlation between IS and suppression. The results prove the first hypothesis: that IS and the habitual use of reappraisal strategies will be positively correlated. The findings being as expected are supported by research—IS allows one’s increased perception of their innards’ functions allows them to adapt to their emotions via the use of antecedent-focused strategies of emotion regulation. For the second hypothesis: that IS and the habitual use of suppression will have a negative correlation, the findings contradict this hypothesis. The study finds that IS is positively correlated with suppression strategies. These results suggest that IS facilitates the down-regulation of emotions even after they have already been generated. Thus, IS allows one to stop their emotions by decreasing their expression. Though the results are contradictory for this hypothesis, this can be explained in a number of ways: 1.) That IS plays a part in regulating emotion through a number of strategies at any point of the emotional timeline. 2.) Whether suppression is positive or negative is dependent on the situation, context, type of emotion and the reason for its regulation (Augustine & Hemenover 2009; Kalokerinos, Greenaway and Denson 2015). Conclusion In conclusion, the present study analyzed individual differences in IS and their relation to habitual use of either reappraisal or suppression. It was expected that IS would be positively related to the habitual use of reappraisal and negatively related to suppression. However, it was found that IS facilitates both reappraisal (antecedent-) and suppression (response-focused strategies). The study therefore serves to support previous literature concerning IS and emotion regulation while at the same time breaking new ground in its finding concerning IS and suppression. Further studies might benefit from using more than one tool for measuring IS as well as emotion regulation strategies (the current study only used the ERQ). This may allow for a more logically consistent way to understand emotion and give rise to a way to practically apply information concerning emotion regulation. References Abler, B. and Kessler, H. (2009). Emotion Regulation Questionnaire – Eine deutschsprachige Fassung des ERQ von Gross und John. Diagnostica, 55(3), pp.144-152. Aldao, A., Nolen-Hoeksema, S. and Schweizer, S. (2010). Emotion-regulation strategies across psychopathology: A meta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology Review, [online] 30(2), pp.217-237. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2009.11.004. [Accessed 1 Oct. 2015]. American Psychiatric Association, (2013). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. [online] Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425596 [Accessed 1 Oct. 2015]. American Psychology Association, (2015). Glossary of Psychological Terms. [online] Available at: http://www.apa.org/research/action/glossary.aspx?tab=5 [Accessed 1 Oct. 2015]. Appleton, A., Loucks, E., Buka, S. and Kubzansky, L. (2014). Divergent Associations of Antecedent- and Response-Focused Emotion Regulation Strategies with Midlife Cardiovascular Disease Risk. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, [online] 48(2), pp.246-255. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4251797/ [Accessed 1 Oct. 2015]. Augustine, A. and Hemenover, S. (2009). On the relative effectiveness of affect regulation strategies: A meta-analysis. Cognition and Emotion, 23(6), pp.1181-1220. Ceunen, E., Van Diest, I. and Vlaeyen, J. (2013). Accuracy and awareness of perception: Related, yet distinct (commentary on Herbert et al., 2012). Biological Psychology, 92(2), pp.426-427. Fustos, J., Gramann, K., Herbert, B. and Pollatos, O. (2012). On the embodiment of emotion regulation: interoceptive awareness facilitates reappraisal. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 8(8), pp.911-917. Garfinkel, S., Barrett, A., Minati, L., Dolan, R., Seth, A. and Critchley, H. (2013). What the heart forgets: Cardiac timing influences memory for words and is modulated by metacognition and interoceptive sensitivity. Psychophysiol, 50(6), pp.505-512. Garfinkel, S., Seth, A., Barrett, A., Suzuki, K. and Critchley, H. (2015). Knowing your own heart: Distinguishing interoceptive accuracy from interoceptive awareness. Biological Psychology, [online] 104, pp.65-74. Available at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301051114002294 [Accessed 1 Oct. 2015]. Gross, J. (1998). Antecedent- and Response-Focused Emotion Regulation: Divergent Consequences for Experience, Expression, and Physiology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, [online] 74(1), pp.224-237. Available at: https://www.tamu.edu/faculty/bortfeld/689/689_Spring'07/readings/Gross_JPSP1998.pdf [Accessed 28 Sep. 2015]. Gross, J. (2001). Emotion Regulation in Adulthood: Timing Is Everything. Current Directions in Psychological Science, [online] 10(6), pp.214-219. Available at: http://cdp.sagepub.com/content/10/6/214.abstract [Accessed 1 Oct. 2015]. Gross, J. and John, O. (2003). Individual differences in two emotion regulation processes: Implications for affect, relationships, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(2), pp.348-362. Herbert, B., Muth, E., Pollatos, O. and Herbert, C. (2012). Interoception across Modalities: On the Relationship between Cardiac Awareness and the Sensitivity for Gastric Functions. PLoS ONE, [online] 7(5), p.e36646. Available at: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0036646 [Accessed 1 Oct. 2015]. Kalokerinos, E., Greenaway, K. and Denson, T. (2015). Reappraisal but not suppression downregulates the experience of positive and negative emotion. Emotion, 15(3), pp.271-275. Katkin, E., Cestaro, V. and Weitkunat, R. (1991). Individual Differences in Cortical Evoked Potentials as a Function of Heartbeat Detection Ability. Int J Neurosci, 61(3-4), pp.269-276. Kever, A., Pollatos, O., Vermeulen, N. and Grynberg, D. (2015). Interoceptive sensitivity facilitates both antecedent- and response-focused emotion regulation strategies. Personality and Individual Differences, [online] 87, pp.20-23. Available at: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/280733799_Interoceptive_sensitivity_facilitates_both_antecedent-_and_response-focused_emotion_regulation_strategies [Accessed 1 Oct. 2015]. Likert, R. (1932). A Technique for the Measurement of Attitudes". Archives of Psychology, 140, pp.1–55. Schandry, R. (1981). Heart Beat Perception and Emotional Experience. Psychophysiology, 18(4), pp.483-488. Schandry, R. (1981). Heart Beat Perception and Emotional Experience. Psychophysiology, 18(4), pp.483-488. Read More

Another term that inevitably rears its head in the study of emotion regulation is “introceptive awareness” (IA). These two are sometimes used interchangeably which is a mistake as doing so does not fully take into account whether the means of evaluation measures subjective sensibility, introceptive accuracy or metacognitive awareness. In recent times, however, introceptive accuracy has been used to signify introceptive behavioral performance (Ceunen, Van Diest & Vlaeyen 2013). IS is however only synonymous to introceptive accuracy, and these two terms refer to the process by which one is able to accurately detect and track their internal bodily sensations (Garfinkel & Critchley 2013; Garfinkel et al. 2015). For their study, Kever, Pollatos, Vermeulen, and Grynberg (2015) study population was composed of four hundred and two participants—158 of who were men while the rest (244) were women and their mean age was 23.27 (SD=4.58).

In order to qualify to participate in the study, it was required that none of the participants had a history of Axis 1 psychiatric disorders (which include all primary Psychiatric disorder except personality disorders and mental retardation) (American Psychiatry Association 2013). To filter out those who did not fulfill this requirement an anamnestic questionnaire was administered to all the participants prior to their participation, and they were only included in the study if they qualified.

To the qualified participants, a German translation (Abler & Kessler 2009) of Gross and John’s (2003) ERQ (Emotion Regulation Questionnaire) was administered. This questionnaire assessed their inveterate use of suppression and reappraisal. The ERQ consists of 10 items: six of which measure the latter using statements like “I control my emotions by changing my way of thinking in a situation I’m in”, for example, while 4 measure the former by, for example, “I control my emotions by not expressing them”.

The participants were required to rate the items using a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1=strongly disagree to 7=strongly agree (Likert 1932). The scale’s reliability has been tested and proven (Abler & Kessler 2009). A heartbeat perception task was also done by the participants. This entailed sitting in a chamber which was sound-attenuated, and four phases of varying length during which heartbeats were counted were used to measure IS (Kever, Pollatos, Vermeulen & Grynberg 2015) in accordance with the mental tracking method (Schandry 1981).

This is known as cardiac awareness whereby one’s sensitivity for their own “cardiac signals” is measured in a non-invasive manner via heartbeat perception tasks (Garfinkel et al. 2013; Herbert et al. 2012). The participants were instructed to count their heartbeats during the onset and offset of a sound signal. At the end of each phase, they were then asked to verbally report the number of heartbeats that were counted, and this was checked against an ECG reading to which the participant was hooked up.

IS was therefore estimated to be the average score of heartbeat perception which was calculated using the following formula: 1/4 Σ (1 − (|recorded heartbeats – counted heartbeats|) / recorded heartbeats). The results of the IS score ranged between O-1 and the higher the score was, the higher the IS. Each participant took the heartbeat awareness test before they filled the ERQ (Kever, Pollatos, Vermeulen & Grynberg 2015). The results of the study revealed that the mean score of heartbeat perception was 0.

69 while the range was 0.16-1.00. The means scores (SD) for suppression and reappraisal were 3.45 (1.24) and 4.42 (1.05) respectively. There was significant correlation found between IS and scores on reappraisal and between IS and suppression scores as well. Is was also found that more of the female participants used suppression than males with the suppression means for females at 3.65 while that of males was 3.37 (though it should be noted that female participants were higher in number than males) (Kever, Pollatos, Vermeulen & Grynberg 2015).

Read More