افزایش مهارت های تنظیم احساسات در افسران پلیس: نتایج یک مطالعه کنترل شده خلبان

Abstract Police officers are routinely exposed to situations that elicit intense negative emotions; thus, officers have a particularly strong need for effective methods of regulating such emotions. The main purpose of this study was to investigate whether a manualized emotion-regulation training (Integrative Training of Emotional Competencies; iTEC; Berking, 2010a) can improve the emotion-regulation skills of police officers. First, self-reports of 9 emotion-regulation skills were assessed in a sample of officers (N = 31) and compared to those of a matched community-based control group. Then, the effects of the training on the emotion-regulation skills of officers were evaluated in a time-staggered design with a waitlist control condition. Results indicate that, compared to controls, officers have difficulties in accepting and tolerating negative emotions, supporting themselves in distressing situations, and confronting emotionally challenging situations. The training significantly enhanced successful skill application, especially some skills with which officers reported difficulty applying. These findings suggest that a focus on emotion-regulation skills may be an important component for programs aimed at preventing mental-health problems in police officers.

Results Of the 82 sets of questionnaires given to participants, 4 (4.8%) were not returned and could not be included in the analyses (see Fig. 1 for number of noncompleted questionnaires within each assessment period). With regard to pre-training emotion-regulation skills, police officers reported significantly less adaptive regulation of negative emotions than did matched community controls, as denoted by the officers' significantly lower total scores on the ERSQ (see Table 1); the effect size of d = .53 indicated a medium effect. With regard to specific skills, significant group differences were found for the subscales acceptance, tolerance, compassionate self-support, and readiness to confront situations that cue negative emotions. All significant effects for the subscales are moderate-to-large. The groups did not differ in either positive or negative affect. Table 1. Comparison between Police Officers and Controls Police officers Controls t(1,59-60) d M SD M SD Awareness 2.48 0.77 2.67 0.78 0.92 0.25 Clarity 2.73 0.74 2.91 0.97 0.79 0.21 Sensation 2.61 0.84 2.72 0.81 0.51 0.13 Understanding 2.65 0.92 2.81 0.66 0.79 0.20 Modification 2.22 0.77 2.24 0.83 0.11 0.03 Acceptance 2.60 0.67 2.98 0.54 2.45⁎⁎ 0.63 Tolerance 2.39 0.84 2.81 0.73 2.1⁎ 0.54 R. to confront 2.31 0.83 2.77 0.81 2.22⁎ 0.56 Self-support 2.23 0.78 2.73 0.75 2.61⁎⁎ 0.65 ERSQtotal score 2.46 0.60 2.74 0.45 2.12⁎ 0.53 Positive Affect 2.53 0.65 2.35 0.69 - 1.04 - 0.27 Negative Affect 0.91 0.73 0.93 0.73 0.10 0.03 Note. For the police sample, the earliest available pre-treatment score was used. R. to confront = Readiness to confront distressing situations; ERSQ = Emotion Regulation Skill Questionnaire. d ≈ 0.2/0.5/0.8 indicates a small/moderate/large effect (Cohen, 1988). ⁎p < .05. ⁎⁎p < .01. Table options As shown in Table 2, the total ERSQ scores in the police sample increased significantly during the training. The effect size of η2 = .18 indicated a large effect. Significant gains also resulted for the subscales acceptance and tolerance (and a trend for awareness). Effect sizes were moderate for awareness, compassionate self-support and understanding; and large for acceptance and tolerance. Thus, participation in the training significantly enhanced two of the four skills for which officers reported less application than did controls (acceptance and tolerance). Significant and large effects were also demonstrated for gains in positive affect. Contrastingly, there were no significant changes in negative affect. To control for the passage of time and for external events that might have affected outcome variables, gains during training (N = 20) were compared to gains during a waiting period (N = 19) for a subgroup of officers. Preliminary analyses indicated that there were no significant differences between pre-scores of the treatment condition and the wait-list-control condition with regard to the ERSQ-total score, the ERSQ-subscales, and the PANAS. Table 2. Comparison between pre- and post-training ERSQ scores Pre-training Post-training F(1,25-27) η2 M SD M SD Awareness 2.48 0.80 2.74 0.77 3.36(⁎) 0.11 Clarity 2.73 0.72 2.80 0.76 0.92 0.04 Sensation 2.54 0.85 2.67 0.82 0.55 0.02 Understanding 2.55 0.93 2.74 0.73 1.53 0.06 Modification 2.41 0.72 2.24 0.71 0.60 0.02 Acceptance 2.55 0.60 2.83 0.54 5.90⁎ 0.19 Tolerance 2.38 0.70 2.85 0.64 19.12⁎⁎⁎ 0.43 R. to confront 2.23 0.88 2.39 0.96 0.87 0.03 Self-support 2.34 0.85 2.51 0.70 1.85 0.07 ERSQtotal score 2.45 0.64 2.64 0.57 5.63⁎ 0.18 Positive Affect 2.55 0.54 2.76 0.60 11.39⁎⁎ 0.30 Negative Affect 0.78 0.53 0.83 0.55 0.06 0.00 Note. ERSQ = Emotion Regulation Skill Questionnaire; R. to confront = Readiness to confront distressing situations. η2 ≈ 0.01/0.06/0.14 indicates a small/moderate/large effect. (⁎)p < .10. ⁎p < .05. ⁎⁎p < .01. ⁎⁎⁎p < .001. Table options As shown in Table 3, there was a significant Time × Condition interaction on the ERSQ total score. Changes in the ERSQ total score were significantly greater in the treatment condition than in the control condition (see Fig. 2). Table 3. Comparison between Training and Waitlist Control Condition iTEC WLC Time × Condition Pre Post Pre Post F(1,34-37) η2 M SD M SD M SD M SD Awareness 2.42 0.89 2.73 0.82 2.67 0.67 2.67 0.70 2.63 0.07 Clarity 2.81 0.71 2.87 0.83 2.67 0.76 2.63 0.70 0.36 0.01 Sensation 2.56 0.94 2.70 0.82 2.74 0.63 2.63 0.60 1.05 0.03 Understanding 2.52 1.02 2.82 0.72 2.74 0.75 2.63 0.75 3.19(⁎) 0.08 Modification 2.39 0.78 2.42 0.69 2.17 0.69 2.46 0.55 1.60 0.04 Acceptance 2.56 0.67 2.92 0.54 2.56 0.62 2.52 0.43 5.45⁎ 0.14 Tolerance 2.51 0.73 3.05 0.51 2.28 0.83 2.22 0.51 9.18⁎⁎ 0.21 R. to confront 2.35 0.93 2.57 1.04 2.30 0.59 2.13 0.63 1.47 0.04 Self-support 2.32 0.97 2.68 0.73 2.22 0.40 2.43 0.51 1.21 0.03 ERSQtotal score 2.47 0.71 2.75 0.60 2.48 0.40 2.48 0.45 5.13⁎ 0.13 Positive Affect 2.55 0.51 2.80 0.55 2.64 0.69 2.63 0.54 3.53(⁎) 0.09 Negative Affect 0.78 0.54 0.78 0.58 1.00 0.81 0.75 0.47 0.99 0.03 Note. iTEC = Integrative Training of Emotional Competencies. WLC = Waitlist Control Condition. R. to confront = Readiness to confront distressing situations. ERSQ = Emotion Regulation Skill Questionnaire. η2 ≈ 0.01/0.06/0.14 indicates a small/moderate/large effect. (⁎)p < .10. ⁎p < .05. ⁎⁎p < .01. Table options Interaction between time and condition for the ERSQ total score. Y-Axis=ERSQ ... FIGURE 2. Interaction between time and condition for the ERSQ total score. Y-Axis = ERSQ total mean score. CI = Confidence Interval of ERSQ total mean score in the control sample. iTEC = Integrative Training of Emotional Competencies. WLC = Waitlist Control Condition. Figure options The effect size of η2 = .13 for this interaction indicated a moderate-to-large effect. Moreover, before the training, skills application reported by police officers was below the 95% confidence interval of skills application reported by the community control condition (CIERSQ total = 2.58 - 2.90). After the training, reported skills application increased to within the 95% confidence interval of the community controls. The effect size for the difference when compared with the community controls reduced from d = .53 to d = .19. No such change occurred during the wait-list condition. With regard to comparison of specific skills in this within-subject variation of conditions, significantly greater gains were found in the training condition for the subscales acceptance and tolerance (with a trend for understanding). Effect sizes were large for acceptance and tolerance, and moderate for awareness and understanding. A trend was also found for positive affect with a moderate effect. There was no significant Time × Condition interaction for negative affect.