- Email: [email protected]
Emotion regulation in the context of daily stress: Impact on daily affect
Personality and Individual Differences 112 (2017) 150–156
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Personality and Individual Differences journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid
Emotion regulation in the context of daily stress: Impact on daily affect Clarissa M.E. Richardson Department of Psychology and Communication Studies, University of Idaho, 875 Perimeter Drive MS 3043, Moscow, ID 83844-3043, United States
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 20 July 2016 Received in revised form 22 February 2017 Accepted 24 February 2017 Keywords: Emotion regulation Affect Stress Daily diary Suppression Reappraisal Multilevel modeling
a b s t r a c t A daily diary study was used to examine how person-level emotion regulation (i.e., reappraisal and suppression) impacts daily affect following stressful daily life events. Research has highlighted the positive and negative impacts of reappraisal and suppression on daily affect, respectively, but has yet to investigate emotion regulation in light of daily stress. After completing a measure of emotion regulation, participants completed measures of daily stress and daily affect at the end of each day for one week. As hypothesized, multilevel modeling results indicated that as daily stress increased, individuals were more likely to report lower positive and higher negative affect. Consistent with prior research, reappraisal was associated with better affect. Suppression was associated with lower positive affect. The main finding of this study was a significant cross-level interaction of daily stress and suppression on daily positive affect where individuals high in suppression experienced lower positive affect on days of high stress than days of low stress. This suggests that suppression may not be detrimental in low stress situations when emotion regulation is less important, but negatively impacts positive affect during high stress. These results point to the importance of considering emotion regulation in the context of stressful life events. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Regulating emotions is vital for maintaining healthy relationships (Murray, 2005), psychological well-being (Gross & Thompson, 2007), and even positive work performance (Diefendorff, Hall, Lord, & Stream, 2000). Despite the abundance of evidence pointing to the importance of emotion regulation, many of these studies have been cross-sectional and have had poor relevance to daily life. In order to better understand how individual differences in emotion regulation impact daily functioning, the present study used a daily diary design to investigate the impact of person-level emotion regulation on daily affect (positive and negative) in response to stressful daily life events. When faced with stressful life events, individuals do not passively experience stress and the associated emotions but actually act upon them in an active manner in attempts to change the way they experience an emotional response. This process is called emotion regulation (Gross & Thompson, 2007). Emotion regulation can happen at various points in the process by which an emotion is generated (Gross, 2001). Antecedent-focused emotion regulation strategies are implemented prior to activation of the emotional response and its subsequent behavioral and physiological impacts. One well-studied and frequently employed example of an antecedent-focused emotion regulation strategy is reappraisal which involves altering the way a situation is appraised in order to change the emotional impact (Gross & John, 2003). Alternatively, response-focused emotion regulation strategies are employed after an emotional response is already underway. For
E-mail address: [email protected].
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.02.058 0191-8869/Published by Elsevier Ltd.
example, one might seek to suppress or inhibit the way an emotion is being expressed behaviorally or physiologically. Reappraisal is often associated with positive emotions and overall well-being (Loewenstein, 2007) and can even result in reduced physiological and behavioral responding to an aversive situation (Gross, 1998, 2002). For example, Gross (1998) found that individuals who were instructed to engage in reappraisal while watching a disgusting film reported less disgust and fewer behavioral signs of disgust in comparison to those who were asked to simply watch the film. Additionally, people reported reduced negative emotions following viewing of unpleasant photos when using reappraisal (Willroth & Hilimire, 2015). Research has even suggested that reappraisal is protective for well-being during times of failure (e.g., Hanley, Palejwala, Handley, Canto, & Garland, 2015). Although affective and behavioral control is important, individuals also wish to function well cognitively during stressful and emotional times. Richards and Gross (2000) found that individuals who engaged in reappraisal during a memory task that involved negative emotioneliciting images performed better than those who engaged in suppression. Suppression takes a great deal of cognitive demand which decreases one's ability to tend to details of a task, thus reducing memory performance. In addition to cognitive performance, research suggests that suppression also has negative effects on emotionality and overall wellbeing (Srivastava, Tamir, McGonigal, John, & Gross, 2009) In fact, Joormann and Gotlib (2010) found that the use of suppression in response to an emotionally laden experience was related with higher levels of depressive symptoms. Interestingly, though, individuals who engage in suppression end up exhibiting less behavioral expression of
C.M.E. Richardson / Personality and Individual Differences 112 (2017) 150–156
negative emotion, but the negative emotionality that is experienced physiologically is heightened (Gross & Levenson, 1997). The goal is often to reduce negative emotions through suppression, but positive emotions are also often suppressed in this process. Gross and Levenson (1997) reported that those who engaged in suppression while watching an amusing film experienced less amusement than those who did not engage in suppression. Clearly, reappraisal and suppression have differential positive and negative effects, respectively, on emotional, cognitive, and behavioral outcomes. In this study, we focus primarily on emotional well-being, specifically how trait-like emotion regulation strategies of reappraisal and suppression impact daily affect. Affect is characterized by shortlasting episodes of emotions in contrast to longer-lasting episodes that would be labeled as moods. Although affective experiences are temporary, they contribute to long-lasting moods. The more positive or negative affect that one experiences in a given moment predicts how much positive or negative affect s/he will experience in the future, respectively (Burns et al., 2008; Headey & Wearing, 1989; Pettersson, Boker, Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 2013). Despite the importance of examining the impact of emotion regulation on longer-term mood states (e.g., depression), only limited research has examined the role of emotion regulation in the daily experience of affect. Knowing that there are longer-term impacts of affect, it seems critical to improve our understanding of day-to-day emotional states in order to prevent subsequent negative emotional outcomes that result from poor daily affect. A few important studies have begun to shed light on how emotion regulation impacts daily affect (e.g., Brans, Koval, Verduyn, Lim, & Kuppens, 2013; Kuppens, Oravecz, & Tuerlinckx, 2010; Nezlek & Kuppens, 2008; Pavani, Vigouroux, Kop, Congard, & Dauvier, 2015). Some studies have measured emotion regulation on a daily basis, in reaction to specific events whereas others have focused on habitual, traitlike, emotion regulation. Despite this difference, results converge on the findings that reappraisal is more likely to result in a positive affective state and suppression is associated with negative affect. Although important additions to our understanding of emotion regulation and daily affect, a major limitation in all of these studies is that they do not examine how emotion regulation impacts daily affect during stressful times. Emotion regulation is not necessary without an event, either internal or external, that warrants an emotional response. An individual's typical emotion regulation style may not make an overall difference in her/his well-being unless s/he is faced with stressful life events. According to the diathesis-stress model, individuals with a vulnerability to psychological distress are more likely to experience symptoms when faced with stressful life experiences. An abundance of research has examined the role of stress in development of depression (e.g., see Hammen, 2005, for a review). Other research has focused on individual difference factors such as perfectionism that act as a diathesis for psychological symptoms under stress (e.g., Chang & Rand, 2000; Dunkley, Zuroff, & Blankstein, 2003). Yet, only limited research has examined the individual difference factor of emotion regulation as a vulnerability factor for developing distress during stressful events. One study has examined how emotion regulation as a person-level variable impacts performance during a stressful situation (Raftery & Bizer, 2009). They found that individuals who are habitual “reappraisers” exhibited better test performance than habitual “suppressors” following negative feedback. However, only one study has examined the impact of emotion regulation during stressful daily life events. Schraub, Turgut, Clavairoly, and Sonntag (2013) found that engaging in reappraisal allowed individuals to experience more recovery experiences (i.e., psychological detachment from work and relaxation) following stressful daily life events whereas suppression had a negative impact on recovery experiences. Building upon work by Schraub et al. (2013), the present study seeks to examine the impact of one's emotion regulation style on daily wellbeing following stressful daily life events. We chose to focus on daily stress rather than laboratory-induced or overall life stress in order to
151
enhance the translational ability of our findings. Additionally, research by Pillow, Zauntra, and Sandler (1996) found that stressful daily life events play a larger role in overall well-being than more major life events. We used a daily diary study to assess daily stress and affect over a week-long period which allows for examination of dispositional (i.e., emotion regulation style) influences on affect on days of both high and low stress. Daily diary studies also reduce retrospection (Bolger, Davis, & Rafaeli, 2003) and allow for examination of time-invariant (i.e., emotion regulation) and time-varying (i.e., daily stress) factors that impact one's overall and day-to-day changes in positive and negative affect. We anticipated significant intraindividual coupling of daily stress and daily positive and negative affect where higher daily stress would be associated with lower positive affect and higher negative affect. We also expected that individuals who are more likely to engage in suppression as well as those low in reappraisal will generally report higher levels of negative affect and lower levels of positive affect throughout their week. Additionally, given that suppression is a vulnerability factor for psychological distress (e.g., Ehring, Tuschen-Caffier, Schnülle, Fischer, & Gross, 2010) and low reappraisal often results in higher distress (e.g., Gross, 1998), we anticipated that high suppression and low reappraisal would be vulnerability factors for poor affect during days of high stress. Suppression and reappraisal were tested independently. We hypothesized that on days of high stress, those who typically engage in suppression as well as low reappraisers will experience heightened negative affect and lower positive affect in comparison to days of low stress when emotion regulation style is less likely to make a difference in well-being. 1. Method 1.1. Participants Data for the present study are from a larger data set on daily wellbeing of 396 undergraduate students. Another study (Richardson & Rice, 2015) was published using this same data set. It tested the associations between self-critical perfectionism and daily disclosure of daily stress and included one of the three variables used in the present study (daily stress). The sample for this study included 396 participants, 79% women, with a mean age of 19.77 (SD = 1.40), who were recruited from general psychology subject pool and other psychology courses for research or extra credit, respectively. The sample was racial/ethnically diverse: 54.5% White, 21.0% Hispanic/Latino, 10.9% African-American, 8.6% Asian, 3.8% Multicultural, and 0.5% Pacific Islander. A total of 1.3% identified as “Other” or did not report their race/ethnicity. 1.2. Measures 1.2.1. Emotion regulation Emotion regulation was measured using the Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (ERQ; Gross & John, 2003). This measure consists of two subscales: Reappraisal (6 items) and Suppression (4 items) that are responded to a 7-point scale (1 = strongly disagree through 7 = strongly agree). An example Reappraisal item is “When I want to feel less negative emotion, I change the way I'm thinking about the situation.” An example Suppression item is “When I am feeling negative emotions, I make sure not to express them.” Gross and John (2003) reported internal consistency estimates ranging from 0.75 to 0.82 for Reappraisal and 0.68 to 0.76 for Suppression. Internal consistency estimates for the present study were 0.87 for Reappraisal and 0.78 for Suppression. 1.2.2. Daily stress To measure daily stress, a three-item scale used in research by Dunkley et al. (2003) was used. Participants were initially asked to report the most unpleasant event of that day. Then, they were asked to
152
C.M.E. Richardson / Personality and Individual Differences 112 (2017) 150–156
indicate how unpleasant the event/issue was to them (1 = not at all through 11 = exceptionally), how long they were bothered by it (1 = none through 7 = very much), and how stressful the event or issue was for them (1 = not at all through 11 = exceptionally). Prior to calculating an average daily stress score, we scaled the 11-point response options to a 7-point response scale. Internal consistency reliabilities of 0.95 to 0.96 were found in the present study. Scores on this three-item stress measure have related in expected directions with a variety of outcome variables such as negative affect (r = 0.68, p b 0.001; Dunkley et al., 2003). 1.2.3. Daily affect The Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS; Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988) was used to measure daily affect. The 10 positive and 10 negative adjectives (e.g., interested, enthusiastic, distressed, scared) were responded to on a 5-point scale (1 = Very Slightly or Not at All through 5 = Extremely) considering how participants felt today. Internal consistency values ranging from 0.80 to 0.89 for negative affect and 0.88 to 0.95 for positive affect have been reported in another daily diary study (Schilling & Diehl, 2014). Internal consistency estimates for the present study ranged from 0.89 to 0.92 for Positive Affect and 0.86 to 0.88 for Negative Affect. 1.3. Procedure This study was approved by the university's institutional review board for human subjects research. The daily diary design was modeled after daily diary studies by Dunkley et al. (2003) and Garrison, Kahn, Sauer, and Florczak (2012). In order to increase involvement among participants in the online daily diary study, prior to this phase of the study, all participants attended a group session and completed the ERQ and informed consent. Starting on the evening following the group session, they completed the Daily Stress and Daily Affect measures at the end of their day, between 5 pm and 5 am, for seven days. All surveys were completed online, and participants were informed that if they forgot to complete a measure, they should complete it as soon as they remember. If they consented, participants were sent a daily text message reminder to complete their surveys. 1.4. Data analytic strategy Using data analysis steps similar to previous daily diary studies (e.g., Garrison et al., 2012; Nezlek & Plesko, 2003), multilevel modeling (MLM) using the MIXED procedure in SPSS 23.0 (2015), with maximum likelihood estimation, was used to assess the impact of emotion regulation and daily stress on daily affect. Four separate models were run to examine the impact of Reappraisal and Suppression (both Level 2 variables), tested independently, as well as Daily Stress (a Level 1 variable) and the respective two-way interactions (cross-level variables) on each outcome variable, Daily Positive Affect and Daily Negative Affect. In each model, the Deviance (− 2LL) statistic, Akaike information criterion (AIC), and Bayesian information criterion (BIC) were used to evaluate improvements in fit with each addition of variables to the model; decreasing values indicate improvements in fit. To determine if addition of variables resulted in a significantly improved model, we used a nested χ2 test. Effect sizes were determined using a method suggested by Kreft and de Leeuw (1998) to compare the proportion of the overall within-person variability explained by each subsequent model. Prior to running analyses, Daily Stress scores were group-mean-centered; each person's Daily Stress mean across the seven days was subtracted from their Daily Stress score. Reappraisal and Suppression scores were grand-mean centered; the overall mean scores of each were subtracted from each person's individual Reappraisal or Suppression score. The MLM data analysis steps follow other recent daily diary studies (e.g., Garrison et al., 2012; Richardson & Rice, 2015). Prior to entering variables (Daily Stress and either Reappraisal or Suppression) into each
of the models (Positive Affect and Negative Affect), an Unconditional Means Model (UMM) was obtained in order to have a baseline model for which to compare subsequent models. The UMM also provides the overall amount of between-subjects and within-subjects variability that exists in each model, and significant amounts of each give reason for us to enter predictors in order to explain the variability. After the UMM, both the fixed and random Level 1 effects of Daily Stress (timevariant predictor) were added. Next, the fixed Level 2 effect of either Reappraisal or Suppression (time-invariant predictors) was entered. Finally, the cross-level interactions of Reappraisal or Suppression and Daily Stress were tested. 2. Results 2.1. Preliminary analyses There were no missing data for the ERQ Reappraisal and Suppression that was completed at the initial survey session. Some data were missing from daily diary entries due to nonresponse. Daily diary data were dropped from 20 participants who completed fewer than three daily entries (Garrison et al., 2012). After removing these 20 participants, participants completed an average of 6.31 (SD = 0.97) daily diary entries. In total, there were 2372 daily diary entries. Table 1 summarizes descriptive statistics and correlations for between-subjects variables. 2.2. Multilevel modeling analyses Table 2 summarizes the MLM results for Positive Affect as the outcome variable, and Table 3 lists the results for Negative Affect. As evidenced by the decreases in Deviance, AIC, and BIC, each model improved in fit with each subsequent step. The results from each Unconditional Means Model suggested that there were significant between-persons and within-persons variability in Positive and Negative Affect giving us reason to enter predictors into each model. In other words, there were significant differences between individuals in their average levels of Positive and Negative Affect giving us reason to examine between-subjects factors. There were also significant differences within individuals on Positive and Negative Affect suggesting that depending on the day, affect differs. This gives us reason to explore within-person predictors such as Daily Stress to determine whether or not it helps to explain why people differ in affect from day to day. The intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.56 suggests that 56% of the variability is between-persons variability. In both models (Positive Affect and Negative Affect), we first examined the intraindividual coupling (Kahn, 2011) of Daily Stress and Daily Affect to see if daily stress and daily affect are associated with each other throughout the week. For example, we anticipated that as Daily Stress increased, Daily Positive Affect would decrease, and Daily Negative Affect would increase, and the opposite would happen on days of low stress. This is, in fact, what was found. Daily Stress was a significant predictor of both Positive Affect (Estimate = −1.10, SE = 0.09, p b 0.001) and Negative Affect (Estimate = 2.46, SE = 0.07, p b 0.001). As Daily Stress increased, individuals were more likely to report lower Positive Affect and higher Negative Affect. Adding both the fixed and random effects of Daily Stress explained 14.7% of the within-persons variability in Positive Affect and 46% of the within-persons variability in Negative Affect; this variability is above and beyond that explained by the UMM. This suggests that Daily Stress plays a moderate role in Daily Positive Affect and a major role in determining one's level of Daily Negative Affect. 2.2.1. Reappraisal We then added Reappraisal to each model to test whether betweenperson differences in Reappraisal explain the differences in Positive Affect and Negative Affect, anticipating that those higher in Reappraisal will experience, on average, higher Positive Affect and lower Negative Affect. Reappraisal explained an additional 3.5% of between-person
C.M.E. Richardson / Personality and Individual Differences 112 (2017) 150–156
153
Table 1 Descriptive statistics and correlations for between-subjects variables. Variable
M (SD)
1
2
3
4
5
1. Reappraisal 2. Suppression 3. Average Daily Stress 4. Average Daily Positive Affect 5. Average Daily Negative Affect
5.09 (1.14) 3.22 (1.30) 3.95 (0.98) 25.03 (7.23) 18.73 (4.92)
– −0.09 −0.00 0.20⁎⁎ −0.09+
−0.09 – −0.12 −0.15⁎⁎ 0.02
−0.00 −0.01 − −0.10+ 0.62⁎⁎
0.20⁎⁎ −0.15⁎⁎ −0.10+ – 0.14⁎⁎
−0.09+ 0.02 0.62⁎⁎ 0.14⁎⁎ –
⁎⁎ p b 0.01. + p b 0.10; two-tailed tests.
variability in Positive Affect above and beyond the UMM. When adding Reappraisal to the model with Negative Affect as the outcome variable, no additional between-person variability was explained. Reappraisal was a significant predictor of Positive Affect (Estimate = 1.28, SE = 0.32, p b 0.001) and was trending toward significant for Negative Affect (Estimate = −0.39, SE = 0.22, p b 0.10). The direction of effects suggests that, as expected, individuals who are more likely to reappraise their emotions are more likely to experience, on average, higher Positive Affect and lower Negative Affect. We also tested the cross-level interaction of Level 1 Daily Stress and Level 2 Reappraisal on both Positive Affect and Negative Affect. The interaction did not explain any additional variability in the models and did not significantly predict either outcome variable. 2.2.2. Suppression The effect of Suppression on Positive Affect and Negative Affect was also tested. We anticipated that individuals who are more likely to suppress their emotions will experience lower levels of Positive Affect and higher levels of Negative Affect, on average. Adding Suppression to the model with Daily Stress predicting Positive Affect explained an additional 1% of between-person variability above and beyond the UMM. Suppression did not explain any additional between-person variability in the model predicting Negative Affect. Suppression was a significant predictor of Positive Affect (Estimate = − 0.19, SE = 0.08, p b 0.05) but not Negative Affect. This result suggests that individuals who are more likely to engage in Suppression experience less Positive Affect, on average. We also tested the cross-level interaction of Level 1 Daily Stress and Level 2 Suppression on both Positive Affect and Negative Affect. The
interaction explained an additional 0.1% of within-person variability in Positive Affect above and beyond that explained by the predictors of Daily Stress and Suppression and was a significant predictor of Positive Affect (Estimate = −0.19, SE = 0.08, p b 0.05). No additional variability in Negative Affect was explained, and it was not a significant predictor of Negative Affect. The significant interaction in the Positive Affect model suggests that as Suppression increases by one point, the Daily Stress-Positive Affect slope decreases by 0.19 units. To further explore this interaction, we created a plot by probing values of − 1SD and +1SD for Daily Stress and Suppression. Fig. 1 suggests that individuals high in Suppression experience lower Positive Affect on days of high stress than days of low stress. This small but statistically significant effect was relatively stable over the different days and represented over a 6-point difference each day in Positive Affect between days of high stress and days of low stress for those high in Suppression. This suggests that suppression may not negatively impact positive affect in low stress situations, when emotion regulation is not as important, but has a negative impact on positive affect during high stress times. Looking at this effect in a different way, we see that there is only a 1-point difference in Positive Affect at Low Daily Stress between those high and low in Suppression in comparison to High Daily Stress in which there is nearly a 3.5-point difference in Positive Affect. In other words, in looking at high stress days only, those high in Suppression experience lower Positive Affect than those low in Suppression. 3. Discussion The purpose of this study was to investigate how emotion regulation style (reappraisal or suppression) impacts daily positive and negative
Table 2 Multilevel model tests for emotion regulation and daily stress predicting positive affect.
Fixed effects Initial status Intercept Daily Stress (DS) Reappraisal (R) Suppression (S) R × DS S × DS Random effects Level 1 Residual Daily Stress (DS) Level 2 Intercept Fit statistics Deviance AIC BIC
Unconditional Means Model
Level 1 Daily Stress
Level 2 Reappraisal and Daily Stress × Reappraisal
Level 2 Suppression and Daily Stress × Suppression
25.03 (0.37)⁎⁎⁎
25.03 (0.37)⁎⁎⁎ −1.10 (0.09)⁎⁎⁎
25.03 (0.36)⁎⁎⁎ −1.06 (0.11)⁎⁎⁎
25.03 (0.37)⁎⁎⁎ −1.07 (0.11)⁎⁎⁎
1.28 (0.32)⁎⁎⁎ 0.08 (0.09)
−0.84 (0.28)⁎⁎ −0.19 (0.08)⁎
35.88 (1.14)⁎⁎⁎
30.60 (1.05)⁎⁎⁎ 1.35 (0.31)⁎⁎⁎
30.62 (1.05)⁎⁎⁎ 1.33 (0.31)⁎⁎⁎
30.57 (1.05)⁎⁎⁎ 1.332 (0.31)⁎⁎⁎
46.10 (3.80)⁎⁎⁎
47.01 (3.80)⁎⁎⁎
44.90 (3.65)⁎⁎⁎
45.82 (3.71)⁎⁎⁎
16,049.61 16,055.61 16,072.92
15,865.62 15,908.62 15,931.70
15,849.20 15,863.20 15,903.60
15,851.87 15,865.87 15,906.27
Note. Standard errors in parentheses. Predictor variables were mean-centered prior to creating the interaction term. ⁎⁎⁎ p b 0.001. ⁎⁎ p b 0.01. ⁎ p b 0.05.
154
C.M.E. Richardson / Personality and Individual Differences 112 (2017) 150–156
Table 3 Multilevel model tests for emotion regulation and daily stress predicting negative affect.
Fixed effects Initial status Intercept Daily Stress (DS) Reappraisal (R) Suppression (S) R × DS S × DS Random effects Level 1 Residual Daily Stress (DS) Level 2 Intercept Fit statistics Deviance AIC BIC
Unconditional Means Model
Level 1 Daily Stress
Level 2 Reappraisal and Daily Stress × Reappraisal
Level 2 Suppression and Daily Stress × Suppression
18.72 (0.25)⁎⁎⁎
18.72 (0.25)⁎⁎⁎ 2.46 (0.07)⁎⁎⁎
18.72 (0.25)⁎⁎⁎ 2.41 (0.08)⁎⁎⁎
18.72 (0.25)⁎⁎⁎ 2.41 (0.08)⁎⁎⁎
−0.39 (.22)+ 0.08 (0.19) −0.08 (0.08) −0.09 (0.06) 31.04 (0.98)⁎⁎⁎
16.86 (0.58)⁎⁎⁎ 0.83 (0.19)⁎⁎⁎
16.86 (0.58)⁎⁎⁎ 0.83 (0.18)⁎⁎⁎
16.90 (0.59)⁎⁎⁎ 0.79 (0.18)⁎⁎⁎
19.23 (1.77)⁎⁎⁎
21.45 (1.77)⁎⁎⁎
21.26 (1.75)⁎⁎⁎
21.44 (1.76)⁎⁎⁎
15,442.91 15,448.91 15,466.22
14,412.12 14,420.12 14,443.20
14,368.06 14,382.06 14,422.44
14,370.17 14,384.17 14,424.55
Note. Standard errors in parentheses. Predictor variables were mean-centered prior to creating the interaction term. ⁎⁎⁎ p b 0.001. + p b 0.1.
affect during stressful daily life events. First, MLM was used to examine associations between daily stress and daily affect, anticipating significant intraindividual coupling where increased daily stress would be associated with higher negative affect and lower positive affect. This hypothesis was supported suggesting that individuals are more likely to report poorer affect during stressful days. This finding has been reported in a few daily diary studies to date (e.g., Gartland, O'Connor, Lawton, & Ferguson, 2014; Krieger, Hermann, Zimmerman, & grosse Holtforth, 2015). Interestingly, daily stress had a stronger association with negative affect than positive affect. This is consistent with findings reported by Dunkley et al. (in press) who used the same measures of stress and affect as the current study. Daily stress also explained a substantially larger amount of within-person variability in negative affect (46%) than in positive affect (14.7%). This may explain why the addition of other suppression and reappraisal to the negative affect model did not explain additional variance. Daily stress is likely such a strong predictor of daily negative affect that emotion regulation style does not add much in terms of explaining negative affect. Next, emotion regulation variables were added to their respective models. Based on literature suggesting that reappraisal is associated with better daily affect and suppression often lends itself to negative
Fig. 1. Cross-level interaction of Daily Stress and Suppression on Daily Positive Affect. High and Low Daily Stress and Suppression are based on values 1SD above and below the mean, respectively.
affective states (e.g., Brans et al., 2013; Pavani et al., 2015), we sought to replicate these findings and were mostly successful. Reappraisal was a significant and positive predictor of Positive Affect and a significant and negative predictor of Negative Affect. As expected, individuals who are more likely to engage in Reappraisal experience more positive affect and less negative affect in their daily lives. In contrast, Suppression was a significant and negative predictor of Positive Affect although it did not significantly predict Negative Affect. The fact that it did not predict Negative Affect is a surprising finding. However, taking a deeper look at the results of a daily diary study by Nezlek and Kuppens (2008) revealed that when individuals sought to suppress negative emotions, there was not a significant association with “negative active affect” but only a significant association with “negative deactive affect.” “Negative active affect” includes emotional states such as guilty, nervous, scared, angry, upset, embarrassed, and disgusted that orient one toward taking action whereas “negative deactive affect” is comprised of emotions that orient one toward being inactive such as sadness, sleepiness, and boredom. The Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (Watson et al., 1988) used in the present study includes only “negative active affect” items and no “negative deactive affect” items. It may also be that suppression of emotions may work in the short term as far as warding off negative emotional states. Research by Wei and colleagues (2013) found that suppression is valued among individuals from Eastern interdependent cultures because it promotes interpersonal harmony. Thus, although future research is needed, for some individuals, suppression may ward off negative emotionality through its benefits on preserving social relationships. Given the diverse sample in the present study, this may have been true for some participants. It may also be that the suppression negatively impacts positive emotional states early on although the impact on negative emotional states, at least active negative emotions, may not happen until later in time, although further research is needed to investigate this possibility. The present study added to previous literature on emotion regulation and daily affect by examining the role of daily stress in the emotion regulation-daily affect association. Given research suggesting emotion regulation style can be a vulnerability factor for psychological distress (e.g., Ehring et al., 2010), with the diathesis-stress model in mind, we hypothesized that high suppression and low reappraisal act as vulnerability factors for poor daily affect under high stress and not necessarily under low stress. The interaction of daily stress and reappraisal was not significantly associated with positive or negative affect. Although
C.M.E. Richardson / Personality and Individual Differences 112 (2017) 150–156
one must be careful not to make meaning from nonsignificant findings, the results may suggest that reappraisers are not impacted by daily stress due to their adaptive response to stress, and low reappraisal is not a risk factor for poor affect under stress. The interaction of suppression and daily stress was also not a significant predictor of negative affect; this was to be expected given the nonsignificant association between suppression and negative affect. However, as anticipated, daily stress was a significant predictor of the suppression-positive affect association (Fig. 1). The size of this interaction effect was relatively small but statistically significant, indicating a need for future research to examine the robustness of this finding. Despite this being a small effect, the finding suggests that positive affect is more negatively impacted by suppression on days of high stress than days of low stress. Specifically, those high in suppression experienced lower positive affect on days of high stress in comparison to days of low stress which provides support for the diathesis-stress model where the individual difference factor of suppression acts as a vulnerability factor for poor affect under stress. Although high suppressors also experienced lower positive affect on days of low stress than low suppressors, the difference between the two was smaller than the difference observed at high stress in which we would expect suppression to have a negative impact on affect (e.g., Schraub et al., 2013). These results point to the importance of considering the emotion regulation style, specifically suppression, in the context of stressful life events. Most studies of emotion regulation (e.g., Brans et al., 2013; Kuppens et al., 2010; Nezlek & Kuppens, 2008; Pavani et al., 2015) examine the broad impacts of emotion regulation on various constructs without considering how the context of one's life (i.e., stressful life events) might exacerbate the impact of emotion regulation on outcomes. Future research on emotion regulation will benefit from including a measure of stress, especially research examining the impact of emotion regulation on daily well-being. Perhaps controlling for daily stress in analyses will help to better understand the effect of emotion regulation on various outcome variables. 3.1. Limitations and future research directions The study was limited in some respects by its sample which was predominately female and solely nonclinical and undergraduate students. Some research has suggested that men are more likely than women to engage in suppression (e.g., Zhao, Zhang, & Zheng, 2014), and because of our predominately female sample, we were unable to run gender comparisons which could be an avenue for future research. Future research may also examine the impact of emotion regulation style on affect during stress in a clinical population which presumably is experiencing heightened life stress and may be more likely to experience emotion regulation difficulties (e.g., Buckholdt et al., 2015). It might also be interesting to examine how the types of stressors experienced by this predominately female sample compare to those of more diverse samples and how the type of stressor impacts coping and daily affect. This study could also be expanded upon by assessing reappraisal and suppression in relation to specific events rather than as person-level characteristics, as was done in studies by Brans et al. (2013) and Pavani et al. (2015). It would be interesting to assess how one regulated their emotions immediately following a stressful event and how this impacted their sense of well-being. Further research may examine long-term implications of emotion regulation during stress. For example, there is evidence suggesting suppression is related to increased rates of depression (see Aldao, Nolen-Hoeksema, & Schweizer, 2010 for a comprehensive review of emotion regulation and psychopathology) although no longitudinal studies have examined the impact of how one regulates emotions during stress on subsequent psychological distress. Studies may seek to follow similar designs as Dunkley, Ma, Lee, Preacher, and Zuroff (2014) in which they used daily diary studies to examine long-term (i.e., 6 months and 3 years) implications of
155
perfectionism, neuroticism, stress, and coping. Another avenue for future research would be examining the impact of other types of emotion regulation styles such as rumination and avoidance on daily affect during stress. Future research may also focus on designing and evaluating emotion regulation interventions (for examples, see Nolen-Hoeksema, Wisco, & Lyubomirksy, 2008; Wegner, 2011). It may also be beneficial to examine the influence of personality-related variables such as perfectionism that are related to poor emotion regulation (e.g., Richardson, Rice, & Devine, 2014) and may contribute to difficulties in altering emotion regulation strategies. Further, investigating the physiological underpinnings of emotion dysregulation during stress will help to better understand distressed clients' sometimes concealed reactions to stress. For example, an abundance of research on emotion regulation has found that despite the lack of behavioral activation when using suppression, it is common for one to experience physiological activation (e.g., Gross, 1998).
4. Conclusions In conclusion, the present study expands upon previous literature by examining the impact of daily stress on the emotion regulation-daily affect association. Findings indicate that daily stress is associated with reduced positive affect and heightened negative affect. Also, individuals who typically engage in reappraisal experience higher positive affect and lower negative affect in their daily lives than those who are less likely to use reappraisal. In contrast, those who typically engage in suppression report lower positive affect than those less likely to use suppression. The main finding of this study is that daily stress moderated the association between suppression and positive affect where suppression had a larger negative impact on positive affect on days of high stress than low stress, when it was anticipated that emotion regulation style would pose the greatest vulnerability to distress.
References Aldao, A., Nolen-Hoeksema, S., & Schweizer, S. (2010). Emotion-regulation strategies across psychopathology: A meta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 30, 217–237. Bolger, N., Davis, A., & Rafaeli, E. (2003). Diary methods: Capturing life as it is lived. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 579–616. Brans, K., Koval, P., Verduyn, P., Lim, Y. L., & Kuppens, P. (2013). The regulation of negative and positive affect in daily life. Emotion, 13, 926–939. Buckholdt, K. E., Parra, G. R., Anestis, M. D., Lavender, J. M., Jobe-Shields, L. E., Tull, M. T., & Gratz, K. L. (2015). Emotion regulation difficulties and maladaptive behaviors: Examination of deliberate self-harm, disordered eating, and substance misuse in two samples. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 39, 140–152. Burns, A. B., Brown, J. S., Sachs-Ericsson, N., Plant, E. A., Curtis, J. T., Fredrickson, B. L., & Joiner, T. (2008). Upward spirals of positive emotion and coping: Replication, extension, and initial exploration of neurochemical substrates. Personality and Individual Differences, 44, 360–370. Chang, E. C., & Rand, K. L. (2000). Perfectionism as a predictor of subsequent adjustment: Evidence for a specific diathesis-stress mechanism among college students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 47, 129–137. Diefendorff, J. M., Hall, R. J., Lord, R. G., & Stream, M. L. (2000). Action-state orientation: Construct validity of a revised measure and its relationship to work-related variables. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 250–263. Dunkley, D. M., Zuroff, D. C., & Blankstein, K. R. (2003). Self-critical perfectionism and daily affect: Dispositional and situational influences on stress and coping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 234–252. Dunkley, D. M., Ma, D., Lee, I. A., Preacher, K. J., & Zuroff, D. C. (2014). Advancing complex explanatory conceptualizations of daily negative and positive affect: Trigger and maintenance coping action patterns. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 61, 93–109. Dunkley, D. M., Lewkowski, M., Lee, I. A., Preacher, K. J., Zuroff, D. C., Berg, J. -L., ... Westreich, R. (2017). Daily stress, coping, and negative and positive affect in depression: Complex trigger and maintenance patterns. Behavior Therapy (in press). Ehring, T., Tuschen-Caffier, B., Schnülle, J., Fischer, S., & Gross, J. J. (2010). Emotion regulation and vulnerability to depression: Spontaneous versus instructed use of emotion suppression and reappraisal. Emotion, 10, 563–572. Garrison, A. M., Kahn, J. H., Sauer, E. M., & Florczak, M. A. (2012). Disentangling the effects of depression symptoms and adult attachment on emotional disclosure. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 59, 230–239. Gartland, N., O'Connor, D. B., Lawton, R., & Ferguson, E. (2014). Investigating the effects of conscientiousness on daily stress, affect and physical symptom processes: A daily diary study. British Journal of Health Psychology, 19, 311–328.
156
C.M.E. Richardson / Personality and Individual Differences 112 (2017) 150–156
Gross, J. J. (1998). Antecedent- and response-focused emotion regulation: Divergent consequences for experience, expression, and physiology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 224–237. Gross, J. J. (2001). Emotion regulation in adulthood: Timing is everything. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 10, 214–219. Gross, J. J. (2002). Emotion regulation: Affective, cognitive, and social consequences. Psychophysiology, 39, 281–291. Gross, J. J., & John, O. P. (2003). Individual differences in two emotion regulation processes: Implications for affect, relationships, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 348–362. Gross, J. J., & Levenson, R. W. (1997). Hiding feelings: The acute effects of inhibiting negative and positive emotion. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 106, 95–103. Gross, J. J., & Thompson, R. A. (2007). Emotion regulation: Conceptual foundations. In J. J. Gross (Ed.), Handbook of emotion regulation (pp. 3–24). New York: Guilford Press. Hammen, C. (2005). Stress and depression. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 1, 296–319. Hanley, A. W., Palejwala, M. H., Handley, R. T., Canto, A. C., & Garland, E. L. (2015). A failure in mind: Dispositional mindfulness and positive reappraisal as predictors of academic self-efficacy following failure. Personality and Individual Differences, 86, 332–337. Headey, B., & Wearing, A. (1989). Personality, life events, and subjective well-being: Toward a dynamic equilibrium model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 731–739. Joormann, J., & Gotlib, C. (2010). Emotion regulation in depression: Examining the role of cognitive processes. Cognition & Emotion, 24, 913–939. Kahn, J. H. (2011). Multilevel modeling: Overview and applications to research in counseling psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 58(2), 257–271. Kreft, I. G. G., & de Leeuw, J. (1998). Introducing multilevel modeling. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Krieger, T., Hermann, H., Zimmerman, J., & grosse Holtforth, M. (2015). Associations of self-compassion and global self-esteem with positive and negative affect and stress reactivity in daily life: Findings from a smart phone study. Personality and Individual Differences, 87, 288–292. Kuppens, P., Oravecz, Z., & Tuerlinckx, F. (2010). Feelings change: Accounting for individual differences in the temporal dynamics of affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 1042–1060. Loewenstein, G. (2007). Affective regulation and affective forecasting. In J. J. Gross (Ed.), Handbook of emotion regulation (pp. 180–203). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Murray, S. L. (2005). Regulating the risks of closeness: A relationship-specific sense of felt security. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 74–78. Nezlek, J. B., & Kuppens, P. (2008). Regulating positive and negative emotions in daily life. Journal of Personality, 76, 561–580. Nezlek, J. B., & Plesko, R. M. (2003). Affect and self-based models of relationships between daily events and daily well-being. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 584–596.
Nolen-Hoeksema, S., Wisco, B. E., & Lyubomirksy, S. (2008). Rethinking rumination. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3, 400–424. Pavani, J. -B., Vigouroux, S. L., Kop, J. -L., Congard, A., & Dauvier, B. (2016). Affect and affect regulation strategies reciprocally influence each other in daily life: The case of positive reappraisal, problem-focused coping, appreciation, and rumination. Journal of Happiness Studies, 17, 2077–2095. Pettersson, E., Boker, S. M., Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (2013). Modeling daily variation in the affective circumplex: A dynamical system approach. Journal of Research in Personality, 47, 57–69. Pillow, D. R., Zauntra, A. J., & Sandler, I. (1996). Major life events and minor stressors: Identifying mediational links in the stress process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 381–394. Raftery, J. N., & Bizer, G. Y. (2009). Negative feedback and performance: The moderating effect of emotion regulation. Personality and Individual Differences, 47, 481–486. Richards, J. M., & Gross, J. J. (2000). Emotion regulation and memory: The cognitive costs of keeping one's cool. Personality Processes and Individual differences, 79, 410–424. Richardson, C. M. E., & Rice, K. G. (2015). Self-critical perfectionism, daily stress, and disclosure of daily emotional events. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 62, 694–702. Richardson, C. M. E., Rice, K. G., & Devine, D. P. (2014). Perfectionism, emotion regulation, and the cortisol stress response. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 61, 110–118. Schilling, O. K., & Diehl, M. (2014). Reactivity to stressor pile-up in adulthood: Effects on daily negative and positive affect. Psychology and Aging, 29, 72–83. Schraub, E. M., Turgut, S., Clavairoly, V., & Sonntag, K. (2013). Emotion regulation as a determinant of recovery experiences and well-being: A day-level study. International Journal of Stress Management, 20, 309–335. Srivastava, S., Tamir, M., McGonigal, K. M., John, O. P., & Gross, J. J. (2009). The social costs of emotional suppression: A prospective study of the transition to college. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 883–897. Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063–1070. Wegner, D. M. (2011). Setting free the bears: Escape from thought suppression. The American Psychologist, 66, 671–680. Wei, M., Su, J. C., Carrera, S., Lin, S-P., & Yi, F. (2013). Suppression and interpersonal harmony: A cross-cultural comparison between Chinese and European Americans. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 60, 625–633. Willroth, E. C., & Hilimire, M. R. (2015). Differential effects of self- and situation-focused reappraisal. Emotion, 16, 468–474. Zhao, X., Zhang, R. -Z., & Zheng, K. (2014). Gender differences in emotion regulation strategies in adolescents. Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology, 22, 849–854.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Personality and Individual Differences journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid
Emotion regulation in the context of daily stress: Impact on daily affect Clarissa M.E. Richardson Department of Psychology and Communication Studies, University of Idaho, 875 Perimeter Drive MS 3043, Moscow, ID 83844-3043, United States
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 20 July 2016 Received in revised form 22 February 2017 Accepted 24 February 2017 Keywords: Emotion regulation Affect Stress Daily diary Suppression Reappraisal Multilevel modeling
a b s t r a c t A daily diary study was used to examine how person-level emotion regulation (i.e., reappraisal and suppression) impacts daily affect following stressful daily life events. Research has highlighted the positive and negative impacts of reappraisal and suppression on daily affect, respectively, but has yet to investigate emotion regulation in light of daily stress. After completing a measure of emotion regulation, participants completed measures of daily stress and daily affect at the end of each day for one week. As hypothesized, multilevel modeling results indicated that as daily stress increased, individuals were more likely to report lower positive and higher negative affect. Consistent with prior research, reappraisal was associated with better affect. Suppression was associated with lower positive affect. The main finding of this study was a significant cross-level interaction of daily stress and suppression on daily positive affect where individuals high in suppression experienced lower positive affect on days of high stress than days of low stress. This suggests that suppression may not be detrimental in low stress situations when emotion regulation is less important, but negatively impacts positive affect during high stress. These results point to the importance of considering emotion regulation in the context of stressful life events. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Regulating emotions is vital for maintaining healthy relationships (Murray, 2005), psychological well-being (Gross & Thompson, 2007), and even positive work performance (Diefendorff, Hall, Lord, & Stream, 2000). Despite the abundance of evidence pointing to the importance of emotion regulation, many of these studies have been cross-sectional and have had poor relevance to daily life. In order to better understand how individual differences in emotion regulation impact daily functioning, the present study used a daily diary design to investigate the impact of person-level emotion regulation on daily affect (positive and negative) in response to stressful daily life events. When faced with stressful life events, individuals do not passively experience stress and the associated emotions but actually act upon them in an active manner in attempts to change the way they experience an emotional response. This process is called emotion regulation (Gross & Thompson, 2007). Emotion regulation can happen at various points in the process by which an emotion is generated (Gross, 2001). Antecedent-focused emotion regulation strategies are implemented prior to activation of the emotional response and its subsequent behavioral and physiological impacts. One well-studied and frequently employed example of an antecedent-focused emotion regulation strategy is reappraisal which involves altering the way a situation is appraised in order to change the emotional impact (Gross & John, 2003). Alternatively, response-focused emotion regulation strategies are employed after an emotional response is already underway. For
E-mail address: [email protected].
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.02.058 0191-8869/Published by Elsevier Ltd.
example, one might seek to suppress or inhibit the way an emotion is being expressed behaviorally or physiologically. Reappraisal is often associated with positive emotions and overall well-being (Loewenstein, 2007) and can even result in reduced physiological and behavioral responding to an aversive situation (Gross, 1998, 2002). For example, Gross (1998) found that individuals who were instructed to engage in reappraisal while watching a disgusting film reported less disgust and fewer behavioral signs of disgust in comparison to those who were asked to simply watch the film. Additionally, people reported reduced negative emotions following viewing of unpleasant photos when using reappraisal (Willroth & Hilimire, 2015). Research has even suggested that reappraisal is protective for well-being during times of failure (e.g., Hanley, Palejwala, Handley, Canto, & Garland, 2015). Although affective and behavioral control is important, individuals also wish to function well cognitively during stressful and emotional times. Richards and Gross (2000) found that individuals who engaged in reappraisal during a memory task that involved negative emotioneliciting images performed better than those who engaged in suppression. Suppression takes a great deal of cognitive demand which decreases one's ability to tend to details of a task, thus reducing memory performance. In addition to cognitive performance, research suggests that suppression also has negative effects on emotionality and overall wellbeing (Srivastava, Tamir, McGonigal, John, & Gross, 2009) In fact, Joormann and Gotlib (2010) found that the use of suppression in response to an emotionally laden experience was related with higher levels of depressive symptoms. Interestingly, though, individuals who engage in suppression end up exhibiting less behavioral expression of
C.M.E. Richardson / Personality and Individual Differences 112 (2017) 150–156
negative emotion, but the negative emotionality that is experienced physiologically is heightened (Gross & Levenson, 1997). The goal is often to reduce negative emotions through suppression, but positive emotions are also often suppressed in this process. Gross and Levenson (1997) reported that those who engaged in suppression while watching an amusing film experienced less amusement than those who did not engage in suppression. Clearly, reappraisal and suppression have differential positive and negative effects, respectively, on emotional, cognitive, and behavioral outcomes. In this study, we focus primarily on emotional well-being, specifically how trait-like emotion regulation strategies of reappraisal and suppression impact daily affect. Affect is characterized by shortlasting episodes of emotions in contrast to longer-lasting episodes that would be labeled as moods. Although affective experiences are temporary, they contribute to long-lasting moods. The more positive or negative affect that one experiences in a given moment predicts how much positive or negative affect s/he will experience in the future, respectively (Burns et al., 2008; Headey & Wearing, 1989; Pettersson, Boker, Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 2013). Despite the importance of examining the impact of emotion regulation on longer-term mood states (e.g., depression), only limited research has examined the role of emotion regulation in the daily experience of affect. Knowing that there are longer-term impacts of affect, it seems critical to improve our understanding of day-to-day emotional states in order to prevent subsequent negative emotional outcomes that result from poor daily affect. A few important studies have begun to shed light on how emotion regulation impacts daily affect (e.g., Brans, Koval, Verduyn, Lim, & Kuppens, 2013; Kuppens, Oravecz, & Tuerlinckx, 2010; Nezlek & Kuppens, 2008; Pavani, Vigouroux, Kop, Congard, & Dauvier, 2015). Some studies have measured emotion regulation on a daily basis, in reaction to specific events whereas others have focused on habitual, traitlike, emotion regulation. Despite this difference, results converge on the findings that reappraisal is more likely to result in a positive affective state and suppression is associated with negative affect. Although important additions to our understanding of emotion regulation and daily affect, a major limitation in all of these studies is that they do not examine how emotion regulation impacts daily affect during stressful times. Emotion regulation is not necessary without an event, either internal or external, that warrants an emotional response. An individual's typical emotion regulation style may not make an overall difference in her/his well-being unless s/he is faced with stressful life events. According to the diathesis-stress model, individuals with a vulnerability to psychological distress are more likely to experience symptoms when faced with stressful life experiences. An abundance of research has examined the role of stress in development of depression (e.g., see Hammen, 2005, for a review). Other research has focused on individual difference factors such as perfectionism that act as a diathesis for psychological symptoms under stress (e.g., Chang & Rand, 2000; Dunkley, Zuroff, & Blankstein, 2003). Yet, only limited research has examined the individual difference factor of emotion regulation as a vulnerability factor for developing distress during stressful events. One study has examined how emotion regulation as a person-level variable impacts performance during a stressful situation (Raftery & Bizer, 2009). They found that individuals who are habitual “reappraisers” exhibited better test performance than habitual “suppressors” following negative feedback. However, only one study has examined the impact of emotion regulation during stressful daily life events. Schraub, Turgut, Clavairoly, and Sonntag (2013) found that engaging in reappraisal allowed individuals to experience more recovery experiences (i.e., psychological detachment from work and relaxation) following stressful daily life events whereas suppression had a negative impact on recovery experiences. Building upon work by Schraub et al. (2013), the present study seeks to examine the impact of one's emotion regulation style on daily wellbeing following stressful daily life events. We chose to focus on daily stress rather than laboratory-induced or overall life stress in order to
151
enhance the translational ability of our findings. Additionally, research by Pillow, Zauntra, and Sandler (1996) found that stressful daily life events play a larger role in overall well-being than more major life events. We used a daily diary study to assess daily stress and affect over a week-long period which allows for examination of dispositional (i.e., emotion regulation style) influences on affect on days of both high and low stress. Daily diary studies also reduce retrospection (Bolger, Davis, & Rafaeli, 2003) and allow for examination of time-invariant (i.e., emotion regulation) and time-varying (i.e., daily stress) factors that impact one's overall and day-to-day changes in positive and negative affect. We anticipated significant intraindividual coupling of daily stress and daily positive and negative affect where higher daily stress would be associated with lower positive affect and higher negative affect. We also expected that individuals who are more likely to engage in suppression as well as those low in reappraisal will generally report higher levels of negative affect and lower levels of positive affect throughout their week. Additionally, given that suppression is a vulnerability factor for psychological distress (e.g., Ehring, Tuschen-Caffier, Schnülle, Fischer, & Gross, 2010) and low reappraisal often results in higher distress (e.g., Gross, 1998), we anticipated that high suppression and low reappraisal would be vulnerability factors for poor affect during days of high stress. Suppression and reappraisal were tested independently. We hypothesized that on days of high stress, those who typically engage in suppression as well as low reappraisers will experience heightened negative affect and lower positive affect in comparison to days of low stress when emotion regulation style is less likely to make a difference in well-being. 1. Method 1.1. Participants Data for the present study are from a larger data set on daily wellbeing of 396 undergraduate students. Another study (Richardson & Rice, 2015) was published using this same data set. It tested the associations between self-critical perfectionism and daily disclosure of daily stress and included one of the three variables used in the present study (daily stress). The sample for this study included 396 participants, 79% women, with a mean age of 19.77 (SD = 1.40), who were recruited from general psychology subject pool and other psychology courses for research or extra credit, respectively. The sample was racial/ethnically diverse: 54.5% White, 21.0% Hispanic/Latino, 10.9% African-American, 8.6% Asian, 3.8% Multicultural, and 0.5% Pacific Islander. A total of 1.3% identified as “Other” or did not report their race/ethnicity. 1.2. Measures 1.2.1. Emotion regulation Emotion regulation was measured using the Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (ERQ; Gross & John, 2003). This measure consists of two subscales: Reappraisal (6 items) and Suppression (4 items) that are responded to a 7-point scale (1 = strongly disagree through 7 = strongly agree). An example Reappraisal item is “When I want to feel less negative emotion, I change the way I'm thinking about the situation.” An example Suppression item is “When I am feeling negative emotions, I make sure not to express them.” Gross and John (2003) reported internal consistency estimates ranging from 0.75 to 0.82 for Reappraisal and 0.68 to 0.76 for Suppression. Internal consistency estimates for the present study were 0.87 for Reappraisal and 0.78 for Suppression. 1.2.2. Daily stress To measure daily stress, a three-item scale used in research by Dunkley et al. (2003) was used. Participants were initially asked to report the most unpleasant event of that day. Then, they were asked to
152
C.M.E. Richardson / Personality and Individual Differences 112 (2017) 150–156
indicate how unpleasant the event/issue was to them (1 = not at all through 11 = exceptionally), how long they were bothered by it (1 = none through 7 = very much), and how stressful the event or issue was for them (1 = not at all through 11 = exceptionally). Prior to calculating an average daily stress score, we scaled the 11-point response options to a 7-point response scale. Internal consistency reliabilities of 0.95 to 0.96 were found in the present study. Scores on this three-item stress measure have related in expected directions with a variety of outcome variables such as negative affect (r = 0.68, p b 0.001; Dunkley et al., 2003). 1.2.3. Daily affect The Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS; Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988) was used to measure daily affect. The 10 positive and 10 negative adjectives (e.g., interested, enthusiastic, distressed, scared) were responded to on a 5-point scale (1 = Very Slightly or Not at All through 5 = Extremely) considering how participants felt today. Internal consistency values ranging from 0.80 to 0.89 for negative affect and 0.88 to 0.95 for positive affect have been reported in another daily diary study (Schilling & Diehl, 2014). Internal consistency estimates for the present study ranged from 0.89 to 0.92 for Positive Affect and 0.86 to 0.88 for Negative Affect. 1.3. Procedure This study was approved by the university's institutional review board for human subjects research. The daily diary design was modeled after daily diary studies by Dunkley et al. (2003) and Garrison, Kahn, Sauer, and Florczak (2012). In order to increase involvement among participants in the online daily diary study, prior to this phase of the study, all participants attended a group session and completed the ERQ and informed consent. Starting on the evening following the group session, they completed the Daily Stress and Daily Affect measures at the end of their day, between 5 pm and 5 am, for seven days. All surveys were completed online, and participants were informed that if they forgot to complete a measure, they should complete it as soon as they remember. If they consented, participants were sent a daily text message reminder to complete their surveys. 1.4. Data analytic strategy Using data analysis steps similar to previous daily diary studies (e.g., Garrison et al., 2012; Nezlek & Plesko, 2003), multilevel modeling (MLM) using the MIXED procedure in SPSS 23.0 (2015), with maximum likelihood estimation, was used to assess the impact of emotion regulation and daily stress on daily affect. Four separate models were run to examine the impact of Reappraisal and Suppression (both Level 2 variables), tested independently, as well as Daily Stress (a Level 1 variable) and the respective two-way interactions (cross-level variables) on each outcome variable, Daily Positive Affect and Daily Negative Affect. In each model, the Deviance (− 2LL) statistic, Akaike information criterion (AIC), and Bayesian information criterion (BIC) were used to evaluate improvements in fit with each addition of variables to the model; decreasing values indicate improvements in fit. To determine if addition of variables resulted in a significantly improved model, we used a nested χ2 test. Effect sizes were determined using a method suggested by Kreft and de Leeuw (1998) to compare the proportion of the overall within-person variability explained by each subsequent model. Prior to running analyses, Daily Stress scores were group-mean-centered; each person's Daily Stress mean across the seven days was subtracted from their Daily Stress score. Reappraisal and Suppression scores were grand-mean centered; the overall mean scores of each were subtracted from each person's individual Reappraisal or Suppression score. The MLM data analysis steps follow other recent daily diary studies (e.g., Garrison et al., 2012; Richardson & Rice, 2015). Prior to entering variables (Daily Stress and either Reappraisal or Suppression) into each
of the models (Positive Affect and Negative Affect), an Unconditional Means Model (UMM) was obtained in order to have a baseline model for which to compare subsequent models. The UMM also provides the overall amount of between-subjects and within-subjects variability that exists in each model, and significant amounts of each give reason for us to enter predictors in order to explain the variability. After the UMM, both the fixed and random Level 1 effects of Daily Stress (timevariant predictor) were added. Next, the fixed Level 2 effect of either Reappraisal or Suppression (time-invariant predictors) was entered. Finally, the cross-level interactions of Reappraisal or Suppression and Daily Stress were tested. 2. Results 2.1. Preliminary analyses There were no missing data for the ERQ Reappraisal and Suppression that was completed at the initial survey session. Some data were missing from daily diary entries due to nonresponse. Daily diary data were dropped from 20 participants who completed fewer than three daily entries (Garrison et al., 2012). After removing these 20 participants, participants completed an average of 6.31 (SD = 0.97) daily diary entries. In total, there were 2372 daily diary entries. Table 1 summarizes descriptive statistics and correlations for between-subjects variables. 2.2. Multilevel modeling analyses Table 2 summarizes the MLM results for Positive Affect as the outcome variable, and Table 3 lists the results for Negative Affect. As evidenced by the decreases in Deviance, AIC, and BIC, each model improved in fit with each subsequent step. The results from each Unconditional Means Model suggested that there were significant between-persons and within-persons variability in Positive and Negative Affect giving us reason to enter predictors into each model. In other words, there were significant differences between individuals in their average levels of Positive and Negative Affect giving us reason to examine between-subjects factors. There were also significant differences within individuals on Positive and Negative Affect suggesting that depending on the day, affect differs. This gives us reason to explore within-person predictors such as Daily Stress to determine whether or not it helps to explain why people differ in affect from day to day. The intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.56 suggests that 56% of the variability is between-persons variability. In both models (Positive Affect and Negative Affect), we first examined the intraindividual coupling (Kahn, 2011) of Daily Stress and Daily Affect to see if daily stress and daily affect are associated with each other throughout the week. For example, we anticipated that as Daily Stress increased, Daily Positive Affect would decrease, and Daily Negative Affect would increase, and the opposite would happen on days of low stress. This is, in fact, what was found. Daily Stress was a significant predictor of both Positive Affect (Estimate = −1.10, SE = 0.09, p b 0.001) and Negative Affect (Estimate = 2.46, SE = 0.07, p b 0.001). As Daily Stress increased, individuals were more likely to report lower Positive Affect and higher Negative Affect. Adding both the fixed and random effects of Daily Stress explained 14.7% of the within-persons variability in Positive Affect and 46% of the within-persons variability in Negative Affect; this variability is above and beyond that explained by the UMM. This suggests that Daily Stress plays a moderate role in Daily Positive Affect and a major role in determining one's level of Daily Negative Affect. 2.2.1. Reappraisal We then added Reappraisal to each model to test whether betweenperson differences in Reappraisal explain the differences in Positive Affect and Negative Affect, anticipating that those higher in Reappraisal will experience, on average, higher Positive Affect and lower Negative Affect. Reappraisal explained an additional 3.5% of between-person
C.M.E. Richardson / Personality and Individual Differences 112 (2017) 150–156
153
Table 1 Descriptive statistics and correlations for between-subjects variables. Variable
M (SD)
1
2
3
4
5
1. Reappraisal 2. Suppression 3. Average Daily Stress 4. Average Daily Positive Affect 5. Average Daily Negative Affect
5.09 (1.14) 3.22 (1.30) 3.95 (0.98) 25.03 (7.23) 18.73 (4.92)
– −0.09 −0.00 0.20⁎⁎ −0.09+
−0.09 – −0.12 −0.15⁎⁎ 0.02
−0.00 −0.01 − −0.10+ 0.62⁎⁎
0.20⁎⁎ −0.15⁎⁎ −0.10+ – 0.14⁎⁎
−0.09+ 0.02 0.62⁎⁎ 0.14⁎⁎ –
⁎⁎ p b 0.01. + p b 0.10; two-tailed tests.
variability in Positive Affect above and beyond the UMM. When adding Reappraisal to the model with Negative Affect as the outcome variable, no additional between-person variability was explained. Reappraisal was a significant predictor of Positive Affect (Estimate = 1.28, SE = 0.32, p b 0.001) and was trending toward significant for Negative Affect (Estimate = −0.39, SE = 0.22, p b 0.10). The direction of effects suggests that, as expected, individuals who are more likely to reappraise their emotions are more likely to experience, on average, higher Positive Affect and lower Negative Affect. We also tested the cross-level interaction of Level 1 Daily Stress and Level 2 Reappraisal on both Positive Affect and Negative Affect. The interaction did not explain any additional variability in the models and did not significantly predict either outcome variable. 2.2.2. Suppression The effect of Suppression on Positive Affect and Negative Affect was also tested. We anticipated that individuals who are more likely to suppress their emotions will experience lower levels of Positive Affect and higher levels of Negative Affect, on average. Adding Suppression to the model with Daily Stress predicting Positive Affect explained an additional 1% of between-person variability above and beyond the UMM. Suppression did not explain any additional between-person variability in the model predicting Negative Affect. Suppression was a significant predictor of Positive Affect (Estimate = − 0.19, SE = 0.08, p b 0.05) but not Negative Affect. This result suggests that individuals who are more likely to engage in Suppression experience less Positive Affect, on average. We also tested the cross-level interaction of Level 1 Daily Stress and Level 2 Suppression on both Positive Affect and Negative Affect. The
interaction explained an additional 0.1% of within-person variability in Positive Affect above and beyond that explained by the predictors of Daily Stress and Suppression and was a significant predictor of Positive Affect (Estimate = −0.19, SE = 0.08, p b 0.05). No additional variability in Negative Affect was explained, and it was not a significant predictor of Negative Affect. The significant interaction in the Positive Affect model suggests that as Suppression increases by one point, the Daily Stress-Positive Affect slope decreases by 0.19 units. To further explore this interaction, we created a plot by probing values of − 1SD and +1SD for Daily Stress and Suppression. Fig. 1 suggests that individuals high in Suppression experience lower Positive Affect on days of high stress than days of low stress. This small but statistically significant effect was relatively stable over the different days and represented over a 6-point difference each day in Positive Affect between days of high stress and days of low stress for those high in Suppression. This suggests that suppression may not negatively impact positive affect in low stress situations, when emotion regulation is not as important, but has a negative impact on positive affect during high stress times. Looking at this effect in a different way, we see that there is only a 1-point difference in Positive Affect at Low Daily Stress between those high and low in Suppression in comparison to High Daily Stress in which there is nearly a 3.5-point difference in Positive Affect. In other words, in looking at high stress days only, those high in Suppression experience lower Positive Affect than those low in Suppression. 3. Discussion The purpose of this study was to investigate how emotion regulation style (reappraisal or suppression) impacts daily positive and negative
Table 2 Multilevel model tests for emotion regulation and daily stress predicting positive affect.
Fixed effects Initial status Intercept Daily Stress (DS) Reappraisal (R) Suppression (S) R × DS S × DS Random effects Level 1 Residual Daily Stress (DS) Level 2 Intercept Fit statistics Deviance AIC BIC
Unconditional Means Model
Level 1 Daily Stress
Level 2 Reappraisal and Daily Stress × Reappraisal
Level 2 Suppression and Daily Stress × Suppression
25.03 (0.37)⁎⁎⁎
25.03 (0.37)⁎⁎⁎ −1.10 (0.09)⁎⁎⁎
25.03 (0.36)⁎⁎⁎ −1.06 (0.11)⁎⁎⁎
25.03 (0.37)⁎⁎⁎ −1.07 (0.11)⁎⁎⁎
1.28 (0.32)⁎⁎⁎ 0.08 (0.09)
−0.84 (0.28)⁎⁎ −0.19 (0.08)⁎
35.88 (1.14)⁎⁎⁎
30.60 (1.05)⁎⁎⁎ 1.35 (0.31)⁎⁎⁎
30.62 (1.05)⁎⁎⁎ 1.33 (0.31)⁎⁎⁎
30.57 (1.05)⁎⁎⁎ 1.332 (0.31)⁎⁎⁎
46.10 (3.80)⁎⁎⁎
47.01 (3.80)⁎⁎⁎
44.90 (3.65)⁎⁎⁎
45.82 (3.71)⁎⁎⁎
16,049.61 16,055.61 16,072.92
15,865.62 15,908.62 15,931.70
15,849.20 15,863.20 15,903.60
15,851.87 15,865.87 15,906.27
Note. Standard errors in parentheses. Predictor variables were mean-centered prior to creating the interaction term. ⁎⁎⁎ p b 0.001. ⁎⁎ p b 0.01. ⁎ p b 0.05.
154
C.M.E. Richardson / Personality and Individual Differences 112 (2017) 150–156
Table 3 Multilevel model tests for emotion regulation and daily stress predicting negative affect.
Fixed effects Initial status Intercept Daily Stress (DS) Reappraisal (R) Suppression (S) R × DS S × DS Random effects Level 1 Residual Daily Stress (DS) Level 2 Intercept Fit statistics Deviance AIC BIC
Unconditional Means Model
Level 1 Daily Stress
Level 2 Reappraisal and Daily Stress × Reappraisal
Level 2 Suppression and Daily Stress × Suppression
18.72 (0.25)⁎⁎⁎
18.72 (0.25)⁎⁎⁎ 2.46 (0.07)⁎⁎⁎
18.72 (0.25)⁎⁎⁎ 2.41 (0.08)⁎⁎⁎
18.72 (0.25)⁎⁎⁎ 2.41 (0.08)⁎⁎⁎
−0.39 (.22)+ 0.08 (0.19) −0.08 (0.08) −0.09 (0.06) 31.04 (0.98)⁎⁎⁎
16.86 (0.58)⁎⁎⁎ 0.83 (0.19)⁎⁎⁎
16.86 (0.58)⁎⁎⁎ 0.83 (0.18)⁎⁎⁎
16.90 (0.59)⁎⁎⁎ 0.79 (0.18)⁎⁎⁎
19.23 (1.77)⁎⁎⁎
21.45 (1.77)⁎⁎⁎
21.26 (1.75)⁎⁎⁎
21.44 (1.76)⁎⁎⁎
15,442.91 15,448.91 15,466.22
14,412.12 14,420.12 14,443.20
14,368.06 14,382.06 14,422.44
14,370.17 14,384.17 14,424.55
Note. Standard errors in parentheses. Predictor variables were mean-centered prior to creating the interaction term. ⁎⁎⁎ p b 0.001. + p b 0.1.
affect during stressful daily life events. First, MLM was used to examine associations between daily stress and daily affect, anticipating significant intraindividual coupling where increased daily stress would be associated with higher negative affect and lower positive affect. This hypothesis was supported suggesting that individuals are more likely to report poorer affect during stressful days. This finding has been reported in a few daily diary studies to date (e.g., Gartland, O'Connor, Lawton, & Ferguson, 2014; Krieger, Hermann, Zimmerman, & grosse Holtforth, 2015). Interestingly, daily stress had a stronger association with negative affect than positive affect. This is consistent with findings reported by Dunkley et al. (in press) who used the same measures of stress and affect as the current study. Daily stress also explained a substantially larger amount of within-person variability in negative affect (46%) than in positive affect (14.7%). This may explain why the addition of other suppression and reappraisal to the negative affect model did not explain additional variance. Daily stress is likely such a strong predictor of daily negative affect that emotion regulation style does not add much in terms of explaining negative affect. Next, emotion regulation variables were added to their respective models. Based on literature suggesting that reappraisal is associated with better daily affect and suppression often lends itself to negative
Fig. 1. Cross-level interaction of Daily Stress and Suppression on Daily Positive Affect. High and Low Daily Stress and Suppression are based on values 1SD above and below the mean, respectively.
affective states (e.g., Brans et al., 2013; Pavani et al., 2015), we sought to replicate these findings and were mostly successful. Reappraisal was a significant and positive predictor of Positive Affect and a significant and negative predictor of Negative Affect. As expected, individuals who are more likely to engage in Reappraisal experience more positive affect and less negative affect in their daily lives. In contrast, Suppression was a significant and negative predictor of Positive Affect although it did not significantly predict Negative Affect. The fact that it did not predict Negative Affect is a surprising finding. However, taking a deeper look at the results of a daily diary study by Nezlek and Kuppens (2008) revealed that when individuals sought to suppress negative emotions, there was not a significant association with “negative active affect” but only a significant association with “negative deactive affect.” “Negative active affect” includes emotional states such as guilty, nervous, scared, angry, upset, embarrassed, and disgusted that orient one toward taking action whereas “negative deactive affect” is comprised of emotions that orient one toward being inactive such as sadness, sleepiness, and boredom. The Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (Watson et al., 1988) used in the present study includes only “negative active affect” items and no “negative deactive affect” items. It may also be that suppression of emotions may work in the short term as far as warding off negative emotional states. Research by Wei and colleagues (2013) found that suppression is valued among individuals from Eastern interdependent cultures because it promotes interpersonal harmony. Thus, although future research is needed, for some individuals, suppression may ward off negative emotionality through its benefits on preserving social relationships. Given the diverse sample in the present study, this may have been true for some participants. It may also be that the suppression negatively impacts positive emotional states early on although the impact on negative emotional states, at least active negative emotions, may not happen until later in time, although further research is needed to investigate this possibility. The present study added to previous literature on emotion regulation and daily affect by examining the role of daily stress in the emotion regulation-daily affect association. Given research suggesting emotion regulation style can be a vulnerability factor for psychological distress (e.g., Ehring et al., 2010), with the diathesis-stress model in mind, we hypothesized that high suppression and low reappraisal act as vulnerability factors for poor daily affect under high stress and not necessarily under low stress. The interaction of daily stress and reappraisal was not significantly associated with positive or negative affect. Although
C.M.E. Richardson / Personality and Individual Differences 112 (2017) 150–156
one must be careful not to make meaning from nonsignificant findings, the results may suggest that reappraisers are not impacted by daily stress due to their adaptive response to stress, and low reappraisal is not a risk factor for poor affect under stress. The interaction of suppression and daily stress was also not a significant predictor of negative affect; this was to be expected given the nonsignificant association between suppression and negative affect. However, as anticipated, daily stress was a significant predictor of the suppression-positive affect association (Fig. 1). The size of this interaction effect was relatively small but statistically significant, indicating a need for future research to examine the robustness of this finding. Despite this being a small effect, the finding suggests that positive affect is more negatively impacted by suppression on days of high stress than days of low stress. Specifically, those high in suppression experienced lower positive affect on days of high stress in comparison to days of low stress which provides support for the diathesis-stress model where the individual difference factor of suppression acts as a vulnerability factor for poor affect under stress. Although high suppressors also experienced lower positive affect on days of low stress than low suppressors, the difference between the two was smaller than the difference observed at high stress in which we would expect suppression to have a negative impact on affect (e.g., Schraub et al., 2013). These results point to the importance of considering the emotion regulation style, specifically suppression, in the context of stressful life events. Most studies of emotion regulation (e.g., Brans et al., 2013; Kuppens et al., 2010; Nezlek & Kuppens, 2008; Pavani et al., 2015) examine the broad impacts of emotion regulation on various constructs without considering how the context of one's life (i.e., stressful life events) might exacerbate the impact of emotion regulation on outcomes. Future research on emotion regulation will benefit from including a measure of stress, especially research examining the impact of emotion regulation on daily well-being. Perhaps controlling for daily stress in analyses will help to better understand the effect of emotion regulation on various outcome variables. 3.1. Limitations and future research directions The study was limited in some respects by its sample which was predominately female and solely nonclinical and undergraduate students. Some research has suggested that men are more likely than women to engage in suppression (e.g., Zhao, Zhang, & Zheng, 2014), and because of our predominately female sample, we were unable to run gender comparisons which could be an avenue for future research. Future research may also examine the impact of emotion regulation style on affect during stress in a clinical population which presumably is experiencing heightened life stress and may be more likely to experience emotion regulation difficulties (e.g., Buckholdt et al., 2015). It might also be interesting to examine how the types of stressors experienced by this predominately female sample compare to those of more diverse samples and how the type of stressor impacts coping and daily affect. This study could also be expanded upon by assessing reappraisal and suppression in relation to specific events rather than as person-level characteristics, as was done in studies by Brans et al. (2013) and Pavani et al. (2015). It would be interesting to assess how one regulated their emotions immediately following a stressful event and how this impacted their sense of well-being. Further research may examine long-term implications of emotion regulation during stress. For example, there is evidence suggesting suppression is related to increased rates of depression (see Aldao, Nolen-Hoeksema, & Schweizer, 2010 for a comprehensive review of emotion regulation and psychopathology) although no longitudinal studies have examined the impact of how one regulates emotions during stress on subsequent psychological distress. Studies may seek to follow similar designs as Dunkley, Ma, Lee, Preacher, and Zuroff (2014) in which they used daily diary studies to examine long-term (i.e., 6 months and 3 years) implications of
155
perfectionism, neuroticism, stress, and coping. Another avenue for future research would be examining the impact of other types of emotion regulation styles such as rumination and avoidance on daily affect during stress. Future research may also focus on designing and evaluating emotion regulation interventions (for examples, see Nolen-Hoeksema, Wisco, & Lyubomirksy, 2008; Wegner, 2011). It may also be beneficial to examine the influence of personality-related variables such as perfectionism that are related to poor emotion regulation (e.g., Richardson, Rice, & Devine, 2014) and may contribute to difficulties in altering emotion regulation strategies. Further, investigating the physiological underpinnings of emotion dysregulation during stress will help to better understand distressed clients' sometimes concealed reactions to stress. For example, an abundance of research on emotion regulation has found that despite the lack of behavioral activation when using suppression, it is common for one to experience physiological activation (e.g., Gross, 1998).
4. Conclusions In conclusion, the present study expands upon previous literature by examining the impact of daily stress on the emotion regulation-daily affect association. Findings indicate that daily stress is associated with reduced positive affect and heightened negative affect. Also, individuals who typically engage in reappraisal experience higher positive affect and lower negative affect in their daily lives than those who are less likely to use reappraisal. In contrast, those who typically engage in suppression report lower positive affect than those less likely to use suppression. The main finding of this study is that daily stress moderated the association between suppression and positive affect where suppression had a larger negative impact on positive affect on days of high stress than low stress, when it was anticipated that emotion regulation style would pose the greatest vulnerability to distress.
References Aldao, A., Nolen-Hoeksema, S., & Schweizer, S. (2010). Emotion-regulation strategies across psychopathology: A meta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 30, 217–237. Bolger, N., Davis, A., & Rafaeli, E. (2003). Diary methods: Capturing life as it is lived. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 579–616. Brans, K., Koval, P., Verduyn, P., Lim, Y. L., & Kuppens, P. (2013). The regulation of negative and positive affect in daily life. Emotion, 13, 926–939. Buckholdt, K. E., Parra, G. R., Anestis, M. D., Lavender, J. M., Jobe-Shields, L. E., Tull, M. T., & Gratz, K. L. (2015). Emotion regulation difficulties and maladaptive behaviors: Examination of deliberate self-harm, disordered eating, and substance misuse in two samples. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 39, 140–152. Burns, A. B., Brown, J. S., Sachs-Ericsson, N., Plant, E. A., Curtis, J. T., Fredrickson, B. L., & Joiner, T. (2008). Upward spirals of positive emotion and coping: Replication, extension, and initial exploration of neurochemical substrates. Personality and Individual Differences, 44, 360–370. Chang, E. C., & Rand, K. L. (2000). Perfectionism as a predictor of subsequent adjustment: Evidence for a specific diathesis-stress mechanism among college students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 47, 129–137. Diefendorff, J. M., Hall, R. J., Lord, R. G., & Stream, M. L. (2000). Action-state orientation: Construct validity of a revised measure and its relationship to work-related variables. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 250–263. Dunkley, D. M., Zuroff, D. C., & Blankstein, K. R. (2003). Self-critical perfectionism and daily affect: Dispositional and situational influences on stress and coping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 234–252. Dunkley, D. M., Ma, D., Lee, I. A., Preacher, K. J., & Zuroff, D. C. (2014). Advancing complex explanatory conceptualizations of daily negative and positive affect: Trigger and maintenance coping action patterns. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 61, 93–109. Dunkley, D. M., Lewkowski, M., Lee, I. A., Preacher, K. J., Zuroff, D. C., Berg, J. -L., ... Westreich, R. (2017). Daily stress, coping, and negative and positive affect in depression: Complex trigger and maintenance patterns. Behavior Therapy (in press). Ehring, T., Tuschen-Caffier, B., Schnülle, J., Fischer, S., & Gross, J. J. (2010). Emotion regulation and vulnerability to depression: Spontaneous versus instructed use of emotion suppression and reappraisal. Emotion, 10, 563–572. Garrison, A. M., Kahn, J. H., Sauer, E. M., & Florczak, M. A. (2012). Disentangling the effects of depression symptoms and adult attachment on emotional disclosure. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 59, 230–239. Gartland, N., O'Connor, D. B., Lawton, R., & Ferguson, E. (2014). Investigating the effects of conscientiousness on daily stress, affect and physical symptom processes: A daily diary study. British Journal of Health Psychology, 19, 311–328.
156
C.M.E. Richardson / Personality and Individual Differences 112 (2017) 150–156
Gross, J. J. (1998). Antecedent- and response-focused emotion regulation: Divergent consequences for experience, expression, and physiology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 224–237. Gross, J. J. (2001). Emotion regulation in adulthood: Timing is everything. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 10, 214–219. Gross, J. J. (2002). Emotion regulation: Affective, cognitive, and social consequences. Psychophysiology, 39, 281–291. Gross, J. J., & John, O. P. (2003). Individual differences in two emotion regulation processes: Implications for affect, relationships, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 348–362. Gross, J. J., & Levenson, R. W. (1997). Hiding feelings: The acute effects of inhibiting negative and positive emotion. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 106, 95–103. Gross, J. J., & Thompson, R. A. (2007). Emotion regulation: Conceptual foundations. In J. J. Gross (Ed.), Handbook of emotion regulation (pp. 3–24). New York: Guilford Press. Hammen, C. (2005). Stress and depression. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 1, 296–319. Hanley, A. W., Palejwala, M. H., Handley, R. T., Canto, A. C., & Garland, E. L. (2015). A failure in mind: Dispositional mindfulness and positive reappraisal as predictors of academic self-efficacy following failure. Personality and Individual Differences, 86, 332–337. Headey, B., & Wearing, A. (1989). Personality, life events, and subjective well-being: Toward a dynamic equilibrium model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 731–739. Joormann, J., & Gotlib, C. (2010). Emotion regulation in depression: Examining the role of cognitive processes. Cognition & Emotion, 24, 913–939. Kahn, J. H. (2011). Multilevel modeling: Overview and applications to research in counseling psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 58(2), 257–271. Kreft, I. G. G., & de Leeuw, J. (1998). Introducing multilevel modeling. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Krieger, T., Hermann, H., Zimmerman, J., & grosse Holtforth, M. (2015). Associations of self-compassion and global self-esteem with positive and negative affect and stress reactivity in daily life: Findings from a smart phone study. Personality and Individual Differences, 87, 288–292. Kuppens, P., Oravecz, Z., & Tuerlinckx, F. (2010). Feelings change: Accounting for individual differences in the temporal dynamics of affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 1042–1060. Loewenstein, G. (2007). Affective regulation and affective forecasting. In J. J. Gross (Ed.), Handbook of emotion regulation (pp. 180–203). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Murray, S. L. (2005). Regulating the risks of closeness: A relationship-specific sense of felt security. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 74–78. Nezlek, J. B., & Kuppens, P. (2008). Regulating positive and negative emotions in daily life. Journal of Personality, 76, 561–580. Nezlek, J. B., & Plesko, R. M. (2003). Affect and self-based models of relationships between daily events and daily well-being. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 584–596.
Nolen-Hoeksema, S., Wisco, B. E., & Lyubomirksy, S. (2008). Rethinking rumination. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3, 400–424. Pavani, J. -B., Vigouroux, S. L., Kop, J. -L., Congard, A., & Dauvier, B. (2016). Affect and affect regulation strategies reciprocally influence each other in daily life: The case of positive reappraisal, problem-focused coping, appreciation, and rumination. Journal of Happiness Studies, 17, 2077–2095. Pettersson, E., Boker, S. M., Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (2013). Modeling daily variation in the affective circumplex: A dynamical system approach. Journal of Research in Personality, 47, 57–69. Pillow, D. R., Zauntra, A. J., & Sandler, I. (1996). Major life events and minor stressors: Identifying mediational links in the stress process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 381–394. Raftery, J. N., & Bizer, G. Y. (2009). Negative feedback and performance: The moderating effect of emotion regulation. Personality and Individual Differences, 47, 481–486. Richards, J. M., & Gross, J. J. (2000). Emotion regulation and memory: The cognitive costs of keeping one's cool. Personality Processes and Individual differences, 79, 410–424. Richardson, C. M. E., & Rice, K. G. (2015). Self-critical perfectionism, daily stress, and disclosure of daily emotional events. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 62, 694–702. Richardson, C. M. E., Rice, K. G., & Devine, D. P. (2014). Perfectionism, emotion regulation, and the cortisol stress response. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 61, 110–118. Schilling, O. K., & Diehl, M. (2014). Reactivity to stressor pile-up in adulthood: Effects on daily negative and positive affect. Psychology and Aging, 29, 72–83. Schraub, E. M., Turgut, S., Clavairoly, V., & Sonntag, K. (2013). Emotion regulation as a determinant of recovery experiences and well-being: A day-level study. International Journal of Stress Management, 20, 309–335. Srivastava, S., Tamir, M., McGonigal, K. M., John, O. P., & Gross, J. J. (2009). The social costs of emotional suppression: A prospective study of the transition to college. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 883–897. Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063–1070. Wegner, D. M. (2011). Setting free the bears: Escape from thought suppression. The American Psychologist, 66, 671–680. Wei, M., Su, J. C., Carrera, S., Lin, S-P., & Yi, F. (2013). Suppression and interpersonal harmony: A cross-cultural comparison between Chinese and European Americans. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 60, 625–633. Willroth, E. C., & Hilimire, M. R. (2015). Differential effects of self- and situation-focused reappraisal. Emotion, 16, 468–474. Zhao, X., Zhang, R. -Z., & Zheng, K. (2014). Gender differences in emotion regulation strategies in adolescents. Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology, 22, 849–854.