تاثیر زمینه در اجرای استراتژی های تنظیم احساسات تطبیقی
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|34940||2012||9 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||7971 کلمه|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Behaviour Research and Therapy, Volume 50, Issues 7–8, August 2012, Pages 493–501
Putatively adaptive emotion regulation strategies (e.g., acceptance, problem solving, reappraisal) show weaker associations with psychopathology than putatively maladaptive strategies (e.g., avoidance, self-criticism, hiding expression, suppression of experience, worry, rumination). This is puzzling, given the central role that adaptive strategies play in a wide range of psychotherapeutic approaches. We explored this asymmetry by examining the effects of context (i.e., emotion intensity, type of emotion, social vs. academic circumstances) on the implementation of adaptive and maladaptive strategies. We asked 111 participants to describe 8 emotion-eliciting situations and identify which strategies they used in order to regulate their affect. We found support for a contextual model of emotion regulation, in which adaptive strategies were implemented with more cross-situational variability than maladaptive strategies. In addition, the variability in implementation of two adaptive strategies (acceptance, problem solving) predicted lower levels of psychopathology, suggesting that flexible implementation of such strategies in line with contextual demands is associated with better mental health. We discuss these findings by underscoring the importance of adopting a functional approach to the delineation of contextual factors that influence the implementation of emotion regulation strategies.
Emotion regulation, which has been conceptualized as the process by which individuals modify their emotions or the situations eliciting emotions in order to respond appropriately to environmental demands (Gross, 1998), is a transdiagnostic factor associated with a range of types of psychopathology (e.g., Aldao & Nolen-Hoeksema, 2010, 2011; Aldao, Nolen-Hoeksema, & Schweizer, 2010; Harvey, Watkins, Mansell, & Shafran, 2004; Kring & Sloan, 2010). Specific emotion regulation strategies have been argued to be either adaptive or maladaptive based on their immediate effects on affect, behavior, and cognition, as well as on their relationships to psychopathology (see reviews in Aldao et al., 2010; Gross, 1998; Kring & Sloan, 2010; Nolen-Hoeksema & Watkins, 2011).1 Putatively maladaptive strategies, such as avoidance of emotions and/or situations, hiding or suppressing the expression or experience of emotions, worrying or ruminating, and self-criticism, have been found to produce detrimental outcomes in experimental studies, including rebounds in negative affect following exposure to emotion-eliciting stimuli (e.g., Campbell-Sills, Barlow, Brown, & Hofmann, 2006), increases (and rebounds) in sympathetic activation (e.g., Gross, 1998; Gross & Levenson, 1993; Wegner, Broome, & Blumberg, 1997), diminished autonomic flexibility (e.g., Hofmann et al., 2005), memory difficulties (e.g., Richards, Butler, & Gross, 2003), and declines in instrumental behavior and social support (e.g., Nolen-Hoeksema, Wisco, & Lyubomirsky, 2008). Moreover, self-reports of the use of these strategies have been associated with the development and maintenance of a wide range of mental disorders, including depression (e.g., Nolen-Hoeksema et al., 2008), anxiety disorders (e.g., Mennin, Holaway, Fresco, Moore, & Heimberg, 2007; Salters-Pedneault, Roemer, Tull, Rucker, & Mennin, 2006; Werner, Goldin, Ball, Heimberg, & Gross, 2011), eating disorders (e.g., Evers, Stok, & de Ridder, 2010; Nolen-Hoeksema, Stice, Wade, & Bohon, 2007), and borderline personality disorder (e.g., Dixon-Gordon, Chapman, Lovasz, & Walters, 2011; Lynch, Trost, Salsman, & Linehan, 2007; Neasciu, Rizvi, & Linehan, 2010). Conversely, putatively adaptive strategies, such as acceptance, problem solving, and cognitive reappraisal (i.e., thinking differently about a situation in order to downregulate the amount of emotion felt; Gross, 1998) have been shown in experimental studies to lead to beneficial outcomes, including reductions in the experience of negative affect (e.g., Goldin, McRae, Rame, & Gross, 2007), increased pain tolerance (e.g., Hayes, Bissett, et al., 1999), effective interpersonal functioning (e.g., Richards & Gross, 2000), and diminished cardiac reactivity (e.g., Campbell-Sills et al., 2006). In self-report studies, they have also been associated with low levels of symptoms of psychopathology (e.g., Aldao et al., 2010). Thus, adaptive and maladaptive regulation strategies have been associated with symptoms of psychopathology, albeit in different directions. Notably, the putatively maladaptive strategies have shown a larger magnitude in their relationship to psychopathology than adaptive strategies (e.g., Aldao & Nolen-Hoeksema, 2010, 2011; Aldao et al., 2010). The weak inverse association between adaptive strategies and psychopathology is particularly noteworthy, as adaptive strategies are important components of a variety of treatment modalities, ranging from traditional CBT to newer, third-wave approaches (e.g., Beck, 1976; Hayes, 2008; Hofmann & Asmundson, 2008; Linehan, 1993; Roemer, Orsillo, & Salters-Pedeneault, 2008; Segal, Williams, & Teasdale, 2001).
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
The findings from this investigation support the view that context significantly influences the implementation of adaptive emotion regulation strategies. Specifically, participants varied in their implementation of adaptive strategies, in a way that suggests they are selecting what strategy is best for a particular context. Moreover, the variability in implementation of adaptive strategies (acceptance, problem solving) was associated with low levels of psychopathology. A different picture emerged for putatively maladaptive strategies, which showed more cross-sectional consistency, that is, rigidity in their implementation and variability in their use was not associated with psychopathology. Overall, our findings further underscore the importance of systematically modeling contextual variations in the empirical investigation of the processes by which emotion regulation strategies are implemented and relate to psychopathology and well-being.