Emotion regulation and psychopathology in children and adolescents ( PDFDrive )

43 34 The Relation of Self-Regulation to Children's Externalizing and Internalizing Problems do children with lesser levels of risk. However, there is less work on which aspects of interven- tions (e.g., training in self-âr•‰ egulation, teaching an understanding of emotions) have the obtained effects on reducing maladjustment. In addition, factors in children’s ecologies that might mod- erate the association between maladjustment and effortful control, such as stress from poverty, poor schools, or neighborhood violence, merit attention. Moreover, such contextual factors, if they affect self-r╉egulation and/o╉ r maladjustment, could play a role in mediated relations (e.g., from poverty to self-âr•‰ egulation to maladjustment; see Lengua et al., 2015). Finally, although there seem to be more similarities than differences across cultural groups in the relations of self-âr•‰egulation to problem symptoms, researchers have emphasized the need to understand the cultural processes (e.g., acculturation, cultural values) associated with child development and demographic heterogeneity within cultural groups (García Coll et  al., 1996; Li-âG•‰ rining, 2012). For example, Telzer and colleagues (2011) found that adolescents of European-╉ and Latino-âA•‰ merican origin who endorsed strong familism values (e.g., cultural attitudes of fam- ily respect and obligation) showed more neural activation of regions involved with self-âc•‰ ontrol (i.e., ventral striatum regions associated with reward processing) when making costly contribu- tions to family in a “family assistance task” in early adulthood. That is, cultural processes (rather than cultural group differences) were associated with self-r╉egulatory processes in the context of a culturally relevant reward task. Moreover, cultural values may affect the degree to which self-╉ regulation is valued and the degree to which externalizing or internalizing symptoms are deemed problematic, with the consequence that acceptance of these values affects the relation between self-r╉egulation and problem behaviors. Future research examining the cultural processes associ- ated with the development of self-âr•‰egulation, as well as the relation between self-âr•‰egulation to externalizing and internalizing symptoms, could contribute to an understanding of the role of cultural factors in self-r╉ egulation and maladjustment. References American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Association. Arsenio, W. F., Adams, E., & Gold, J. (2009). Social information processing, moral reasoning, and emotion attributions: Relations with adolescents’ reactive and proactive aggression. Child Development, 80, 1739–‰â•1755. doi:10.1111/âj‰• .1467-8•‰â 624.2009.01365.x Barker, E. D., Oliver, B. R., Viding, E., Salekin, R. T., & Maughan, B. (2011). The impact of prenatal maternal risk, fearless temperament and early parenting on adolescent callous-u╉ nemotional traits: A 14-y╉ ear longitudinal investigation. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 52, 878–•8≠88. doi: 10.1111/•âj‰ .1469-•‰â7610.2011.02397.x Belsky, J., Pasco Fearon, R. M., & Bell, B. (2007). Parenting, attention and externalizing problems: Testing mediation longitudinally, repeatedly and reciprocally. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 48, 1233–‰1•â 242. doi: 10.1111/•âj‰ .1469-•â‰7610.2007.01807.x Blair, C., & Raver, C. C. (2014). Closing the achievement gap through modification of neurocognitive and neuroendocrine function: results from a cluster randomized controlled trial of an innovative approach to the education of children in kindergarten. PLoS One, 9(11). e112393. doi:10.1371/j╉ournal. pone.0112393 Blandon, A. Y., Calkins, S. D., Grimm, K. J., Keane, S. P., & O’Brien, M. (2010). Testing a developmental cascade model of emotional and social competence and early peer acceptance. Development and Psychopathology, 22, 737–╉748. doi:10.1017/╉S0954579410000428 Bornstein, M. H., Hahn, C. S., & Haynes, O. M. (2010). Social competence, externalizing, and internalizing behavioral adjustment from early childhood through early adolescence: Developmental cascades. Development and Psychopathology, 22, 717–‰â7• 35. doi:10.1017/â‰S• 0954579410000416

53 Summary 35 Boylan, K., Vaillancourt, T., Boyle, M., & Szatmari, P. (2007). Comorbidity of internalizing disorders in children with oppositional defiant disorder. European Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 16, 484–​494. doi 10.1007/s​ 00787-​007-​0624-1​ Buckner, J. C., Mezzacappa, E., & Beardslee, W. R. (2009). Self-​regulation and its relations to adaptive functioning in low income youths. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 29, 19–​30. doi:10.1037/​ a0014796 Carver, C. S. (2005). Impulse and constraint: Perspectives from personality psychology, convergence with theory in other areas, and potential for integration. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 9, 312–3​ 33. doi:10.1207/​s15327957pspr0904_2​ Caspi, A., Henry, B., McGee, R. O., Moffitt, T. E., & Silva, P. A. (1995). Temperamental origins of child and adolescent behavior problems: From age three to fifteen. Child Development, 66, 55–6​ 8. doi:10.2307/​ 1131190 Chang, H., Shaw, D. S., Dishion, T. J., Gardner, F., & Wilson, M. N. (2014). Direct and indirect effects of the family check-​up on self-​regulation from toddlerhood to early school-​age. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 42, 1117–1​ 128. doi:10.1007/​s10802-​014-​9859-​8 Chen, X., Cen, G., Li, D., & He, Y. (2005). Social functioning and adjustment in chinese children: The imprint of historical time. Child Development, 76, 182–1​ 95. doi:10.1111/j​ .1467-​8624.2005.00838.x Chen, X., Zhang, G., Chen, H., & Li, D. (2012). Performance on delay tasks in early childhood predicted socioemotional and school adjustment nine years later: A longitudinal study in Chinese children. International Perspectives in Psychology: Research, Practice, Consultation, 1, 3–​14. doi:10.1037/​a0026363 Cohen, J. R., & Lieberman, M. D. (2010). The common neural basis of exerting neural self-c​ ontrol in multiple domains. In R. R. Hassin, K. N. Oscher & Y. Trope (Eds.), Self control in society, mind, and brain. New York: Oxford University Press. Compas, B. E., Connor-​Smith, J. K., Saltzman, H., Thomsen, A. H., & Wadsworth, M. E. (2001). Coping with stress during childhood and adolescence: Problems, progress, and potential in theory and research. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 87–1​ 27. doi:10.1037/​0033-2​ 909.127.1.87 Conceição, A., & Carvalho, M. (2013). Emotional and behavioral problems in preadolescents: Relationships with temperament, coping and emotional regulation strategies, and facial expressions identification. Psychologica, 56, 83–1​ 00. doi:10.14195/​1647-​8606_5​ 6_5​ Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. (2010). The effects of a multiyear universal social-​ emotional learning program: The role of student and school characteristics. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 78, 156–​168. doi:10.1037/a​ 0018607 Coplan, R. J., & Armer, M. (2007). A “multitude” of solitude: A closer look at social withdrawal and nonsocial play in early childhood. Child Development Perspectives, 1, 26–3​ 2. doi:10.1111/​ j.1750-8​ 606.2007.00006.x de Boo, G. M., & Kolk, A. M. (2007). Ethnic and gender differences in temperament, and the relationship between temperament and depressive and aggressive mood. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 1756–1​ 766. doi:10.1016/j​ .paid.2007.05.012 de Castro, B. O., Merk, W., Koops, W., Veerman, J. W., & Bosch, J. D. (2005). Emotions in social information processing and their relations with reactive and proactive aggression in referred aggressive boys. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 34, 105–​116. doi:10.1207/​ s15374424jccp3401_​10 Degnan, K. A., Almas, A. N., & Fox, N. A. (2010). Temperament and the environment in the etiology of childhood anxiety. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 51, 497–5​ 17. doi:10.1111/​ j.1469-7​ 610.2010.02228.x Dennis, T. A., Brotman, L. M., Huang, K., & Gouley, K. K. (2007). Effortful control, social competence, and adjustment problems in children at risk for psychopathology. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 36, 442–4​ 54. doi:10.1080/1​ 5374410701448513 Derryberry, D., & Rothbart, M. K. (1997). Reactive and effortful processes in the organization of temperament. Development and Psychopathology, 9, 633–​652. doi:10.1017/S​ 0954579497001375

63 36 The Relation of Self-Regulation to Children's Externalizing and Internalizing Problems Di Norcia, A., Pecora, G., Bombi, A. S., Baumgartner, E., & Laghi, F. (2014). Hot and cool inhibitory control in Italian toddlers: associations with social competence and behavioral problems. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 24, 909–9​ 14. doi:10.1007/​s10826-​014-9​ 901-​z Duckworth, A. L., Gendler, T. S., & Gross, J. J. (2014). Self-​control in school-​age children. Educational Psychologist, 49, 199–​217. doi: 10.1080/​00461520.2014.926225 Eastabrook, J. M., Flynn, J. J., & Hollenstein, T. (2014). Internalizing symptoms in female adolescents: Associations with emotional awareness and emotion regulation. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 23, 487–​496. doi:10.1007/s​ 10826-0​ 12-​9705-y​ Eggum, N. D., Eisenberg, N., Reiser, M., Spinrad, T. L., Michalik, N. M., Valiente, C., … Sallquist, J. (2012). Relations over time among children’s shyness, emotionality, and internalizing problems. Social Development, 21, 109–​129. doi:10.1111/​j.1467-​9507.2011.00618.x Eggum, N. D., Eisenberg, N., Spinrad, T. L., Reiser, M., Gaertner, B. M., Sallquist, J., & Smith, C. L. (2009). Development of shyness: Relations with children’s fearfulness, sex, and maternal behavior. Infancy, 14, 325–​345. doi: 10.1080/1​ 5250000902839971 Eisenberg, N., Chang, L., Ma, Y., & Huang, X. (2009). Relations of parenting style to Chinese children’s effortful control, ego resilience, and maladjustment. Development and Psychopathology, 21, 455–​477. doi:10.1017/S​ 095457940900025X Eisenberg, N., Cumberland, A., Spinrad, T. L., Fabes, R. A., Shepard, S. A., Reiser, M., … Guthrie, I. K. (2001). The relations of regulation and emotionality to children’s externalizing and internalizing problem behavior. Child Development, 72, 1112–​1134. doi:10.1111/1​ 467-8​ 624.00337 Eisenberg, N., Edwards, A., Spinrad, T. L., Sallquist, J., Eggum, N. D., & Reiser, M. (2013). Are effortful and reactive control unique constructs in young children? Developmental Psychology, 49, 2082–2​ 094. doi:10.1037/​a0031745 Eisenberg, N., & Fabes, R. A. (1992). Emotion, regulation, and the development of social competence. In M. S. Clark (Ed.), Review of personality and social psychology (Vol. 14, pp. 119–​150). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Eisenberg, N., Hofer, C., Sulik, M. J., & Spinrad, T. L. (2014). Effortful control and its socioemotional consequences. In J. J. Gross (Ed.), Handbook of emotion regulation (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press. Eisenberg, N., Liew, J., & Pidada, S. U. (2004). The longitudinal relations of regulation and emotionality to quality of Indonesian children’s socioemotional functioning. Developmental Psychology, 40, 790–8​ 04. doi:10.1037/​0012-​1649.40.5.790 Eisenberg, N., Ma, Y., Chang, L., Zhou, Q., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. (2007). Relations of effortful control, reactive undercontrol, and anger to Chinese children’s adjustment. Development and Psychopathology, 19, 385–4​ 09. doi: 1017/S​ 0954579407070198 Eisenberg, N., & Morris, A. S. (2002). Children’s emotion-​related regulation. In R. V. Kail (Ed.), Advances in child development and behavior (Vol. 30, pp. 189–​229). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Eisenberg, N., Sadovsky, A., Spinrad, T. L., Fabes, R. A., Losoya, S. H., Valiente, C., … Shepard, S. A. (2005). The relations of problem behavior status to children’s negative emotionality, effortful control, and impulsivity: Concurrent relations and prediction of change. Developmental Psychology, 41, 193–2​ 11. doi: 10.1037/0​ 012-1​ 649.41.1.193 Eisenberg, N., & Spinrad, T. L. (2004). Emotion-​related regulation: Sharpening the definition. Child Development, 75, 334–​339. doi:10.1111/​j.1467-8​ 624.2004.00674.x Eisenberg, N., Spinrad, T. L., & Eggum, N. D. (2010). Emotion-​related self-r​ egulation and its relation to children’s maladjustment. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 6, 495–5​ 25. doi: 10.1146/a​ nnurev. clinpsy.121208.131208 Eisenberg, N., Spinrad, T. L., Eggum, N. M., Silva, K. M., Reiser, M., Hofer, C., … Michalik, N. (2010). Relations among maternal socialization, effortful control, and maladjustment in early childhood. Development and Psychopathology, 22, 507–​525. doi:10.1017/S​ 0954579410000246 Eisenberg, N., Spinrad, T. L., Fabes, R. A., Reiser, M., Cumberland, A., Shepard, S. A., … Murphy, B. (2004). The relations of effortful control and impulsivity to children’s resiliency and adjustment. Child Development, 75, 25–​46. doi:10.1111/​j.1467-8​ 624.2004.00652.x

73 Summary 37 Eisenberg, N., Taylor, Z. E., Widaman, K. F., & Spinrad, T. L. (2015). Externalizing symptoms, effortful control, and intrusive parenting: A test of bi-​directional longitudinal relations during early childhood. Development and Psychopathology, 27, 953–​968. doi:10.1017/S​ 0954579415000620. Eisenberg, N., Valiente, C., Spinrad, T. L., Cumberland, A., Liew, J., Reiser, M., … Losoya, S. H. (2009). Longitudinal relations of children’s effortful control, impulsivity, and negative emotionality to their externalizing, internalizing, and co-​occurring behavior problems. Developmental Psychology, 45, 988–​ 1008. doi:10.1037/​a0016213 Eisenberg, N., Zhou, Q., Spinrad, T. L., Valiente, C., Fabes, R. A., & Liew, J. (2005). Relations among positive parenting, children’s effortful control, and externalizing problems: A three-w​ ave longitudinal study. Child Development, 76, 1055–1​ 071. doi:10.1111/j​ .1467-​8624.2005.00897.x Emerson, C. S., Mollet, G. A., & Harrison, D. W. (2005). Anxious-​depression in boys: An evaluation of executive functioning. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 20, 539–​546. doi:10.1016/​j.acn.2004.10.003 Frick, P. J., & Morris, A. S. (2004). Temperament and developmental pathways to conduct problems. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 33, 54–​68. doi:10.1207/​S15374424JCCP3301_6​ Frick, P. J., Ray, J. V., Thornton, L. C., & Kahn, R. E. (2014). Annual research review: A developmental psychopathology approach to understanding callous-u​ nemotional traits in children and adolescents with serious conduct problems. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 55, 532–​548. doi: 10.1111/j​ cpp.12152 García Coll, C., Lamberty, G., Jenkins, R., Pipes McAdoo, H., Wasik, B. H., & Vásquez García, H. (1996). An integrative model for the study of developmental competencies in minority children. Child Development, 67, 1891–​1914. doi:10.2307/​1131600 Garnefski, N., Kraaij, V., & van Etten, M. (2005). Specificity of relations between adolescents’ cognitive emotion regulation strategies and internalizing and externalizing psychopathology. Journal of Adolescence, 28, 619–​631. doi:10.1016/j​ .adolescence.2004.12.009 Gartstein, M. A., Slobodskaya, H. R., Kirchhoff, C., & Putnam, S. P. (2013). Cross-​cultural differences in the development of behavior problems: Contributions of infant temperament in Russia and U.S. International Journal of Developmental Science, 72, 95–​104. doi: 10.3233/DEV-1312104 Goldsmith, H. H., Pollak, S. D., & Davidson, R. J. (2008). Developmental neuroscience perspectives on emotion regulation. Child Development Perspectives, 2, 132–1​ 40. doi:10.1111/​j.1750-​8606.2008.00055.x Gross, J. J. (2014). Emotion regulation: Conceptual and empirical foundations. In J. J. Gross (Ed.), Handbook of emotion regulation (2nd ed., pp. 3–​20). New York: Guilford Press. Gusdorf, L. M., Karreman, A., van Aken, M. A., Dekovic, M., & van Tuijl, C. (2011). The structure of effortful control in preschoolers and its relation to externalizing problems. Brittish Journal of Developmental Psychology, 29, 612–​634. doi:10.1348/0​ 26151010X526542 Happaney, K., Zelazo, P. D., & Stuss, D. T.. (2004). Development of orbitofrontal function: Current themes and future directions. Brain and Cognition, 55, 1–​10. doi 10.1016/​j.bandc.2004.01.001 Hinnant, J. B., & El-S​ heikh, M. (2013). Codevelopment of externalizing and internalizing symptoms in middle to late childhood: Sex, baseline respiratory sinus arrhythmia, and respiratory sinus arrhythmia reactivity as predictors. Development and Psychopathology, 25, 419–​436. doi:10.1017/S​ 0954579412001150 Hofer, C., Eisenberg, N., & Reiser, M. (2010). The role of socialization, effortful control, and ego resiliency in French adolescents’ social functioning. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 20, 555–5​ 82. doi:10.1111/​ j.1532-7​ 795.2010.00650.x Honomichl, R. D., & Donnellan, M. B. (2011). Dimensions of temperament in preschoolers predict risk taking and externalizing behaviors in adolescents. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3, 14–2​ 2. doi:10.1177/1​ 948550611407344 Hopkins, J., Lavigne, J. V., Gouze, K. R., LeBailly, S. A., & Bryant, F. B. (2013). Multi-d​ omain models of risk factors for depression and anxiety symptoms in preschoolers: Evidence for common and specific factors. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 41, 705–​722. doi:10.1007/s​ 10802-​013-​9723-2​ Hubbard, J. A., Smithmyer, C. M., Ramsden, S. R., Parker, E. H., Flanagan, K. D., Dearing, K. E., … Simons, R. F. (2002). Observational, physiological, and self-r​ eport measures of children’s anger: Relations to reactive versus proactive aggression. Child Development, 73, 1101–​1118. doi:10.1111/​1467-8​ 624.00460

83 38 The Relation of Self-Regulation to Children's Externalizing and Internalizing Problems Johnson, S. L., Carver, C. S., & Joormann, J. (2013). Impulsive responses to emotion as a transdiagnostic vulnerability to internalizing and externalizing symptoms. Journal of Affective Disorders, 150, 872–8​ 78. doi:10.1016/j​ .jad.2013.05.004 Kagan, J. (1998). Biology and the child. In W. Damon & N. Eisenberg (Eds.), Social, emotional and personality development. Vol. 3. Handbook of child psychology (5th ed., Vol. 3, pp. 177–​235). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Kagan, J., & Fox, N. A. (2006). Biology, culture, and temperamental biases Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3, social, emotional, and personality development (6th ed., pp. 167–2​ 25). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Kagan, J., & Snidman, N. (1999). Early childhood predictors of adult anxiety disorders. Biological Psychiatry, 46, 1536–1​ 541. doi:10.1016/​S0006-​3223(99)00137-​7 Kiff, C. J., Lengua, L. J., & Bush, N. R. (2011). Temperament variation in sensitivity to parenting: Predicting changes in depression and anxiety. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 39, 1199–​1212. doi:10.1007/​ s10802-0​ 11-​9539-x​ Kim, J., & Deater-​Deckard, K. (2011). Dynamic changes in anger, externalizing and internalizing problems: Attention and regulation. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 52, 156–1​ 66. doi:10.1111/j​ .1469-​7610.2010.02301.x Kim, S., Nordling, J. K., Yoon, J. E., Boldt, L. J., & Kochanska, G. (2013). Effortful control in “hot” and “cool” tasks differentially predicts children’s behavior problems and academic performance. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 41, 43–5​ 6. doi:10.1007/​s10802-​012-9​ 661-​4 King, K. M., Lengua, L. J., & Monahan, K. C. (2013). Individual differences in the development of self-​ regulation during pre-​adolescence: Connections to context and adjustment. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 41, 57–​69. doi:10.1007/​s10802-0​ 12-​9665-​0 Lengua, L. J. (2003). Associations among emotionality, self-​regulation, adjustment problems, and positive adjustment in middle childhood. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 24, 595–​618. doi:10.1016/j​ .appdev.2003.08.002 Lengua, L. J. (2006). Growth in temperament and parenting as predictors of adjustment during children’s transition to adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 42, 819–​832. doi:10.1037/​0012-​1649.42.5.819 Lengua, L. J. (2008). Anxiousness, frustration, and effortful control as moderators of the relation between parenting and adjustment in middle-c​ hildhood. Social Development, 17, 554–​577. doi:10.1111/​ j.1467-9​ 507.2007.00438.x Lengua, L. J., Moran, L., Zalewski, M., Ruberry, E., Kiff, C., & Thompson, S. (2015). Relations of growth in effortful control to family income, cumulative risk, and adjustment in preschool-​age children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 43, 705–7​ 20. doi 10.1007/​s10802-0​ 14-9​ 941-2​ . Lengua, L. J., West, S. G., & Sandler, I. N. (1998). Temperament as a predictor of symptomatology in children: Addressing contamination of measures. Child Development, 69, 164–​181. doi:10.2307/​ 1132078 Li-​Grining, C. P. (2012). The role of cultural factors in the development of Latino preschoolers’ self-​ regulation. Child Development Perspectives, 6, 210–​217. doi:10.1111/​j.1750-​8606.2012.00255.x Lougheed, J. P., & Hollenstein, T. (2012). A limited repertoire of emotion regulation strategies is associated with internalizing problems in adolescence. Social Development, 21, 704–​721. doi:10.1111/​ j.1467-9​ 507.2012.00663.x Loukas, A., & Roalson, L. A. (2006). Family environment, effortful control, and adjustment among European American and Latino early adolescents. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 26, 432–​455. doi:10.1177/​0272431606291939 Marmorstein, N. R. (2013). Associations between dispositions to rash action and internalizing and externalizing symptoms in children. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 42, 131–​138. doi:10.1080/1​ 5374416.2012.734021 Marsee, M. A., & Frick, P. J. (2007). Exploring the cognitive and emotional correlates to proactive and reactive aggression in a sample of detained girls. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 35, 969–​981. doi:10.1007/​s10802-0​ 07-9​ 147-​y

93 Summary 39 McCoy, D. C., & Raver, C. C. (2011). Caregiver emotional expressiveness, child emotion regulation, and child behavior problems among Head Start families. Social Development, 20, 741–​761. doi:10.1111/​ j.1467-​9507.2011.00608.x McEachern, A. D., & Snyder, J. (2012). The relationship of impulsivity-​inattention and verbal ability to overt and covert antisocial behaviors in children. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 41, 984–9​ 94. doi:10.1007/s​ 10964-​011-9​ 710-​2 Mills-​Koonce, W. R., Wagner, N. J., Willoughby, M. T., Stifter, C., Blair, C., Granger, D. A., & Family Life Project Key Investigators. (2015). Greater fear reactivity and psychophysiological hyperactivity among infants with later conduct problems and callous-u​ nemotional traits. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 56, 147–1​ 54. doi:10.1111/​jcpp.12289 Mischel, W., & Ayduk, Ö. (2011). Willpower in a cognitive-​affective processing system: The dynamics of delay of gratification (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press. Morales, S., Beekman, C., Blandon, A. Y., Stifter, C. A., & Buss, K. A. (2015). Longitudinal associations between temperament and socioemotional outcomes in young children: The moderating role of RSA and gender. Developmental Psychobiology, 57, 105–​119. doi:10.1002/d​ ev.21267 Morris, A. S., John, A., Halliburton, A. L., Morris, M. D. S., Robinson, L. R., Myers, S. S., … Terranova, A. (2013). Effortful control, behavior problems, and peer relations: What predicts academic adjustment in kindergartners from low-​income families? Early Education & Development, 24, 813–8​ 28. doi:10.1080/​ 10409289.2013.744682 Morris, A. S., Silk, J. S., Steinberg, L., Terranova, A. M., & Kithakye, M. (2010). Concurrent and longitudinal links between children’s externalizing behavior in school and observed anger regulation in the mother–​child dyad. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 32, 48–​56. doi:10.1007/​ s10862-​009-​9166-9​ Morris, P., Mattera, S. K., Castells, N., Bangser, M., Bierman, K., & Raver, C. (2014). Impact findings from the Head Start CARES demonstration: National evaluation of three approaches to improving preschoolers’ social and emotional competence. OPRE Report 2014-4​ 4. Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Muhtadie, L., Zhou, Q., Eisenberg, N., & Wang, Y. (2013). Predicting internalizing problems in chinese children: The unique and interactive effects of parenting and child temperament. Development and Psychopathology, 25, 653–​667. doi:10.1017/​S0954579413000084 Muris, P. (2006). Unique and interactive effects of neuroticism and effortful control on psychopathological symptoms in non-​clinical adolescents. Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 1409–1​ 419. doi:10.1016/​j.paid.2005.12.001 Muris, P., de Jong, P. J., & Engelen, S. (2004). Relationships between neuroticism, attentional control, and anxiety disorders symptoms in non-c​ linical children. Personality and Individual Differences, 37, 789–​ 797. doi:10.1016/j​ .paid.2003.10.007 Muris, P., Meesters, C., & Blijlevens, P. (2007). Self-​reported reactive and regulative temperament in early adolescence: Relations to internalizing and externalizing problem behavior and “Big Three” personality factors. Journal of Adolescence, 30, 1035–​1049. doi:10.1016/​j.adolescence.2007.03.003 Muris, P., Meesters, C., de Kanter, E., & Timmerman, P. E. (2005). Behavioural inhibition and behavioural activation system scales for children: Relationships with Eysenck’s personality traits and psychopathological symptoms. Personality and Individual Differences, 38, 831–​841. doi:10.1016/j​ .paid.2004.06.007 Muris, P., Meesters, C., & Rompelberg, L. (2007). Attention control in middle childhood: Relations to psychopathological symptoms and threat perception distortions. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 45, 997–​1010. doi: 10.1016/​j.brat.2006.07.010 Muris, P., van der Pennen, E., Sigmond, R., & Mayer, B. (2008). Symptoms of anxiety, depression, and aggression in non-​clinical children: Relationships with self-​report and performance-​based measures of attention and effortful control. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 29, 455–4​ 67. doi:10.1007/​ s10578-0​ 08-​0101-1​

04 40 The Relation of Self-Regulation to Children's Externalizing and Internalizing Problems Murray, K. T., & Kochanska, G. (2002). Effortful control: Factor structure and relation to externalizing and internalizing behaviors. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 30, 503–5​ 14. doi:10.1023/​ A:1019821031523 Neville, H. J., Stevens, C., Pakulak, E., Bell, T. A., Fanning, J., Klein, S., & Isbell, E. (2013). Family-​based training program improves brain function, cognition, and behavior in lower socioeconomic status preschoolers. PNAS, 110, 12138–​12143. doi:10.1073/​pnas.1304437110 Nigg, J. T. (2006). Temperament and developmental psychopathology. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 47, 395–​422. doi:10.1111/j​ .1469-7​ 610.2006.01612.x Nolen-​Hoeksema, S., Stice, E., Wade, E., & Bohon, C. (2007). Reciprocal relations between rumination and bulimic, substance abuse and depressive symptoms in female adolescents. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 116, 198–​207. doi:10.1037/​0021-​843X.116.1.198 Nolen-H​ oeksema, S., Wisco, B. E., & Lyubomirsky, S. I. (2008). Rethinking rumination. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3, 400–​424. doi 10.1111/j​ .1745-​6924.2008.00088.x Oldehinkel, A. J., Hartman, C. A., De Winter, A. F., Veenstra, R., & Ormel, J. (2004). Temperament profiles associated with internalizing and externalizing problems in preadolescence. Development and Psychopathology, 16, 421–​440. doi:10.1017/S​ 0954579404044591 Oldehinkel, A. J., Hartman, C. A., Ferdinand, R. F., Verhulst, F. C., & Ormel, J. (2007). Effortful control as modifier of the association between negative emotionality and adolescents’ mental health problems. Development and Psychopathology, 19, 523–5​ 39. doi:10.1017/​S0954579407070253 Pang, K. C., & Beauchaine, T. P. (2013). Longitudinal patterns of autonomic nervous system responding to emotion evocation among children with conduct problems and/​or depression. Developmental Psychobiology, 55, 698–7​ 06. doi:10.1002/d​ ev.21065 Pickering, A. D., & Gray, J. A. (1999). The neuroscience of personality. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and Research (pp. 277–2​ 99). New York: Guilford Press. Piehler, T. F., Bloomquist, M. L., August, G. J., Gewirtz, A. H., Lee, S. S., & Lee, W. S. (2014). Executive functioning as a mediator of conduct problems prevention in children of homeless families residing in temporary supportive housing: A parallel process latent growth modeling approach. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 42, 681–​692. doi:10.1007/​s10802-​013-9​ 816-y​ Prado, G., Huang, S., Cordova, D., Malcolm, S., Estrada, Y., Cano, N., … Brown, C. H. (2013). Ecodevelopmental and intrapersonal moderators of a family based preventive intervention for Hispanic youth: A latent profile analysis. Prevention Science, 14, 290–​299. doi:10.1007/s​ 11121-​012-​0326-​x Rhoades, B. L., Greenberg, M. T., & Domitrovich, C. E. (2009). The contribution of inhibitory control to preschoolers’ social-​emotional competence. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 30, 310–​320. doi:10.1016/​j.appdev.2008.12.012. Riggs, N. R., Blair, C. B., & Greenberg, M. T. (2003). Concurrent and 2-​year longitudinal relations between executive function and the behavior of 1st and 2nd grade children. Child Neuropsychology, 9, 267–​276. doi:10.1076/​chin.9.4.267.23513 Romer, D., Betancourt, L. M., Brodsky, N. L., Giannetta, J. M., Yang, W., & Hurt, H. (2011). Does adolescent risk taking imply weak executive function? A prospective study of relations between working memory performance, impulsivity, and risk taking in early adolescence. Developmental Science, 14, 1119–​1133. doi:10.1111/j​ .1467-​7687.2011.01061.x Rothbart, M. K., & Bates, J. E. (2006). Temperament. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.) and W. Damon & R. M. Lerner (Series Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3. Social, emotional, and personality development (6th ed., pp. 105–1​ 76). New York, NY: Wiley. Rydell, A., Berlin, L., & Bohlin, G. (2003). Emotionality, emotion regulation, and adaptation among 5-​to 8-y​ ear-​old children. Emotion, 3, 30–4​ 7. doi:10.1037/1​ 528-​3542.3.1.30 Schoemaker, K., Mulder, H., Deković, M., & Matthys, W. (2013). Executive functions in preschool children with externalizing behavior problems: A meta-​analysis. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 41, 457–​ 471. doi: 10.1007/​s10802-0​ 12-9​ 684-​x

14 Summary 41 Schwartz, C. E., Snidman, N., & Kagan, J. (1999). Adolescent social anxiety as an outcome of inhibited temperament in childhood. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 38, 1008–​1015. doi: 10.1097/0​ 0004583-1​ 99908000-0​ 0017 Settles, R. E., Fischer, S., Cyders, M. A., Combs, J. L., Gunn, R. L., & Smith, G. T. (2012). Negative urgency: A personality predictor of externalizing behavior characterized by neuroticism, low conscientiousness, and disagreeableness. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 121, 160–​172. doi: 10.1037/a​ 0024948 Snyder, H. R. (2013). Major depressive disorder is associated with broad impairments on neuropsychological measures of executive function: A meta-​analysis and review. Psychological Bulletin, 139, 81–​132. doi:10.1037/​a0028727 Spinrad, T. L., Eisenberg, N., Gaertner, B., Popp, T., Smith, C. L., Kupfer, A., … Hofer, C. (2007). Relations of maternal socialization and toddlers’ effortful control to children’s adjustment and social competence. Developmental Psychology, 43, 1170–​1186. doi:10.1037/0​ 012-1​ 649.43.5.1170 Spinrad, T. L., Eisenberg, N., Silva, K. M., Eggum, N. D., Reiser, M., Edwards, A., … Gaertner, B. M. (2012). Longitudinal relations among maternal behaviors, effortful control and young children’s committed compliance. Developmental Psychology, 48, 552–​566. doi:10.1037/a​ 0025898 Sportel, B. E., Nauta, M. H., de Hullu, E., de Jong, P. J., & Hartman, C. A. (2011). Behavioral inhibition and attentional control in adolescents: Robust relationships with anxiety and depression. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 20, 149–​156. doi:10.1007/s​ 10826-​010-9​ 435-​y Stieben, J., Lewis, M. D., Granic, I., Zelazo, P. D., Segalowitz, S., & Pepler, D. (2007). Neurophysiological mechanisms of emotion regulation for subtypes of externalizing children. Development and Psychopathology, 19, 455–​480. doi:10.1017/​S0954579407070228 Stifter, C. A., Putnam, S., & Jahromi, L. (2008). Exuberant and inhibited toddlers: Stability of temperament and risk for problem behavior. Development and Psychopathology, 20, 401–​421. doi:10.1017/​ S0954579408000199 Sulik, M. J., Blair, C., Mills-​Koonce, R., Berry, D., Greenberg, M., & The Family Life Project Investigators. (2015). Early parenting and the development of externalizing behavior problems: Longitudinal mediation through children’s executive function. Child Development, 86, 1588–​1603. doi:10.111/​ cdev.12386. Telzer, E. H., Masten, C. L., Berkman, E. T., Lieberman, M. D., & Fuligni, A. J. (2011). Neural regions associated with self control and mentalizing are recruited during prosocial behaviors towards the family. Neuroimage, 58, 242–​249. doi:10.1016/​j.neuroimage.2011.06.013 Valiente, C., Eisenberg, N., Smith, C. L., Reiser, M., Fabes, R. A., Losoya, S., … Murphy, B. C. (2003). The relations of effortful control and reactive control to children’s externalizing problems: A longitudinal assessment. Journal of Personality, 71, 1171–​1196. doi:10.1111/​1467-6​ 494.7106011 Valiente, C., Eisenberg, N., Spinrad, T. L., Reiser, M., A., Cumberland, Losoya, S., & Liew, J. (2006). Relations among mothers’ expressivity, children’s effortful control, and their problem behaviors: A four-​ year longitudinal study. Emotion, 6, 459–​472. doi:10.1037/1​ 528-​3542.6.3.459 Verstraeten, K., Vasey, M. W., Raes, F., & Bijttebier, P. (2009). Temperament and risk for depressive symptoms in adolescence: Mediation by rumination and moderation by effortful control. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 37, 349–​361. doi:10.1007/​s10802-0​ 08-9​ 293-​x Wang, F. L., Chassin, L., Eisenberg, N., & Spinrad, T. L. (2015). Effortful control predicts adolescent antisocial-​aggressive behaviors and depressive symptoms: Co-o​ ccurrence and moderation by impulsivity. Child Development, 86, 1812–​1829. doi:10.111/c​ dev.12406. Wang, F. L., Chassin, L., Geiser, C., & Lemery-​Chalfant, K. (2016). Mechanisms in the relation between GABRA2 and adolescent externalizing problems. European Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 25, 67–​80. doi:10.1007/​s00787-​015-0​ 703-​7. Wang, M. T., Brinkworth, M., & Eccles, J. (2013). Moderating effects of teacher-s​ tudent relationship in adolescent trajectories of emotional and behavioral adjustment. Developmental Psychology, 49, 690–7​ 05. doi:10.1037/​a0027916

24 42 The Relation of Self-Regulation to Children's Externalizing and Internalizing Problems White, B. A., Jarrett, M. A., & Ollendick, T. H. (2012). Self-​regulation deficits explain the link between reactive aggression and internalizing and externalizing behavior problems in children. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 35, 1–9​ . doi:10.1007/s​ 10862-​012-​9310-​9 White, L. K., McDermott, J. M., Degnan, K. A., Henderson, H. A., & Fox, N. A. (2011). Behavioral inhibition and anxiety: The moderating roles of inhibitory control and attention shifting. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 39, 735–​747. doi:10.1007/s​ 10802-0​ 11-9​ 490-​x Xu, Y., Farver, J. M., & Zhang, Z. (2009). Temperament, harsh and indulgent parenting, and Chinese children’s proactive and reactive aggression. Child Development, 80, 244–2​ 58. doi:10.1111/​ j.1467-8​ 624.2008.01257.x Yap, M. B. H., Allen, N. B., O’Shea, M., Di Parsia, P., Simons, J. G., & Sheeber, L. (2011). Early adolescents’ temperament, emotion regulation during mother–​child interactions, and depressive symptomatology. Development and Psychopathology, 23, 267–​282. doi:10.1017/​S0954579410000787 Zalewski, M., Lengua, L. J., Wilson, A. C., Trancik, A., & Bazinet, A. (2011). Emotion regulation profiles, temperament, and adjustment problems in preadolescents. Child Development, 82, 951–​966. doi:10.1111/​j.1467-​8624.2011.01575.x Zhou, Q., Eisenberg, N., Wang, Y., & Reiser, M. (2004). Chinese children’s effortful control and dispositional anger/​frustration: Relations to parenting styles and children’s social functioning. Developmental Psychology, 40, 352–​366. doi:10.1037/​0012-​1649.40.3.352 Zhou, Q., Lengua, L. J., & Wang, Y. (2009). The relations of temperament reactivity and effortful control to children’s adjustment problems in China and the United States. Developmental Psychology, 45, 724–​739. doi:10.1037/​a0013776 Zhou, Q., Main, A., & Wang, Y. (2010). The relations of temperamental effortful control and anger/​ frustration to Chinese children’s academic achievement and social adjustment: A longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 180–​196. doi:10.1037/a​ 0015908

34 Chapter 3 Biological and Physiological Aspects of Emotion Regulation Kateri McRae & Michelle Shiota Adaptive emotion responses Theory and research on emotions widely recognize that emotional responses are adaptive, and often useful (Keltner & Gross, 1999; Levenson, 1994). Even negative emotions, though unpleas- ant in the moment, evolved to prepare our minds and bodies to handle important situations quickly and efficiently (Öhman & Mineka, 2001; Parrott, 1993). However, we sometimes produce emotional responses that are problematic for the situation that we are in making us needlessly unhappy or causing more harm than good. Emotions that are mismatched to our needs in terms of magnitude, type, or duration therefore, benefit from being regulated (Gross, 2015). Research on emotion regulation has focused primarily on describing and manipulating the various strategies people employ to change their emotions, and measuring the outcomes associ- ated with the use of these strategies. Biological measures have played an important role in this work, both documenting the relative effectiveness and strategy-âs•‰pecific consequences of various emotion regulation strategies in a more objective manner, and helping to elucidate the psycho- logical mechanisms supporting emotion regulation as a process. In this chapter we emphasize the importance of differentiating these two applications of biological measures in emotion regulation science, and review the empirical literature relevant to each. We then consider the contributions of each approach to the important task of comparing and contrasting different emotion regulation strategies. Emotion regulation: definition and research methods Emotion regulation consists of “the processes by which individuals influence which emotions they have, when they have them, and how they experience and express these emotions” (Gross, 1998a, p. 275). Emotion regulation can be used to up-╉or down-╉regulate positive or negative emotion, or to switch from one kind of emotional response to another (Gross, 1998b). However, the bulk of the empirical literature has focused upon emotion regulation for the purpose of down-r╉egulating negative emotion, as this work provides the most obvious bridge to clinical application. Although co-âr•‰egulation of emotion between two interacting individuals has long been of interest in devel- opmental psychology (Cole, Martin, & Dennis, 2004; Evans & Porter, 2009), and is now a cutting-╉ edge interest in research on adult close relationships as well (Butler & Randall, 2013), the great majority of research has examined intra-individual emotion regulation processes and outcomes. Much research on emotion regulation has focused upon delineating the different emotion regu- lation strategies that individuals commonly use (Gross, 1998; Gross, 2015, McRae 2016). These strategies are then compared and contrasted to determine which are associated with positive and negative short-t╉erm and long-ât•‰erm emotional outcomes. Using observational methods, studies have often examined how frequently individuals use different strategies (Aldao, Nolen-âH•‰ oeksema,

4 44 Biological and Physiological Aspects of Emotion Regulation & Schweizer, 2010; Gross & John, 2003). In experimental designs, individuals are taught to use different strategies in the laboratory, and the success of each strategy is determined based on the degree to which emotion measures are influenced by its use (Gross, 1998; Gross & Levenson, 1993; Jackson, Malmstadt, Larson, & Davidson, 2000). Emotion outcome measures commonly include self-âr•‰eported affect (how emotional people report feeling at any point in time), facial expressions of emotion, measures of peripheral psychophysiology that reflect bodily responses to emotion, and functional signals from brain regions thought to be involved in emotion, such as the amygdala, insula and nucleus accumbens (McRae, 2016). The changes in these different measures are not always coordinated (Mauss, Levenson, McCarter, Wilhelm, & Gross, 2005), but concur- rent changes in multiple measures of emotion are taken as convergent evidence that successful emotion regulation has occurred. Emotion regulation strategies can be organized according to the point in the emotion genera- tion process in which they are enlisted. Referred to as the process model of emotion regulation (Gross, 1998; Gross, 2015), this organizational framework highlights five broad categories of emo- tion regulation strategies, those that implement regulation by: 1) situation selection, 2) situation modification, 3) attentional deployment, 4) cognitive restructuring, and 5) response modulation. Comparison of specific strategies across these categories has proven to be extremely fruitful, but studies have contrasted strategies within categories as well. Because much of the empirical litera- ture has focused upon cognitive reappraisal, it is discussed in the greatest detail below. Cognitive reappraisal refers to attempts to reconsider, reframe, or gain new perspective on an emotional situation in a way that changes its emotional meaning (Giuliani & Gross, 2009). Cognitive interventions, including cognitive therapy and cognitive behavioral therapy, refer to cognitive reappraisal as cognitive reframing (Beck & Dozois, 2011). Reappraisal itself is a nod to the fact that our emotions are a downstream consequences of interpreting what a given stimulus means for our goals and well-b╉ eing (Arnold, 1960; Frijda, 1988; Lazarus & Folkman 1984; Scherer, 1997). The same objective situation or stimulus can thus evoke different emotions, depending on whether it is appraised as consistent with, or inconsistent with, our goals. Reappraisal involves replacing or supplementing one’s initial (often negative) interpretation of a situation’s meaning with another meaning (often, though not always, neutral or even positive; McRae 2016). For example, if one initially appraises the end of a romantic relationship as a loss, evoking sadness, one might regulate this emotion in part by thinking of the benefits associated with being single (not having to consult another person about meals, regaining activities given up during the rela- tionship), or even looking forward to the possibility of finding a new partner. Reappraisal involves still thinking about the emotion eliciting event, but reframing the event’s perceived meaning and implications, and therefore the emotions that follow. Methods in emotion regulation research A rich observational literature has documented correlations between the use of dispositional emo- tion regulation strategies and various outcome measures, such as depressive symptomatology and well-âb•‰ eing (Aldao et al., 2010; Gross & John, 2003). This work relies primarily on self-âr•‰eport mea- sures of how often participants use a variety of strategies. These studies have been valuable in sug- gesting that, at the level of individual differences, the implications of all regulation strategies are not alike. However, correlational designs and trait-âl•‰evel self-âr•‰eport measures are not well-âs•‰uited to identifying the more immediate consequences of using these strategies, or the mechanisms by which strategies have their effects. Experimental methods are better suited to establishing how successful different strategies are at achieving their emotional goals (e.g., Gross, 1998a; McRae et al, 2010; Shiota & Levenson, 2012), what cognitive and social “side effects” each strategy might have (e.g.,

54 Emotion regulation outcomes: Measures of regulation success 45 Butler et al., 2003), and what psychological mechanisms are needed to employ each strategy (e.g., Kanske, Heissler, Schönfelder, Bongers, & Wessa, 2011; McRae et al., 2010; Ochsner et al., 2004). One design commonly used to investigate the effects of different emotion regulation strategies has been to instruct participants to use a particular emotion regulation strategy, and measure one or more dependent variables while that strategy is being used during some emotion-e​ liciting task. This can be done in a between-​subjects design, randomly assigning some participants to one strat- egy (for example, expressive suppression) and others to a no-​regulation control condition, and/​or another regulation condition (for example, cognitive reappraisal). Where feasible, within-s​ ubjects designs in which participants are asked to alternate between multiple strategies, or between regu- lation and control instructions, provide additional statistical power. With these designs, biological measures can be used in two ways. First, they can be used to doc- ument the extent to which some emotion regulation strategy is effective in producing the desired emotional change. Strong negative emotions, in particular, commonly include “fight-​flight” sym- pathetic nervous system responses that can be detected peripherally with non-i​nvasive sensors (Cacioppo, Berntson, Larsen, Poehlmann, & Ito, 2000; Kreibig, 2010). Stressors—​especially social stressors—​lasting longer than 15–2​ 0 minutes evoke a rise in cortisol that can be detected in saliva (Kirschbaum, Pirke, & Hellhammer, 1993). Emotional stimuli also elicit increased activity in neu- ral structures such as the amygdala (Costafreda, Brammer, David, & Fu, 2008; Phelps & LeDoux, 2005), insula (Kurth, Zilles, Fox, Laird, & Eickhoff, 2010; Phan, Wager, Taylor, & Liberzon, 2002), and anterior cingulate cortex (Etkin, Egner, & Kalisch, 2011; Phan et al., 2002). In a typical study, where the goal of emotion regulation is to reduce the intensity of emotional distress, such mea- sures provide a more objective index of regulation success than subjective self-​reports of affect. These uses of biological measures are outcome-f​ ocused—m​ easures of emotion regulation success. Biological measures can also be used to better characterize the process of regulating emotion. For example, a growing body of research documents the activation of brain structures known to mediate cognitive control, such as the prefrontal cortex, while people are engaged in instructed cognitive reappraisal (Buhle et al., 2013). Rather than documenting success in altering emotional experience, these studies indicate that effortful cognitive control is required to implement the instructed strategy. Although somewhat more controversial, measures of parasympathetic ner- vous system influence on the heart (e.g., respiratory sinus arrhythmia, high-f​requency heart rate variability) have also been linked to emotion regulation effort (Butler, Wilhelm, & Gross, 2006). These uses of biological measures are process-f​ocused, capturing emotion regulation as a psycho- logical experience in its own right. In the sections below, we offer more detailed explanations of the biological measures used in each type of question, as well as offering examples from the exist- ing literature of how these approaches have been applied. Emotion regulation outcomes: Measures of regulation success Studies asking whether a given emotion regulation strategy is successful in reducing participants’ distress require outcome measures capturing intensity of the emotional experience. Most com- monly, self-​reports of emotion are used to examine changes in subjective affect. Many studies use a single item asking participants to rate their feelings either on a single valence: (How negative do you feel?) or a bivalent scale (Bradley & Lang, 1994) or rating dial (Butler, Wilhelm, & Gross, 2006) ranging from negative to positive, while others use separate questions to ask about positive and negative emotion (McRae, Ciesielski, & Gross, 2012; Shiota & Levenson, 2012) or a larger bat- tery of questions to examine effects on specific emotions (Troy & Mauss, 2011). On the one hand, an emotion regulation strategy should certainly be expected to improve one’s subjective feelings

64 46 Biological and Physiological Aspects of Emotion Regulation if it is effective. However, self-r╉eport scales are used by participants in highly idiosyncratic ways (Clark & Watson, 1995), and can be susceptible to bias associated with demand effects (Watson & Vaidya, 2003). For these reasons, convergent evidence from more objective measures of emotional reactivity is often desirable. Measuring expressive behavior In some studies of emotion regulation, behavioral measures of emotion are used. Most commonly, facial expression data are used to measure emotional responding (Gross, 1998; Gross & Levenson, 1993), especially when studying strategies that target the facial expression of emotion. Facial expression data can be collected via video cameras in the lab, and coded according to the facial action coding system (FACS; Ekamn & Friesen, 1978), or more global coding of facial expressive behaviors (Gross & Levenson, 1993). Electromyography can also be used to measure subtle acti- vation of muscles of facial expression that may not be perceived by the naked eye (Lang, 2009 & Bradley,), or eyetracking can be used to precisely track the parts of emotional images that cap- ture and keep visual attention (Kellough, Beevers, Ellis, & Wells, 2008; Urry, 2010). In addition, some researchers have used body posture as indicative of emotional responding (Riskind & Gotay, 1982; Shafir, Taylor, Atkinson, Langenecker, & Zubieta, 2013), and documented how this might change in response to the use of emotion regulation strategies (Woodward et al., 2015). Peripheral measures of sympathetic nervous system activity From William James’ (James, 1884)  early proposal that emotional feelings reflect awareness of visceral responses to environmental stimuli, to laboratory research on emotion in the present day, physiological changes such as increased heart rate, peripheral vasoconstriction, and increase in the skin’s electrical conductivity have been used as indicators of emotion. Walter Cannon’s (Cannon, 1929) research offered a major advance in understanding the role of the sympathetic branch of the autonomic nervous system (ANS) in mediating mammalian behavior in fear and rage. Sympathetic activation causes increased heart rate; increased cardiac contractility (i.e., pre-╉ ejection period) and output (i.e., volume of blood pumped per minute); increased overall arte- rial resistance to blood flow (resulting in higher blood pressure); peripheral vasoconstriction in particular, leading to chilly hands and feet; increased respiration rate and depth; a burst of sweat gland activity leading to an increase in skin electrical conductivity; piloerection; and pupil dila- tion, among other effects. The term “sympathetic” or “same pathway” refers to a long-h╉ eld assumption that, due to the structure of this branch of the ANS, all of these effects should tend to happen together (Cannon, 1929). The prototypical, full-b╉ lown “fight-âf•‰light” response presumably serves to facilitate intense physical movement in a high-âs•‰tress situation, increasing oxygen intake and carbon dioxide release, circulating blood more quickly and effectively, and preferentially delivering resources to the large skeletal muscles and brain. Reflecting this assumption, a large number of studies have examined one of these measures, or a composite of several of these measures, as an index of emotion regulation success while people view negative emotion stimuli, re-âl•‰ive a distressing per- sonal experience, or complete a stressful task. If an emotion regulation strategy is successful in reducing distress during said task, then this should manifest in a reduced sympathetic nervous system response. A large body of research finds that cognitive reappraisal is effective at reduc- ing physiological reactivity during negative emotion tasks (Gross, 1998; Jackson et al., 2000; Ray, McRae, Ochsner, & Gross, 2010), especially in comparison to suppressing emotional expression (e.g., Butler et al., 2003). Although the great majority of this research has focused on alleviating negative emotion, at least one study has demonstrated comparable effects of reappraisal aimed at

74 Emotion regulation outcomes: Measures of regulation success 47 up-╉and down-r╉ egulating amusement (Giuliani, McRae, & Gross, 2008), an emotional state that is also characterized by heightened physiological arousal (Kreibig, 2010). Developments in psycho- physiology increasingly demonstrate, however, that the sympathetic nervous system is not quite that simple. Although the neurons carrying sympathetic messages to the various visceral organs do tend to travel together, they use at least two different neurotransmitters, and there is differen- tiation of receptors as well. At a minimum, it has proved important to distinguish among effects mediated by alpha-âa•‰ drenergic receptors, including vasoconstriction and piloerection and among effects mediated by beta-âa•‰ drenergic receptors, including cardiac effects; and effects mediated by cholinergic receptors, including sweat gland activity (Stemmler, 2003). Each major receptor type has subtypes as well, with consequences that are still under investigation. The physiological effects mediated by these various mechanisms often diverge, and in patterns that correspond to different psychological states (Kreibig, 2010; Shiota, Neufeld, Yeung, Moser, & Perea, 2011). Recognition of this diversity and fine-ât•‰uning of sympathetic responses is recharging research on autonomic specificity, or the extent to which different emotions show different physiological profiles, and has proved important for emotion regulation research as well. For example, beta-╉ adrenergic receptor-âm•‰ ediated cardiac effects (i.e., increased heart rate and cardiac output, short- ened pre-âe•‰ jection period) are seen when people engage in a difficult task, regardless of whether they’ve been instructed to appraise that task as a threat or a challenge (Tomaka, Blascovich, Kibler, & Ernst, 1997). With threat appraisal (wherein instructions emphasize task difficulty), increased cardiac activity is accompanied by an increase in total vasoconstriction, consistent with a com- prehensive sympathetic response. With challenge appraisal (wherein task instructions encourage participants to “think of the task as a challenge” and of “yourself as someone capable of meeting that challenge”), the increase in cardiac activity is intensified, yet accompanied by a reduction in peripheral vasoconstriction, suggesting withdrawal of sympathetic influence on the arteries. This discovery has paved the way for a rich body of research documenting threat vs. challenge responses in a variety of important situations, as well as the benefits of challenge appraisal as a strategy for regulating emotion in the face of stress (e.g., (Mendes, Reis, Seery, & Blascovich, 2003). As we learn more about the diversity of ANS responses that can accompany emotions and their regulation, research may uncover similar kinds of distinctions in the effects of specific regulation strategies. Cortisol response to stress Effects of emotion on measures of ANS activity can be detected within seconds. Longer-ât•‰erm stressors, especially social stressors, may often evoke an increase in the hormone cortisol as well (Dickerson & Kemeny, 2004; Kirschbaum, Pirke, & Hellhammer, 1993). Cortisol produces some of the same peripheral effects as sympathetic nervous system activation, as well as a variety of additional effects, but is much slower to onset and can last much longer as well. Cortisol is easily measured through saliva, which can be assayed by a number of external labs. A number of stud- ies have examined the implications of trait (e.g., Lam, Dickerson, Zoccola, & Zaldivar, 2009) and experimentally instructed (Stansbury & Gunnar, 1994) use of various emotion regulation strate- gies for cortisol reactivity during a stressful task. However, some caveats are in order regarding use of cortisol as a measure of emotion regula- tion success. One is that cortisol shows a diurnal (daily) rhythm, typically peaking around the time that we wake up and then dropping over the course of the day and night (Stone et al., 2001). Because this diurnal rhythm can confound the effects of laboratory manipulations, it is important to run all study participants at around the same time of day. Also, people who have experienced chronic stress may show blunted cortisol reactivity, observable in both flattened diurnal slope

84 48 Biological and Physiological Aspects of Emotion Regulation (with blunted morning peaks but higher levels throughout the day) and reduced reactivity to stress tasks (Elzinga et al., 2008; Miller, Chen, & Zhou, 2007). As a result, it can be difficult to interpret individual differences in people’s cortisol responses to some tasks—d╉ o smaller responses indicate successful regulation, or an individual who is so depleted that they no longer show a healthy response to a challenging situation? Given these developments, caution is needed in inter- preting cortisol reactivity data while these issues are being worked out. Neural measures of emotional reactivity Finally, many studies have examined the effects of emotion regulation on neural measures of emotion. In these studies, the most commonly studied region is the amygdala. The amygdala is a subcortical, bilateral structure known to be necessary for the formation of new, emotionally-╉ enhanced memories, such as those that are formed during fear conditioning (LaBar, Gatenby, Gore, LeDoux, & Phelps, 1998; Phelps, 2006). It is frequently activated during neuroimaging stud- ies of negative affect, induced by pictures, videos, words or autobiographical memory prompts. Although the amygdala also responds to positive stimuli (Anderson et al., 2003; Cunningham, Van Bavel, & Johnsen, 2008), in the context of regulation of negative stimuli, its deactivation is usually thought to index successful down-r╉egulation of negative emotion, such as during cogni- tive reappraisal (Buhle et al., 2013). The amygdala is not the only neural region thought to respond to negative emotion in the brain, and to be down-âr•‰egulated by cognitive reappraisal. Activation of the insula, which is thought to relate to interoception and bodily responses during emotional experience, and the visual cortex are also successfully down-âr•‰egulated by successful reappraisal (Buhle et al., 2013). In addition, studies using scalp surface electrodes to measure event-âr•‰elated potentials (ERPs) to emotional stimuli have examined the effect of emotion regulation on the late positive potential (LPP), which is thought to index the intensity or personal salience of an emotional stimulus. Studies of instructed reappraisal have documented diminished LPPs in accordance with successful down-╉ regulation via reappraisal (Dennis & Hajcak, 2009). Finally, activation in reward-âr•‰ elated regions such as the nucleus accumbens can be regulated using reappraisal (Kim & Hamann, 2007), for example, activation here can be down-âr•‰ egulated by using reappraisal to re-t╉hink cravings for sub- stances of abuse (Kober, Kross, Mischel, Hart, & Ochsner, 2010). Emotion regulation process: regulation effort We have focused so far on the use of biological measures to index changes in emotion state that are in accordance with the regulatory goal. In addition, however, bodily and neural changes can be used to index regulatory processes that are brought online during attempts to change emo- tions. In this work, biological measures capture the process, rather than the result, of emotion regulation. For the most part, these measures serve as indices of effortful control rather than processes specific to emotion regulation. Subjective measures of difficulty or effort indicate that most individuals find following instructions to regulate more difficult than responding naturally to an emotional stimulus (McRae et al., 2010). In addition, several studies have documented the cognitive costs of ongoing emotion regulation effort by measuring performance on a concurrent task (e.g., Anderson, 2013), with impaired performance on that task indicating competition with emotion regulation for cognitive resources. Similarly, studies of ego depletion effects have shown that engaging in effortful emotion regulation can lead to disruption of performance on subse- quent self-r╉ egulatory tasks (Gailliot et al., 2007).

94 Emotion regulation process: regulation effort 49 Parasympathetic influence on the heart One biological variable that has been used to index emotion regulation effort is vagal parasympa- thetic influence on the heart (Porges, 2007). In an effect opposite to that of sympathetic influence, parasympathetic nervous system (PNS) influence slows heart rate down. Because this effect is blocked by respiratory intake, the slowing is absent while people inhale, and present while they exhale; the resulting change in heart rate over the course of the respiratory cycle can be used as an operational measure of parasympathetic influence on the heart. The first step in data process- ing is to calculate the intervals in milliseconds between each successive heartbeat, over some epoch of interest (there should be at least 30 seconds, preferably 60, to provide a stable estimate). Most studies then use a method such as Fourier transform to decompose the interbeat inter- val time-âs•‰eries into different frequency ranges, and calculate the amount or proportion of heart rate variability that can be accounted for by frequencies typical of breathing (typically .12–.â•4‰ 0 Hz). Commonly used measures include RSA, HF-H╉ RV, and the ratio of high-f╉requency to low-╉ frequency heart rate variability. Early studies identified a correlation between parasympathetic influence on the heart at rest, or “vagal tone,” and a variety of indices of dispositional emotion regulation ability. This effect is now well established by a rich body of research (Appelhans & Luecken, 2006). The effect is present in children as well as adults; for example, studies with middle-âs•‰chool and high-s╉chool students both found that those with conduct disorder showed lower resting baseline RSA than controls (Beauchaine, Gatzke-K╉ opp, & Mead, 2007). Higher vagal tone has also been found to predict spontaneous use of reappraisal while participants watched a distressing film clip (Volokhov & Demaree, 2010). Another study found that the relationship between resting vagal tone and subjec- tive well-âb•‰ eing was mediated by habitual use of emotion regulation strategies requiring executive cognitive control, but not by less effortful strategies (Geisler, Vennewald, Kubiak, & Weber, 2010). Documenting an in-t╉he-m╉ oment effect of emotion regulation on parasympathetic influence on the heart has proved trickier; vagal withdrawal is commonly observed during strong negative emotion (Kreibig, 2010), so it can be difficult to tease effects linked to emotional reactivity and regulation apart. However, a growing body of research suggests that baseline-ât•‰o-ât•‰rial increases in RSA during a negative emotion task are likely to indicate effortful emotion regulation in progress. For example, Butler and colleagues (Butler et al., 2006) observed increases in participants’ RSA during instructed reappraisal and expressive suppression, consistent with proposals that both strategies require cognitive control. More recently, studies have shown that greater increases in RSA during laboratory negative emotion tasks are associated with lower levels of trait-âl•‰evel emotional dysfunction consistent with deficits in regulation. For example, Austin and colleagues (Austin, Riniolo, & Porges, 2007) found that RSA increased over the course of several emotion-âe•‰ liciting films in healthy controls, but dropped in patients with borderline personality disorder. Di Simplicio and colleagues (Di Simplicio et al., 2012) showed that neuroticism interacted with image type in predicting RSA trajectories while participants viewed sets of images; those low on neuroticism showed greater increases in RSA during unpleasant pictures relative to neutral pictures, consistent with greater regulatory effort in the former condition, whereas those high on neuroticism showed the opposite pattern. These effects can be detected as early as preschool; Hastings and colleagues (Hastings et al., 2008) found that children’s RSA increases during a laboratory-b╉ ased social challenge signifi- cantly predicted both internalizing and externalizing symptoms. In each case, normative baseline-╉ to-ât•‰rial increases in RSA during some aversive task were less pronounced, or even absent, among individuals who also showed trait-l╉evel signs of difficulty regulating emotions.

05 50 Biological and Physiological Aspects of Emotion Regulation Two important caveats are needed in conducting and interpreting research using RSA and HRV as operational measures of emotion regulation as a process. First, as noted earlier, these mea- sures serve as markers for effortful control processes that generalize to a variety of tasks requiring executive function or cognitive control (Hansen, Johnsen, & Thayer, 2009; Segerstrom & Nes, 2007; Thayer, Hansen, Saus-âR•‰ ose, & Johnsen, 2009). This means not only that these measures are not specific to emotion regulation, but also that they are only likely to capture emotion regulation processes that require effortful control. Second, there is ongoing debate over whether it is nec- essary and appropriate to control for respiration rate and depth when analyzing RSA/H╉ F-H╉ RV data, as changes in breathing have their own effects on vagal activation (Porges, 2007). Although this step is commonly recommended, it should be done with an eye to theory, and the extent to which breathing might itself reflect or covary with a psychological process of interest. Consider that “taking a deep breath” is, in fact, a common emotion regulation strategy; by controlling for this behavior one may actually wipe out covariation linking regulatory effort to RSA or HF-âH•‰ RV. Our recommendation is to report analyses both with and without controlling for respiration, and to consider these issues carefully when interpreting findings. Associations with neural activation The same complexities that impact the interpretation of RSA/âH•‰ RV are also true of responding in neural regions thought to index negative emotion and support regulatory processes. Early reports of decreased amygdala responding during cognitive reappraisal, for example, were questioned with regard to whether the decreased activation was due to the completion of any effortful sec- ondary task, rather than reflecting the affective consequences of regulation (Ochsner, Bunge, Gross, & Gabrieli, 2002; Schaefer et  al., 2002). However, these concerns can be addressed by instructing individuals to use the same regulation strategy to achieve opposing emotional goals (Kim & Hamann, 2007; Ochsner et al., 2004). Any measure of regulatory effort should be elevated in all regulation conditions compared to a non-âr•‰ egulation baseline. By contrast, regions reflecting the successful regulation of emotion should change in accordance with the regulation goal. To address the question of changes in amygdala responding during reappraisal, this was resolved by instructing participants to use reappraisal to decrease or increase negative affect (Ochsner et al., 2004). This instruction resulted in decreased and increased amygdala activation respectively. This pattern was consistent with amygdala modulation reflecting the successful regulation of emotion rather than the effort exerted during regulatory processing. In addition, in these same early studies, a network of prefrontal regions was activated dur- ing the use of reappraisal to decrease and increase negative affect. This is strong evidence that these are the neural correlates of the regulatory processes involved in reappraisal, rather than an emotional consequence of reappraisal (Ochsner et al., 2004). These regions are highly overlap- ping with those engaged during cognitive control more broadly, and include: Dorsolateral regions thought to implement higher-âo•‰ rder goals, ventrolateral regions thought to be involved in keep- ing instructions in mind as well as generating verbal narratives as part of the re-i╉nterpretation, midline regions implicated in attention and awareness of one’s own emotional experience, and posterior parietal regions involved in the allocation of attention in space (Buhle et al., 2013). These prefrontal and parietal regions, implicated in cognitive control, are thought to do the “heavy lifting” involved in cognitive reappraisal. The overlap between these regions and those engaged during other types of cognitive control indicates that individual differences in emo- tion regulation ability should be related to other cognitive skills, a prediction that is borne out by behavioral evidence (McRae, Jacobs, Ray, John, & Gross, 2012; Schmeichel, Volokhov, & Demaree, 2008).

15 Putting an emotion regulation framework to work 51 Putting an emotion regulation framework to work This framework has been fruitful in better understanding different emotion regulation strate- gies, as well as providing a consistent structure for studies that compare strategies. A  grow- ing number of studies have compared two or more strategies, first in terms of their outcomes (emotional, social, cognitive, or all three), and then in terms of the cognitive processes engaged during their implementation. Based on these comparisons, researchers are able to form new predictions about the circumstances under which, and people for whom, certain strategies might be most adaptive. Reappraisal vs. suppression Comparing effects of regulation One emotion regulation strategy to which reappraisal is frequently compared is expressive sup- pression, or the outward inhibition of an internally felt emotion (Gross & Levenson, 1993). Suppression is sometimes necessary as a last-âd•‰ itch effort to regulate emotional expression in social contexts (e.g., When a strong feeling of sadness about the end of a romantic relationship swells during a business meeting, when crying would be seen as inappropriate). In Western contexts, however, the use of suppression is generally thought to be less effective, helpful, and adaptive than reappraisal. For example, individuals instructed to reappraise a disgusting film report successfully decreasing subjective negative emotion, whereas those using expressive suppression report little or no reduction in subjective distress (Gross, 1998). Those using reappraisal also show dimin- ished physiological responding, as outlined above, in terms of reduced startle response (Jackson et al., 2000; Ray et al., 2010), and responding in neural regions such as the amygdala (Ochsner et al., 2002; Schaefer et al., 2002). By contrast, there is some evidence that suppression can “back- fire” and actually increase physiological reactivity to negative stimuli, as measured by increases in peripheral physiology and amygdala activation (Goldin, McRae, Ramel, & Gross, 2009; Gross, 1998; Roberts, Levenson, & Gross, 2008). Beyond biology, there is evidence that, at least in Western contexts, suppression involves other costs as well. Some costs are social, in the form of lower levels of social responsiveness and more negative perceptions by social partners (Butler, Lee, & Gross, 2007). In addition, there are cogni- tive costs to suppression relative to reappraisal. Multiple studies have demonstrated that indi- viduals instructed to use suppression show impaired memory for the emotion-e╉ liciting stimulus, whereas those instructed to use reappraisal show improved memory (Dillon, Ritchey, Johnson, & LaBar, 2007; Hayes et al., 2010; Richards & Gross, 2000). Comparing processes recruited to regulate As discussed above, reappraisal has been shown to recruit a wide network of cognitive-c╉ ontrol related brain regions, including the dorosolateral prefrontal cortex, ventrolateral prefrontal cor- tex, medial prefrontal cortex, and bilateral parietal regions. Together, these regions support the re-c╉ onsideration of emotional meaning by representing the current emotional meaning (medial PFC), re-d╉ irecting attention (bilateral parietal corticies) and generating new narratives (ventro- lateral PFC) that change in accordance with the broader emotion regulation goal (dorosolateral PFC). Suppression, by contrast, is thought to be a more targeted cognitive control process, related more specifically to the inhibition of facial expression. Studies comparing reappraisal and sup- pression demonstrate greater prefrontal recruitment for reappraisal than suppression, especially early in the emotion regulation process (the first five seconds of a 15-âs•‰ econd film; (Goldin et al., 2009). By contrast, regions engaged during suppression continue to ramp up over the regulation

25 52 Biological and Physiological Aspects of Emotion Regulation period (Goldin et al., 2009). Finally, suppression also recruits the right inferior gyrus to a greater extent than reappraisal, a region that is thought to be engaged during the inhibition of prepo- tent responses more broadly (Garavan, Hester, Murphy, Fassbender, & Kelly, 2006; Rubia, Smith, Brammer, & Taylor, 2003). Reappraisal vs. distraction Comparing effects of regulation Reappraisal has also been compared to strategies involving attentional reallocation, such as dis- traction. Behavioral research indicates that both internally-âd•‰ irected distraction (telling people to think of something else; e.g., Sheppes & Meiran, 2007) and externally-âd•‰ irected distraction (giv- ing people a concurrent task to complete; e.g., McRae et  al., 2010)  result in successful down-╉ regulation of subjective negative emotion experience. Within the brain, externally-d╉irected distraction reduces amygdala activation to a greater extent than reappraisal (McRae et al., 2010). However, it is likely that specific contextual factors moderate the extent to which distraction vs. reappraisal is most effective; this is a promising area for future research. Comparing processes recruited to regulate By and large, many of the cognitive control regions that are recruited during reappraisal are also recruited during distraction. However, most of these regions demonstrate significantly stronger activation during reappraisal than distraction (Kanske, Heissler, Schönfelder, Bongers, & Wessa, 2011; McRae et al., 2010). This suggests that reappraisal may require more “executive” cognitive resources than distraction. Distraction more strongly recruits regions of a posterior attentional system (bilateral parietal regions, amongst others) than reappraisal (Kanske et al., 2011; McRae et al., 2010). Because attentional resources might be more quickly and less effortfully deployed than a coordinated response across several cognitive control systems, distraction may be easier and more effective in some ways than reappraisal. However, shifts in attention might be shorter-╉ lived than the shifts in meaning generated during reappraisal, requiring greater investment of effort over time. Behavioral research has confirmed the first of these predictions, showing that there are contexts in which distraction may be more effective than reappraisal. Specifically, distraction might be more effective if the time available for reappraisal is severely limited (Sheppes & Gross, 2011; Sheppes & Meiran, 2007). Reappraisal requires time to generate possible reappraisals, select amongst them, implement the selected reappraisal, and monitor for success (Ochsner & Gross, 2005). There is also some evidence that distraction may be a better choice when the emotional stimulus is of a very high intensity (Thiruchselvam et al., 2011). In this case, individuals may feel overwhelmed by their initial negative response, and unable to engage the cognitive resources required to gener- ate, select, and/o╉ r implement a high quality reappraisal. Attempting to reappraise while emotional intensity runs high is more effortful (Silvers, Weber, Wager, & Ochsner, 2014), and less likely to be successful, which might lead to frustration, and perhaps decreases an individual’s self-e╉ fficacy beliefs regarding emotion regulation. Despite these advantages, studies have also spoken to the second prediction above—t╉hat the effects of reappraisal are longer lasting than those of distraction, carrying over into any re-âe•‰xposure to the reappraised stimulus rather than requiring new investment of effort. Thus, distraction might be a good short-t╉erm strategy, but individuals who reappraise a situation are better equipped if that situation is ongoing or arises again (Denny, Inhoff, Zerubavel, Davachi, & Ochsner, 2015; Thiruchselvam et al., 2011). Taken together, these findings suggest that the relative merits of reappraisal and distraction depend on context, and may change over time. When time is

35 Putting an emotion regulation framework to work 53 tight, or an emotional situation is of high intensity, distraction may be a great short-t╉erm strategy. Once the individual has more time, more cognitive resources at his or her disposal, and/âo•‰ r the initial intensity of the experience has diminished, reappraisal might be a good choice to ensure more lasting effects. Variety among reappraisal strategies Comparing effects of regulation Although reappraisal is often contrasted with other families of emotion regulation strategies, there are also qualitatively different varieties of reappraisal. A number of recent studies have contrasted detached reappraisal, or concentrating on non-e╉ motion-e╉ liciting aspects and implications of the target situation, with positive reappraisal, concentrating on the situation’s positive aspects and implications. For example, if one had just had a car accident, the thought “these things happen, it’s not a big deal” would reflect detached reappraisal, whereas the thought “I wanted to get my bumper replaced anyway, and now insurance will pay for it!” would reflect positive reappraisal. Some studies have explicitly instructed participants in the use of these strategies (e.g., Shiota & Levenson, 2012), whereas others used instructions emphasizing the goals of increasing positive versus decreasing negative emotion, and measured the resulting strategy use (McRae, Ciesielski, & Gross, 2012). The handful of studies comparing these strategies suggest that positive reappraisal might be more desirable than detached reappraisal, or reappraising with the intent to return to a neutral point (McRae et al., 2012; Shiota & Levenson, 2012; Troy & Mauss, 2010). Both strategies are effec- tive in reducing the intensity of subjective distress, but when positive and negative affect are mea- sured separately, positive reappraisal is more likely to increase positive feelings (e.g., McRae et al., 2012; Shiota & Levenson, 2012). Positive reappraisal also promotes greater smiling—n╉ ot only an expression of positive emotion, but also a key affiliative signal (Papa & Bonanno, 2008)—t╉han detached reappraisal (Shiota & Levenson, 2012). From a biological standpoint, multiple studies have found that positive reappraisal leads to a higher level of autonomically-m╉ ediated physiologi- cal arousal (e.g., cardiac reactivity, skin conductance) than detached reappraisal (McRae et al., Shiota & Levenson, 2012). Prior research on physiological activity associated with positive emo- tion suggests that, rather than indicating a failure to regulate, this maintained arousal indicates positive, approach-âo•‰ riented engagement with the stimulus (Kreibig, 2010; Shiota et al., 2011). Less data are available contrasting the effects of detached and positive reappraisal on neural measures of emotional responding. One study instructed participants to increase their positive emotion in response to a positive picture, finding that this increases amygdala responding (Kim & Hamann, 2007). This effect is consistent with the proposal that amygdala activation can reflect whichever valence of emotion is most salient at the time a stimulus is processed, not just distress (Cunningham et al., 2008). This does not, however, speak to the effects of using positive reap- praisal for the purpose of regulating one’s response to a negative stimulus. However, prelimi- nary evidence suggests that although detached and positive reappraisal have comparable effects in shortening the duration of amygdala responding, the intensity of amygdala activation is reduced only by detached reappraisal (Waugh et al., in press 2016). These results parallel the peripheral physiology findings above, with detached reappraisal resulting in greater down-r╉ egulation of bio- logical markers of emotional engagement than positive reappraisal. Comparing processes recruited to regulate To date, most studies have compared the neural regions recruited during down-r╉egulation of negative responses to negative stimuli with those recruited in up-âr•‰egulation of positive emotion

45 54 Biological and Physiological Aspects of Emotion Regulation responses to positive stimuli, rather than contrasting the regions recruited in detached versus positive reappraisal of negative stimuli. These studies have been helpful in demonstrating that up-╉ regulation of positive emotion and down-r╉egulation of negative emotion activate similar neural regions: Left-l╉ateralized dorso-╉and ventro-╉lateral prefrontal cortex, midline prefrontal regions and bilateral parietal regions. However, some subtle differences may exist. Specifically, in one study the rostral medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC), associated with focusing on current affec- tive experience, was recruited more during up-âr•‰ egulation of positive emotion than during down-╉ regulation of negative emotion (Waugh et al., in press 2016). However, one study has directly compared implications of detached versus situational reap- praisal of negative stimuli for neural activity (Ochsner et al., 2004). A region of the left lateral PFC was recruited more strongly during instructed situational reappraisal, whereas an area of the right medial PFC region was recruited more strongly during detached reappraisal. This distinction may reflect the greater emphasis on reducing perceived self-âr•‰ elevance of the stimulus in detached reap- praisal, in contrast with the greater emphasis on manipulating information about the outside world in situational reappraisal (Ochsner et al., 2004). Much more information is needed about the differential cognitive mechanisms recruited by detached versus situational reappraisal, and neuroimaging studies are likely to prove valuable in this endeavor. Conclusion Studies of emotion regulation have compared and contrasted several emotion regulation strategies, using multiple measures. Measures of self-âr•‰eported affect, sympathetic responding, and neural activation from regions thought to index emotional intensity have been used to evaluate the suc- cess of various emotion regulation strategies. In addition, measures of subjective effort, RSA/H╉ RV, and engagement of neural regions have been used to characterize the effortful processes engaged during regulation. This framework has allowed for the rich characterization of a number of emo- tion regulation strategies, but has been particularly useful for documenting the success of cognitive reappraisal, as well, inspiring new hypotheses about the contexts in which it works best. Compared with other strategies, cognitive reappraisal is thought to be a relatively effective way to decrease negative emotion, although it does require intact cognitive control resources. The importance of cognitive reappraisal in various disorders can be seen in the various chapters in this volume. References Aldao, A., Nolen-‰âH• oeksema, S., & Schweizer, S. (2010). Emotion-r╉ egulation strategies across psychopathology: A meta-â•a‰ nalytic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 30(2), 217–â2•‰ 37. doi:10.1016/╉ j.cpr.2009.11.004 Anderson, A. K., Christoff, K., Stappen, I., Panitz, D., Ghahremani, D. G., Glover, G., … Sobel, N. (2003). Dissociated neural representations of intensity and valence in human olfaction. Nature Neuroscience, 6, 196–‰â2• 02. doi:10.1038/‰•nâ n1001 Appelhans, B. M., & Luecken, L. J. (2006). Heart rate variability as an index of regulated emotional responding. Review of General Psychology, 10(3), 229. Arnold, M. B. (1960). Emotion and personality. New York, NY: Columbia University Press. Austin, M. A., Riniolo, T. C., & Porges, S. W. (2007). Borderline personality disorder and emotion regulation: Insights from the polyvagal theory. Brain and Cognition, 65(1), 69–•7≠6. Beck, A. T., & Dozois, D. J. (2011). Cognitive therapy: Current status and future directions. Annual Review of Medicine, 62, 397–‰•â409. Bradley, M. M., & Lang, P. J. (1994). Measuring emotion: The self-a╉ ssessment manikin and the semantic differential. Journal of Behavior Therapy: Experimental Psychiatry, 25(1), 49–â‰5• 9.

5 Conclusion 55 Buhle, J. T., Silvers, J. A., Wager, T. D., Lopez, R., Onyemekwu, C., Kober, H., … Ochsner, K. N. (2013). Cognitive reappraisal of emotion: A meta-a​ nalysis of human neuroimaging studies. Cerebral Cortex, 24(11), 2981–​2990.doi:10.1093/c​ ercor/​bht154 Butler, E. A., Egloff, B., Wlhelm, F. H., Smith, N. C., Erickson, E. A., & Gross, J. J. (2003). The social consequences of expressive suppression. Emotion, 3(1), 48. Butler, E. A., Lee, T. L., & Gross, J. J. (2007). Emotion regulation and culture: Are the social consequences of emotion suppression culture-​specific? Emotion, 7(1), 30–​48. Butler, E. A., & Randall, A. K. (2013). Emotional coregulation in close relationships. Emotion Review, 5(2), 202–2​ 10. Butler, E. A., Wilhelm, F. H., & Gross, J. J. (2006). Respiratory sinus arrhythmia, emotion, and emotion regulation during social interaction. Psychophysiology, 43(6), 612–​622. Cacioppo, J. T., Berntson, G. G., Larsen, J. T., Poehlmann, K. M., & Ito, T. A. (2000). The psychophysiology of emotion. In M. Lewis & J. M. Haviland-J​ones (Eds.), The handbook of emotion. New York: Guildford Press. Cannon, W. B. (1929). Bodily changes in pain, hunger, fear and rage. Oxford, England: Appleton. Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (1995). Constructing validity: Basic issues in objective scale development. Psychological assessment, 7(3), 309. Cole, P. M., Martin, S. E., & Dennis, T. A. (2004). Emotion regulation as a scientific construct: Methodological challenges and directions for child development research. Child Development, 75(2), 317–​333. Costafreda, S. G., Brammer, M. J., David, A. S., & Fu, C. H. (2008). Predictors of amygdala activation during the processing of emotional stimuli: A meta-​analysis of 385 pet and fmri studies. Brain Research Reviews, 58(1), 57–7​ 0. Cunningham, W. A., Van Bavel, J. J., & Johnsen, I. R. (2008). Affective flexibility: Evaluative processing goals shape amygdala activity. Psychological Science, 19(2), 152–​160. doi:10.1111/​ j.1467-9​ 280.2008.02061.x Dennis, T. A., & Hajcak, G. (2009). The late positive potential: A neurophysiological marker for emotion regulation in children. J Child Psychol Psychiatry, 50(11), 1373–​1383. doi:JCPP2168 [pii] 10.1111/​ j.1469-7​ 610.2009.02168.x Denny, B. T., Inhoff, M. C., Zerubavel, N., Davachi, L., & Ochsner, K. N. (2015). Getting over it long-​ lasting effects of emotion regulation on amygdala response. Psychological science, 26(9), 1377–​1388. Di Simplicio, M., Costoloni, G., Western, D., Hanson, B., Taggart, P., & Harmer, C. (2012). Decreased heart rate variability during emotion regulation in subjects at risk for psychopathology. Psychological Medicine, 42(08), 1775–​1783. Dickerson, S. S., & Kemeny, M. E. (2004). Acute stressors and cortisol responses: A theoretical integration and synthesis of laboratory research. Psychological bulletin, 30(3), 355–3​ 91. Dillon, D. G., Ritchey, M., Johnson, B. D., & LaBar, K. S. (2007). Dissociable effects of conscious emotion regulation strategies on explicit and implicit memory. Emotion, 7(2), 354–3​ 65. Ekamn, P., & Friesen, W. (1978). Facial action coding system (facs): Manual: Consulting Psychologists Press. Elzinga, B. M., Roelofs, K., Tollenaar, M. S., Bakvis, P., van Pelt, J., & Spinhoven, P. (2008). Diminished cortisol responses to psychosocial stress associated with lifetime adverse events: A study among healthy young subjects. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 33(2), 227–​237. Etkin, A., Egner, T., & Kalisch, R. (2011). Emotional processing in anterior cingulate and medial prefrontal cortex. Trends Cogn Sci, 15(2), 85–​93. Evans, C. A., & Porter, C. L. (2009). The emergence of mother–i​nfant co-r​ egulation during the first year: Links to infants’ developmental status and attachment. Infant Behavior and Development, 32(2), 147–​158. Frijda, N. H. (1988). The laws of emotion. American Psychologist, 43(5), 349–​358.

65 56 Biological and Physiological Aspects of Emotion Regulation Gailliot, M. T., Baumeister, R. F., DeWall, C. N., Maner, J. K., Plant, E. A., Tice, D. M., … Schmeichel, B. J. (2007). Self-​control relies on glucose as a limited energy source: Willpower is more than a metaphor. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(2), 325. Garavan, H., Hester, R., Murphy, K., Fassbender, C., & Kelly, C. (2006). Individual differences in the functional neuroanatomy of inhibitory control. Brain Research, 1105(1), 130–1​ 42. Geisler, F. C., Vennewald, N., Kubiak, T., & Weber, H. (2010). The impact of heart rate variability on subjective well-​being is mediated by emotion regulation. Personality and Individual Differences, 49(7), 723–​728. Giuliani, N. R., & Gross, J. J. (2009). Reappraisal. In D. Sander & K. R. Scherer (Eds.), Oxford companion to the affective sciences (pp. 329–3​ 30). New York: Oxford University Press. Giuliani, N. R., McRae, K., & Gross, J. J. (2008). The up-​and down-​regulation of amusement: Experiential, behavioral, and autonomic consequences. Emotion, 8(5), 714–7​ 19. doi:10.1037/a​ 0013236 Goldin, P. R., McRae, K., Ramel, W., & Gross, J. J. (2009). The neural bases of emotion regulation: Reappraisal and suppression of negative emotion. Biological Psychiatry, 65, 170–1​ 80. Gross, J. J. (1998). Antecedent-​and response-​focused emotion regulation: Divergent consequences for experience, expression, and physiology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(1), 224–​237. doi:10.1037//0​ 022-​3514.74.1.224 Gross, J. J. (1998). The emerging field of emotion regulation: An integrative review. Review of General Psychology, 2(3), 271–​299. doi:10.1037//​1089-2​ 680.2.3.271 Gross, J. J. (2015). Emotion regulation: Current status and future prospects. Psychological Inquiry, 26, 1–​26. 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(2), 348–3​ 62. doi: 10.1037/​0022-​3514.85.2.348 Gross, J. J., & Levenson, R. W. (1993). Emotional suppression: Physiology, self-​report, and expressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(6), 970–9​ 86. Hansen, A. L., Johnsen, B. H., & Thayer, J. F. (2009). Relationship between heart rate variability and cognitive function during threat of shock. Anxiety, Stress, & Coping, 22(1), 77–​89. Hastings, P. D., Nuselovici, J. N., Utendale, W. T., Coutya, J., McShane, K. E., & Sullivan, C. (2008). Applying the polyvagal theory to children’s emotion regulation: Social context, socialization, and adjustment. Biological Psychology, 79(3), 299–3​ 06. Hayes, J. P., Morey, R. A., Petty, C. M., Seth, S., Smoski, M. J., McCarthy, G., & LaBar, K. S. (2010). Staying cool when things get hot: Emotion regulation modulates neural mechanisms of memory encoding. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 4, Article 230, 230–2​ 40. Jackson, D. C., Malmstadt, J. R., Larson, C. L., & Davidson, R. J. (2000). Suppression and enhancement of emotional responses to unpleasant pictures. Psychophysiology, 37(4), 515–​522. doi:10.1111/​ 1469-​8986.3740515 James, W. (1884). What is an emotion? Mind, 9, 188–2​ 05. Kanske, P., Heissler, J., Schönfelder, S., Bongers, A., & Wessa, M. (2011). How to regulate emotion? Neural networks for reappraisal and distraction. Cerebral Cortex, 21(6), 1379–1​ 388. doi:10.1093/​cercor/b​ hq216 Kellough, J. L., Beevers, C. G., Ellis, A. J., & Wells, T. T. (2008). Time course of selective attention in clinically depressed young adults: An eye tracking study. Behaviour research and therapy, 46(11), 1238–​ 1243. doi: http://d​ x.doi.org/​10.1016/​j.brat.2008.07.004 Keltner, D., & Gross, J. J. (1999). Functional accounts of emotions. Cognition and Emotion, 13(5), 467–4​ 80. doi:10.1080/​026999399379140 Kim, S. H., & Hamann, S. (2007). Neural correlates of positive and negative emotion regulation. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19(5), 776–7​ 98. doi:10.1162/j​ ocn.2007.19.5.776 Kirschbaum, C., Pirke, K.-​M., & Hellhammer, D. H. (1993). The “trier social stress test”: A tool for investigating psychobiological stress responses in a laboratory setting. Neuropsychobiology, 28(1–2​ ), 76–​81.

75 Conclusion 57 Kober, H., Kross, E. F., Mischel, W., Hart, C. L., & Ochsner, K. N. (2010). Regulation of craving by cognitive strategies in cigarette smokers. Drug & Alcohol Dependence, 106(1), 52–​55. doi:S0376-​ 8716(09)00309-​3 [pii] 10.1016/​j.drugalcdep.2009.07.017 Kreibig, S. D. (2010). Autonomic nervous system activity in emotion: A review. Biological Psychology, 84(3), 394–​421. Kurth, F., Zilles, K., Fox, P. T., Laird, A. R., & Eickhoff, S. B. (2010). A link between the systems: Functional differentiation and integration within the human insula revealed by meta-​analysis. Brain Structure and Function, 214(5–6​ ), 519–5​ 34. LaBar, K. S., Gatenby, J. C., Gore, J. C., LeDoux, J. E., & Phelps, E. A. (1998). Human amygdala activation during conditioned fear acquisition and extinction: A mixed-​trial fmri study. Neuron, 20(5), 937–​945. Retrieved from http://w​ ww.sciencedirect.com/​science/​article/​B6WSS-​418PT65-G​ /2​ /​ 6db719d8fc4eafdeb7c27f57d9c4cd48 Lam, S., Dickerson, S. S., Zoccola, P. M., & Zaldivar, F. (2009). Emotion regulation and cortisol reactivity to a social-​evaluative speech task. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 34(9), 1355–​1362. Retrieved from http://​ www.sciencedirect.com/​science/a​ rticle/​B6TBX-​4WBR6MR-1​ /2​ /a​ ca407e23f5603e5dc44c5e721bf27ee Lang, P., & Bradley, M. M. (2009). The international affective picture system (IAPS) in the study of emotion and attention. In J. A. Coan & J. B. Allen (Eds.), Handbook of emotion elicitation and assessment,. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer. Levenson, R. W. (1994). Human emotion: A functional view. In P. Ekman & R. J. Davidson (Eds.), The nature of emotion: Fundamental questions (pp. 123–​126). New York: Oxford University Press. Mauss, I. B., Levenson, R. W., McCarter, L., Wilhelm, F. H., & Gross, J. J. (2005). The tie that binds? Coherence among emotion experience, behavior, and physiology. Emotion, 5(2), 175–​190. Retrieved from http://​www.apa.org http://​www.apa.org/​journals/e​ mo.html McRae, K., Ciesielski, B., & Gross, J. J. (2012). Unpacking cognitive reappraisal: Goals, tactics, and outcomes. Emotion, 12(2), 250–2​ 55. doi:10.1037/A​ 0026351 McRae, K., Hughes, B., Chopra, S., Gabrieli, J. D., Gross, J. J., & Ochsner, K. N. (2010). The neural bases of distraction and reappraisal. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22(2), 248–2​ 62. McRae, K., Hughes, B., Chopra, S., Gabrieli, J. D. E., Gross, J. J., & Ochsner, K. N. (2010). The neural bases of distraction and reappraisal. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22(2), 248–​262. doi:10.1162/​ jocn.2009.21243 McRae, K., Jacobs, S. E., Ray, R. D., John, O. P., & Gross, J. J. (2012). Individual differences in reappraisal ability: Links to reappraisal frequency, well-​being, and cognitive control. Journal of Research in Personality, 46(1), 2–​7. doi:10.1016/​J.Jrp.2011.10.003 Mendes, W. B., Reis, H. T., Seery, M. D., & Blascovich, J. (2003). Cardiovascular correlates of emotional expression and suppression: Do content and gender context matter? J Pers Soc Psychol, 84(4), 771–​792. Miller, G. E., Chen, E., & Zhou, E. S. (2007). If it goes up, must it come down? Chronic stress and the hypothalamic-​pituitary-​adrenocortical axis in humans. Psychological Bulletin, 133(1), 25. Ochsner, K. N., Bunge, S. A., Gross, J. J., & Gabrieli, J. D. E. (2002). Rethinking feelings: An fmri study of the cognitive regulation of emotion. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 14(8), 1215–​1229. doi:10.1162/​ 089892902760807212 Ochsner, K. N., & Gross, J. J. (2005). The cognitive control of emotion. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9(5), 242–2​ 49. doi:10.1016/j​ .tics.2005.03.010 Ochsner, K. N., Ray, R. D., Cooper, J. C., Robertson, E. R., Chopra, S., Gabrieli, J. D. E., & Gross, J. J. (2004). For better or for worse: Neural systems supporting the cognitive down-​and up-r​ egulation of negative emotion. Neuroimage, 23, 483–​499. doi:10.1016/j​ .neuroimage.2004.06.030 Öhman, A., & Mineka, S. (2001). Fears, phobias, and preparedness: Toward an evolved module of fear and fear learning. Psychological Review, 108(3), 483–​522.

85 58 Biological and Physiological Aspects of Emotion Regulation Papa, A., & Bonanno, G. A. (2008). Smiling in the face of adversity: The interpersonal and intrapersonal functions of smiling. Emotion, 8(1), 1. Parrott, W. G. (1993). Beyond hedonism: Motives for inhibiting good moods and for maintaining bad moods. In D. M. Wegner & J. W. Pennebaker (Eds.), Handbook of mental control (pp. 278–​305). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Phan, K. L., Wager, T. D., Taylor, S. F., & Liberzon, I. (2002). Functional neuroanatomy of emotion: A meta-​analysis of emotion activation studies in pet and fmri. NeuoroImage, 16, 331–​348. Phelps, E. A. (2006). Emotion and cognition: Insights from studies of the human amygdala. Annual Review of Psychology, 57(1), 27–​53. doi:10.1146/a​ nnurev.psych.56.091103.070234 Phelps, E. A., & LeDoux, J. E. (2005). Contributions of the amygdala to emotion processing: From animal models to human behavior. Neuron, 48(2), 175–1​ 87. Retrieved from http://​www.sciencedirect.com/​ science/​article/​B6WSS-4​ HC6GJV-8​ /2​ /1​ 331df121450dfc81ccc3f30e982c49d Porges, S. W. (2007). The polyvagal perspective. Biological Psychology, 74(2), 116–​143. Ray, R. D., McRae, K., Ochsner, K. N., & Gross, J. J. (2010). Cognitive reappraisal of negative affect: Converging evidence from emg and self-​report. Emotion, 10(4), 587–5​ 92. doi:10.1037/​a0019015 Richards, J. M., & Gross, J. J. (2000). Emotion regulation and memory: The cognitive costs of keeping one’s cool. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(3), 410–​424. Riskind, J. H., & Gotay, C. C. (1982). Physical posture: Could it have regulatory or feedback effects on motivation and emotion? Motivation and Emotion, 6(3), 273–​298. Roberts, N. A., Levenson, R. W., & Gross, J. J. (2008). Cardiovascular costs of emotion suppression cross ethnic lines. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 70(1), 82–​87. Retrieved from http://w​ ww. sciencedirect.com/s​ cience/a​ rticle/​B6T3M-​4STGRRV-1​ /​2/​f27ee02477f8a4035febf7e602ba5a00 Rubia, K., Smith, A. B., Brammer, M. J., & Taylor, E. (2003). Right inferior prefrontal cortex mediates response inhibition while mesial prefrontal cortex is responsible for error detection. Neuroimage, 20(1), 351–3​ 58. Schaefer, S. M., Jackson, D. C., Davidson, R. J., Aguirr, G. K., Kimberg, D. Y., & Thompson-S​ chill, S. L. (2002). Modulation of amygdalar activity by the conscious regulation of negative emotion. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 14, 913–9​ 21. Scherer, K. R. (1997). Profiles of emotion-​antecedent appraisal: Testing theoretical predictions across cultures. Cognition & Emotion Vol 11(2) (Mar 1997): 113–1​ 50, 11(2), 113–​150. Retrieved from http://​ firstsearch.oclc.org/W​ ebZ/D​ ARead?key=0269-9​ 931%28199703%2911%3A2%3C113%3APOEATT%3E %26sp06sw02-2​ 100-d​ ym7j20i-​sabo1o%264588e776ee29fbb7264bb0c2bfe47a13ceb40a60d8eca260f8c56 399f336deb3&sessionid=0&db=ECO_F​ T&format=URL Schmeichel, B. J., Volokhov, R. N., & Demaree, H. A. (2008). Working memory capacity and the self-​ regulation of emotional expression and experience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(6), 1526–1​ 540. Retrieved from 10.1037/​a0013345 http://0​ -​search.ebscohost.com.bianca.penlib.du.edu/​ login.aspx?direct=true&db=psyh&AN=2008-1​ 6429-0​ 20&login.asp&site=ehost-​live Segerstrom, S. C., & Nes, L. S. (2007). Heart rate variability reflects self-r​ egulatory strength, effort, and fatigue. Psychological Science, 18(3), 275–2​ 81. Shafir, T., Taylor, S. F., Atkinson, A. P., Langenecker, S. A., & Zubieta, J.-​K. (2013). Emotion regulation through execution, observation, and imagery of emotional movements. Brain and Cognition, 82(2), 219–2​ 27. doi: http://d​ oi.org/1​ 0.1016/​j.bandc.2013.03.001 Sheppes, G., & Gross, J. J. (2011). Is timing everything? Temporal considerations in emotion regulation. Pers Soc Psychol Rev., 15(4), 319–3​ 31. doi:1088868310395778 [pii] 10.1177/​1088868310395778 Sheppes, G., & Meiran, N. (2007). Better late than never? On the dynamics of online regulation of sadness using distraction and cognitive reappraisal. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(11), 1518–​1532. Shiota, M. N., & Levenson, R. W. (2012). Turn down the volume or change the channel? Emotional effects of detached versus positive reappraisal. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(3), 416.

95 Conclusion 59 Shiota, M. N., Neufeld, S. L., Yeung, W. H., Moser, S. E., & Perea, E. F. (2011). Feeling good: Autonomic nervous system responding in five positive emotions. Emotion, 11(6), 1368. Silvers, J. A., Weber, J., Wager, T. D., & Ochsner, K. N. (2014). Bad and worse: Neural systems underlying reappraisal of high and low intensity negative emotions. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, nsu043. Stansbury, K., & Gunnar, M. R. (1994). Adrenocortical activity and emotion regulation. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 59(2–3​ ), 108–1​ 34. Stemmler, G. (2003). Methodological considerations in the psychophysiological study of emotion. Handbook of affective sciences, 225–​255. Stone, A. A., Schwartz, J. E., Smyth, J., Kirschbaum, C., Cohen, S., Hellhammer, D., & Grossman, S. (2001). Individual differences in the diurnal cycle of salivary free cortisol: A replication of flattened cycles for some individuals. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 26(3), 295–​306. Thayer, J. F., Hansen, A. L., Saus-​Rose, E., & Johnsen, B. H. (2009). Heart rate variability, prefrontal neural function, and cognitive performance: The neurovisceral integration perspective on self-​regulation, adaptation, and health. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 37(2), 141–1​ 53. Thiruchselvam, R., Blechert, J., Sheppes, G., Rydstrom, A., & Gross, J. J. (2011). The temporal dynamics of emotion regulation: An eeg study of distraction and reappraisal. Biological Psychology, 87, 2. doi: 10.1016/j​ .biopsycho.2011.02.009 Tomaka, J., Blascovich, J., Kibler, J., & Ernst, J. M. (1997). Cognitive and physiological antecedents of threat and challenge appraisal. J Pers Soc Psychol, 73(1), 63–​72. Troy, A. S., & Mauss, I. B. (2010). The up-​regulation of positive emotions in negative situations predicts well-b​ eing. Paper presented at the Poster Presented: Emotion pre-c​ onference, Society for Social and Personality Psychology, Las Vegas, NV. Troy, A. S., & Mauss, I. B. (2011). Resilience in the face of stress: Emotion regulation ability as a protective factor. In D. C. S. Southwick, M. Friedman, & B. Litz (Ed.), Resilience to stress (pp. 30–4​ 4). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Urry, H. L. (2010). Seeing, thinking, and feeling: Emotion-​regulating effects of gaze-​directed cognitive reappraisal. Emotion, 10(1), 125. Volokhov, R. N., & Demaree, H. A. (2010). Spontaneous emotion regulation to positive and negative stimuli. Brain and Cognition, 73(1), 1–6​ . Watson, D., & Vaidya, J. (2003). Mood measurement: Current status and future directions. Handbook of psychology, New York: Wiley. Waugh, C. E., Zarolia, P., Mauss, I., Lumian, D., Ford, B., Davis, T., … McRae, K. (2016). Emotion regulation changes the duration of the bold response to emotional stimuli. Social, Cognitive & Affective Neuroscience, 11(10), 1550–1​ 559. Woodward, S. H., Shurick, A. A., Alvarez, J., Kuo, J., Nonyieva, Y., Blechert, J., … Gross, J. J. (2015). Seated movement indexes emotion and its regulation in posttraumatic stress disorder. Psychophysiology, 52(5), 679–6​ 86. doi:10.1111/p​ syp.12386

06 Chapter 4 Cultural and Social Aspects of Emotion Regulation Selda Koydemir & Cecilia A. Essau Managing emotions In the last two decades, the field of psychology has witnessed a substantial interest in human emo- tionality, including how emotions are experienced, expressed, and managed. Emotion regulation is critical for well-âb•‰ eing given that studies have demonstrated the positive relationship between healthy emotion regulation and well-âb•‰ eing domains such as adjustment, mental health, and posi- tive social relationships (Gross, 2007). Research also shows that failure to regulate emotions is linked to a wide range of psychopathology as well as interpersonal, social and cognitive impair- ments (Aldao, Nolen-âH•‰ oeksema, & Schweizer, 2010; Rottenberg & Gross, 2003; 2007). Despite the growing literature on emotional processes, researchers continue to debate whether emotions are inborn, evolutionary reactions to the outside world or if they are a result of social and cultural practices (Ekman & Friesen, 1971; Lutz, 1988). Early research on emotion sug- gested emotions are universal and are accompanied by distinct bodily reactions (Ekman, 1965; 1984; Mead, 1975). For instance, although Ekman discussed the ability of individuals to regulate their emotions based on what cultures determine is the appropriate emotion expression, he also proposed that emotions should be perceived as cross-âc•‰ ulturally invariant. However, contempo- rary research using a culture-s╉pecific perspective of emotions suggests that emotions are social constructions and can be best understood on the social level (Kitayama, Markus, Matsumoto, & Norasakkunkit, 1997; Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Matsumoto, 1990). In fact, today, the universal nature of emotions is widely accepted, but the important role socialization processes and cultural values play on emotional expressions and processes is also considered. As such, emotions are perceived to be the product of cultural and social processes by which their physiological, neuro- logical, and psychological components are elicited (Cole, Tamag, & Shrestha, 2006; Kitayama & Markus, 1994). Cultural theories propose that the self and emotion are shaped by cultural meanings and practices (Bruner, 1990; Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Miller, 1999). The self is closely linked to regulation since regulatory processes have an effect on the way emotions are experienced as well as how those emotions are expressed in social situations (Srivastava, Tamir, McGonigal, John, & Gross, 2009). Besides, culture functions to maintain social order, and describes certain norms regarding emotion regulation (Keltner, Ekman, Gonzaga, & Beer, 2003). In line with these assumptions, past research has shown that there are cultural differences with respect to many aspects of emotion regulation including emotion-r╉elated appraisals (Mauro, Sato, & Tucker, 1992; Roseman, Dhawan, Rettek, Naidu, & Thapa, 1995), coping (Taylor, Sherman, Kim, Jarcho, Takagi, & Dunagan 2004; Yeh & Inose, 2002), and suppression (Matsumoto, Yoo, Hirayama, & Petrova, 2005).

16 SOCIALIZATION AND EMOTION REGULATION 61 This chapter focuses on the social and cultural aspects of emotion regulation by examining cultural explanations of emotional regulation differences, and documenting empirical evidence garnered from cross-âc•‰ ultural research. Understanding cross-âc•‰ ultural research Culture is one of the most commonly used concepts in contemporary psychological research. This popularity comes from the recognition that culture is a powerful tool in guiding our percep- tion, attention, behavior, and emotion, while also determining how we establish and maintain social relationships (D’Andrade & Strauss, 1992; Markus & Kitayama, 1991). Although culture has long been regarded as being restricted to nations, it has become important among researchers to emphasize not only geographical differences but also different aspects of culture itself includ- ing age, gender, ethnicity, religious affiliation, race, and traditions. Approaches in cross-c╉ ultural psychology, thus, conceptualize culture as dynamic systems. Early on, Triandis (1972) defined cul- ture by referring to “the shared attitudes, beliefs, categorizations, expectations, norms, roles, self-╉ definitions, values, and other such elements of subjective culture found among individuals whose interactions were facilitated by shared language, historical period, and geographical region.” (p. 3). Cross-c╉ ultural psychology deals with the study of relationships between behaviors and the cul- tural context. In essence, it compares behavior of interest across two or more cultures (Matsumoto, 1996). Cross-c╉ ultural psychology investigates both differences and similarities of constructs com- mon to a range of cultural contexts. In understanding behaviors and emotions, cross-c╉ultural psychology provides important sources to researchers by examining whether the psychological knowledge of one culture is applicable to another. Besides, in the field of clinical psychology, cross-c╉ ultural studies enable researchers to examine the universality of psychiatric disorders and symptoms; the cultural differences of experience of emotions and related emotional and behav- ioral problems; the meaning of psychiatric disorders and symptoms in different cultures; and the information that will facilitate culturally sensitive treatment options for disorders. Cross-âc•‰ ultural psychology also helps researchers to examine the variations in emotional display and functioning in different cultures, as well as the socialization practices that influence these variations in emo- tions (Ellsworth, 1994; Wang & Fivush, 2005). Cultural psychology, which is distinguishable from cross-âc•‰ ultural psychology, studies the rela- tionships within a given culture and certain psychological constructs in relation to individuals liv- ing in that particular region (Shiraev & Levy, 2010). Despite the differences in understanding and explaining the relationship between culture and psychological constructs, both cross-c╉ ultural psy- chology and cultural psychology contribute valuable information with regard to human behavior. Socialization and emotion regulation Cultural norms influence emotional development in the context of early parent-âc•‰hild relation- ships (Thompson, 1994) and by prescribing which, when, and how emotions should be displayed (Matsumoto & Juang, 2013). There are considerable cultural as well as intra-s╉ocietal variability in the experience and expressions of emotions (Mesquita & Karasawa, 2004). It is reasonable to assume that although the underlying biological system of emotions is universal, one should make certain changes in order to adapt to a variety of socio-c╉ ultural contexts in which they are embed- ded or exposed to (Mesquita & Albert, 2007; Ochsner & Gross, 2007). It is essential to understand the social environments surrounding the emotion regulation and related behavior so that the pro- cess and outcomes can be fully understood (Zeman, Cassano, Perry-P╉ arrish, & Stegall, 2006). As argued by Averill (1980), “emotions are not just remnants of our phylogenetic past, nor can they

26 62 Cultural and Social Aspects of Emotion Regulation be explained in strictly physiological terms. Rather, they are social constructions, and they can be fully understood only on a social level of analysis” (p. 309). The way parents respond to children’s emotions is crucial to children’s self-​and emotion-​ regulation capabilities. Parents can either directly affect children’s emotion regulation by coach- ing self-​regulation of children or indirectly by managing the emotional demands in the family (Thompson & Meyer, 2007). One study revealed that mothers’ problem solving responses to their children’s negative emotions were correlated with children’s constructive coping with problems (Eisenberg, et al., 1996). In other studies it was revealed that children of mothers who valued guid- ing emotion development had a better emotional understanding, emotional competence and psy- chosocial adjustment (Dunsmore & Karn, 2001; Katz, Maliken, & Stettler, 2012). Cunningham, Kliwer, and Garner (2009) showed that mothers’ emotion coaching is negatively associated with later internalizing and externalizing behavior. In a more recent study by Meyer et al. (2014), it was found that children of parents who attended to and accepted emotional experiences, and maintained more positive emotion socialization had children who had more constructive self-​ regulatory strategies. Parents’ socialization of emotions in their children seems to be important for the well-b​ eing of children. However, cultural differences are also present in relation to the socialization of emotions. Cross-c​ ultural research provides us with an understanding of the similarities and differences in the way emotions are experienced across different cultures as well as the socialization practices that play a role in the variations of emotions (Wang & Fivush, 2005). Both the experience and the expressions of emotion are culturally constructed and shaped by a given context (Lutz, 1988; Russell, 1991). People are socialized in a way that teaches them which emotions are appropriate and inappropriate in varying contexts (Elfenbein & Ambady, 2002; Parkinson, 1996). A variety of emotional processes show cultural differences given that different beliefs and values shape our affective life (Matsumoto, Kudoh, Scherer, & Walbott, 1988; Parkinson, 1996). Therefore, it is dif- ficult to understand emotion regulation without an understanding of the context of the practices that the sociocultural world creates (Cheung & Park, 2010). Gross and Thompson (2006) in their modal model theory of emotion regulation asserted that cognitive appraisals related to emotions are constructed by significant others’ and environment reactions to the specific behaviors in the concept of reasons and results. They concluded that chil- dren’s emotion regulation processes are highly influenced by their own culture in terms of their overt versus covert behavior, the level at which it is deemed socially acceptable to express personal goals and the degree of coping with problems. Besides, one’s goals, which are not only shaped by internal processes but also the socio-​cultural environment, are important in deciding how to manage a particular emotion. Prosocial goals, such as the desire to avoid negatively affecting oth- ers with one’s emotional expressions, can be an example of interpersonal goals shaped by others. Among the emotion processes, emotion regulation is crucial for physical and mental health and well-b​ eing. Emotion regulation consists of processes through which individuals modulate their emotions either consciously and nonconsciously so that they appropriately respond to the environment (Rottenberg & Gross, 2003; Thompson, 1994). Matsumoto (2006) defined emotion regulation as “the ability to manage and modify one’s emotional reactions to achieve goal-d​ irected outcomes” (Matsumoto, 2006, p. 421). The concept of emotion regulation is based on the idea that individuals are active agents in their emotional processes, and that they can control their emo- tions by using different regulation processes (Gross, 2007). It consists of selections of and changes in the duration, intensity, and balance of emotion-​related behaviors (Cole, Martin, & Dennis, 2004; Thompson, 1990). Thus, emotion regulation is a dynamic construct and does not only imply the suppression or control of emotion, but it also includes emotional substitution and the altera- tion of one’s emotions depending on the purposes.

36 SOCIALIZATION AND EMOTION REGULATION 63 Knowing one’s feelings, what emotions should be expressed when, and what to do with emotions are skills that are essential for adaptive social interactions and behavioral develop- ment (Halberstadt, Denham, & Dunsmore, 2001; Hubbard & Coie, 1994). In the development of these skills (i.e., emotion regulation), socialization plays a key role. To some extent, emo- tion regulation is learned through observation of others and the teachings of parents as to the accepted ways of expressing emotions (Denham, 1998). However, it is important to note that the norms and beliefs of the appropriateness of emotional experience and expression change among cultures. As Saarni (1999) states, cultural expectations from an individual are funda- mental for emotion regulation. Learning and understanding which group of emotions are appropriate to express, the way of expressing them, the best time to express them and selecting the appropriate person to express them to are all constructed depending on the familial values (Southam-​Gerow, 2013). There have been a limited number of studies that have examined the links between emotion socialization processes and children’s emotive functioning in different cultures. For example, in a study that examined parenting practices of mothers of pre-​school-a​ ge children living in Mainland China and those living in the Unites States, Chinese mothers’ tendency to encourage modesty in their children was found more often as compared to American mothers (Wu et al., 2002). Chinese mothers also considered shaming and love withdrawal to be more acceptable in terms of emotion parenting styles in comparison with American mothers. Suveg and collaegues (2014) compared families from the United States and China regarding family emotional expressiveness, children’s emotional experiences and regulation. Children and families from the United States were found to have greater emotional expressiveness than their Chinese counterparts. Furthermore, American children reported greater under-​controlled emotion that comprised externalizing types of manag- ing emotional experiences, such as slamming doors when angry and fussing/w​ hining when sad when compared to the Chinese children cohort. This study also showed that family expression of positive emotion was related to effortful emotion regulation among American children, whereas family expression of negative emotion was associated with under-​controlled emotion for both United States and Chinese children. It is known that typical emotion socialization of European American parents is supportive (Warren & Stifter, 2008). Western parents also prefer to talk about the causes and consequences of emotions (Wang, 2006). On the other hand, East Asian mothers use minimization as much as expressive encouragement (Tao, Zhou, & Wang, 2010), and do not support children’s emo- tion expression (Wang, 2006). In one study, to their child’s aggression toward peers, European American mothers reported non-s​upportive responses such as punishment as compared to Chinese mothers who used discussion and education to a greater extent (Cheah & Rubin, 2004). Additionally, European American mothers reported that they would be disappointed by child aggression whereas Chinese mothers thought they would be angry. Culture, thus, affects how parents use socialization of emotions. In sum, parents’ beliefs about emotion socialization and their child rearing practices are impor- tant in children’s emotion regulation. In fact, caregivers’ emotion socialization is key to emo- tion regulation development throughout childhood. Children take these beliefs as “… a meaning system for constructing the self, others, and social relations.” (Trommsdorff & Heikamp, 2013, p. 69). In general, supportive and constructive responses of parents (e.g., encouragement of emo- tion expression) facilitate the development of competent emotion regulation skills in children (Thompson & Meyer, 2007), while non-s​ upportive responses (e.g., punitive responses) are associ- ated with children’s poorer emotional competence (Denham & Grout, 1993). Besides, the experi- ence and expression of emotion is culturally constructed, and emotions are socialized in line with socially and culturally appropriate norms and expectations in different contexts. Therefore, it is

46 64 Cultural and Social Aspects of Emotion Regulation important to understand the socialization processes in different cultures in order to make sense of emotion regulation differences. Cultural models of self and emotion regulation Kitayama and Markus (1994, p. 4) argued that emotion is “fully encultured” and should be under- stood in terms of a cultural frame. Regarding the relationships between culture and human behav- ior, cultural models are known to involve certain beliefs and social practices which determine what is appropriate, moral, and desirable in terms of self and relationships. Following Hofstede’s (1980) important and popular work on cross-âc•‰ ultural differences in values, researchers became increasingly interested in the constructs of individualism and collectivism, and used this dimen- sion of culture as a theoretical model in their studies. Most of the cross-c╉ ultural studies in emo- tion regulation also made use of this dimension (e.g., Elfenbein & Ambady, 2003; Kwon, Yoon, Joormann, & Kwon, 2013). Generally speaking, individualism was described as a cultural pattern emphasizing an individual’s goal attainment and personal well-âb•‰ eing, whereas collectivism was perceived to place more emphasis on the collective such as the family or group. Researchers use this dimension and attribute individual traits to people from Western cultures, and attribute collective characteristics to people from non-W╉ estern cultures. Individualism is strongly associated with autonomy, competence, and personal achievement; whereas collectiv- ism is closely related with duty toward one’s group, interdependence, and maintaining harmony in relationships. Therefore, in most of the individualistic cultures such as the United States, the self is construed in independent terms as a unique entity, and differentiated from other people. On the other hand, in collectivist cultures such as Japan, the self is construed in interdependent terms that emphasize connectedness with other people, which become meaningful in the large context of social relationships (Heine, Lehman, Markus, & Kitayama, 1999; Hofstede, 2001). Not surprisingly, parents in collectivistic countries (e.g., China) tend to encourage the suppression of ego-f╉ocused emotions (e.g., anger) in order to maintain interpersonal harmony, and encourage their children to express group-o╉ riented emotions such as gratitude, whereas in individualistic cultures individual-o╉ riented emotions such as happiness are promoted to a greater extent (Saw & Okazaki, 2010). However, as it is well-k╉ nown, cultures are not homogenous, and depending on the situational cues, both individualistic and collectivist orientations can be manifested in individuals of very different cultures. In order to capture intra-╉and inter-âc•‰ ultural variance, one needs to move from a simple dichotomy such as individualism versus collectivism (Bond & Van de Vijver, 2011; Oyserman, Coon, & Kemmelmeler, 2002). As argued by Ford and Mauss (2015), it is not a mem- bership to a particular culture that is important in regulating emotion, but rather their motivation to do so. Independence and interdependence are present in all cultures; yet some cultures place more emphasis on one or the other. In this respect, when emotions and behaviors are contextual- ized in terms of cultural models of the self, it requires the acknowledgment that emotions and behaviors can be best understood at different levels. Triandis (1989) made an association between the macro-âl•‰evel cultural differences in individual- ism and collectivism and the micro-l╉evel self. He proposed that depending on a particular cul- ture’s emphasis on individualism and collectivism, different self-c╉ onceptualizations become more prevalent in a society. In this respect, in individualistic cultures, people are more concerned about themselves or individuals, and their thoughts are openly expressed. In collectivist cultures, people are more concerned with the in-g╉ roups that they belong to. Markus and Kitayama (1991) extended this model to create a distinction between the independent and interdependent self. The main differences between independent and interdependent models of the self is that while the former

56 Cross-cultural differences in emotion regulation 65 is concerned with individual autonomy and self-âa•‰ chievement, the latter is concerned primarily with social goals and maintaining harmony. This kind of a difference helps us to understand not only the differences among different cultural groups, such as Western and Eastern cultures, but also individuals who dominantly operate at either of these levels. To what extent relationships are valued and the ways they are evaluated differ as one’s independent and interdependent selves function. For example, in those cases in which independence is valued, relationships are evaluated in terms of meeting one’s personal needs (Rothbaum, Weisz, Pott, Miyake, & Morelli, 2000). On the other hand, in interdependent cultures, people want to fit in the social relationships, and one’s self is evaluated in terms of meeting the expectations of others (Oishi & Diener, 2003; Mesquita & Markus, 2004; Rothbaum et al, 2000). These arguments and empirical findings have several implications for the experience of human emotionality. The majority of the cross-c╉ ultural studies discuss cultural differences in emotion regulation in relation to the American notion of emotion regulation versus non-W╉ estern notions. These studies were based on the discussed cultural differences in individualism and collectiv- ism and the micro-âl•‰evel self. The following is a review of studies that examined the relationship between culture and emotion regulation. Cross-c╉ ultural differences in emotion regulation Contemporary research on emotion regulation has taken a social-o╉ riented approach and sug- gested that people can use emotion regulation with the goal of acting in accordance with others’ expectations (Rothbaum & Wang, 2010; Trommsdorff, 2009). The distinction between self-╉ oriented and social-o╉ riented emotion regulation is consistent with the view of the self as inde- pendent versus interdependent (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). The individual-âo•‰ riented approach observed in many Western cultures emphasizes authentic expression of emotions motivated by autonomy goals, whereas the social-o╉ riented approach observed in many non-âW•‰ estern societies is concerned with the goal of interdependence and relatedness (Kitayama, Mesquita, & Karasawa, 2006; Kitayama et al., 2000). In line with these assumptions, in cross-âc•‰ ultural research, a distinction has been made between socially engaging and disengaging emotions (Kitayama, Markus, & Kurokawa, 2000). It has been proposed that in cultures where the self is constructed with respect to interpersonal relationships and group cohesion, engaging emotions such as respect and shame become more salient. On the other hand, in cultures where the self is defined in individual and independent terms, disengag- ing emotions such as pride and anger are more salient (Kitayama, Mesquita, & Karasawa, 2006; Markus & Kitayama, 1991; 1994). Depending on which goals—i╉ndependent or interdependent—╉ are thwarted, certain emotions will arise which will eventually facilitate either social engagement or disengagement of the self. For example, caregivers in individualistic cultures tend to foster hap- piness as a goal which fits with the goal of autonomy (Heine at al., 1999; Mesquita & Albert, 2007), whereas in collectivistic cultures emotional harmony rather than intense happiness is fostered by caregivers since emotional harmony is associated with harmonious relationships and social order (Mesquita & Albert, 2007; Uchida & Kitayama, 2009). Another cultural difference manifested is in East Asian collectivistic cultures where negative emo- tions can be tolerated to a larger extent, down regulation of intense positive emotions is common, and, in some of these cultures, the balance between and moderation of positive and negative emo- tions are seen as dominant cultural scripts (Eid & Diener, 2001; Kitayama et al., 2000; Peng & Nisbett, 1999; Uchida & Kitayama, 2009). Morover, Americans are more likely than Japanese to experience positive emotions more frequently while Japanese are more likely than Americans to experience both positive and negative emotions in moderation more frequently (Miyamoto & Ryff, 2011).

6 66 Cultural and Social Aspects of Emotion Regulation One fundamental aspect of emotion regulation, which is also particularly relevant for under- standing the role of culture, is expressive suppression. Suppression is concerned with the inhibi- tion of the expressive, behavioral component of emotion, such as gestures or verbal expressions. It is well known that collectivist cultures are more likely than individualistic cultures to emphasize adjusting the self and behavior in order to maintain relationship harmony and social cohesion. This characteristic of the culture suggests that when the expression of an emotion is possibly det- rimental for one’s relationships, people tend to use emotional suppression which is in line with the interdependent model of the self. Thus, suppression of emotions may be more encouraged in collectivist cultures, with a motive to fulfill prosocial goals (e.g., suppression of anger to preserve group harmony). On the other hand, given that suppression may create a discrepancy between one’s inner experience of emotion and observable expressive behavior, the use of suppression may interfere with one’s self-c​ oncept which is a characteristic of the independent self. Therefore, indi- viduals from Western cultures could be expected to be less likely than individuals from East Asian cultures to use emotional suppression as a regulatory process. In line with these assumptions, Matsumoto and colleagues (2008) determined that cultures emphasizing social order and hierarchy scored higher on emotion suppression. Additionally, they reported that a positive correlation exists between emotion suppression and reappraisal for cultures emphasizing social order and hierarchy. On the other hand, for cultures emphasizing autonomy and egalitarianism, suppression scores were lower, and there was a negative correlation between suppression and reappraisal. Other studies support this finding, as they have demon- strated that suppression is not only more frequently applied in collectivistic cultures (Gross & John, 2003), but it is also associated with less negative social consequences and lower negative affect (Butler, Lee, & Gross, 2007; Soto, Levenson, & Eberling, 2005). An earlier study (Scherer, Matsumoto, Wallbott, & Kudoh, 1988) noted that Japanese individuals reported fewer gestures and body movement than Americans in situations of fear, anger, and sadness, as well as happiness. This can be explained by the argument that emotional expressions and behaviors are exhibited in a consistent manner that fits with cultural models. Cultures also differ with respect to the promotion of events that are associated with particular emotions. In other words, the extent to which certain events are created or facilitated varies in accordance with cultural goals. For people in Western/i​ndividualistic cultures, the dominant cul- tural pattern is to promote or create events that will maximize the experience of positive emotions and minimize negative emotions (Kitayama, Markus, & Kurakawa, 2000; Tsai & Levenson, 1997). In the typical North American culture, for instance, happiness activation is valued to a great extent, people are encouraged and reinforced to feel happy, many contexts in which happiness is likely to occur are created or promoted, and happiness is perceived as a result of fulfilling one’s personal goals (Hochschild, 1995; Mesquita & Walker, 2003; Wierzbicka, 1994). Besides, indi- viduals themselves tend to select situations in which they would engage in activities that promote happiness (Diener & Suh, 1999). In contrast, in Japan, happiness is not one of the most important goals of life. Pursuit of one’s individual happiness is not encouraged in the context of the society. Instead, pursuit of the happiness of the groups or the society is the main focus. Furthermore, indi- viduals in collectivist cultures are more likely to approach situations that foster contribution to others and emotions are cultivated as the means to harmonious relationships (Heine et al., 1999). Cultural differences in emotion regulation are also evident in terms of situation modification which is an important component of emotion regulation. Individuals with a dominant indepen- dent self emphasize personal well-b​ eing, and their own preferences; hence they tend to change the situations to fit their needs. On the contrary, since individuals with an interdependent self are pri- marily focused on the expectations and needs of others, they tend to accommodate others in dif- ficult situations (Kitayama, Duffy, & Uchida, 2007; Rothbaum & Trommsdorf, 2007). Given that

76 Cultural scripts and emotional experience 67 individuals with an independent self-âc•‰ oncept aim for happiness and autonomy, they use strategies to increase self-c╉onfidence. For individuals with an interdependent self-c╉oncept, harmony is a common goal and thus they are more willing to accept other people. Research shows that children who are motivated by autonomy tend to change stress-e╉ liciting situations to ones that facilitates happiness (Heine et al., 2001). On the other hand, in stress-e╉ liciting environments, children who are motivated by social harmony tend to restore calmness rather than seek happiness. Differences in emotion regulation styles within cultures were studied more than a decade ago by Weisz, Suwanlert, Chaiyasit, Weiss, Achenbach, and Eastman (1993) within Thai and American adolescents. In this study, parents’ reports were used to measure the differences. Researchers reported that Thai adolescents showed more control over (e.g., shyness, compulsivity) problems than Americans and their emotion regulation strategies were different from each other such that Americans were more direct, open and controlled aggressive towards others under controlled situations whereas Thai adolescents showed introversion behaviors. Morelen and colleagues (2012) compared the way in which children in Ghana, Kenya and America manage their anger in times of sadness. Children in Ghana were found to report display- ing their anger in more overt, under controlled ways than Kenyan and American children. Kenyan children on the other hand reported suppressing their anger more than children in Ghana and in the US. These findings suggested that children in Ghana were more expressive with wider fluctua- tions in their emotionality than children from the US and Kenya. In terms of sadness, American children were found to exert more control over this emotion than the two groups of African children; however, Kenyan children responded calmly to their sadness more than Ghanaian and American children. The authors argued that these differences may be related to socialization expe- riences, in that emotional expressivity is shaped by the expectations and responses of others to anger expression. Specifically, most of the children who lived in the village often received harsh repercussions for their overt emotional displays by family, whereas similar responses were not observed in the suburban areas. Speculatively, the village children might have learned to control their anger in response to the expectation that they would receive a punitive response to emo- tional displays. In another study, Zhou and Bishop (2012) examined experiential and cardiovascular out- comes of three anger regulation strategies (expression, suppression and reappraisal) in Chinese and Caucasian undergraduate students during a role-p╉ lay that was used to induce anger. Results indicated that Chinese students reported using reappraisal more frequently in anger situations than did Caucasians; whereas, no differences were obtained for suppression. Their findings also showed that cultural background moderated the effects of regulation strategy on cardiovas- cular reactivity (CVR) following anger provocation. Specifically, when asked to suppress their emotions, Caucasians showed stronger CVR, whereas, Chinese students showed stronger CVR when instructed to express their anger. The Chinese students’ greater use of reappraisal com- pared with Caucasians is interpreted as being consistent with the “other orientation” among the Chinese, indicating that Chinese people are attuned to others on psychological and behavioral levels (Yang, 1995). “Other orientation” is also related to a tendency to conform to others, strong concern about social norms, and an attempt to create a better impression on others through self-╉ monitoring (Zhou & Bishop, 2012). Furthermore, the ability to control the impulse to express anger is regarded by the Chinese as a good quality and is pursued as an achievement (Yang, 1995). Cultural scripts and emotional experience It is evident from cross-c╉ ultural research that Americans are more likely to appraise emotional situations as more pleasant when compared to Asians. For instance, Mesquita and Karasawa

86 68 Cultural and Social Aspects of Emotion Regulation (2002) found that Americans appraised emotional situations as positively different from neutral; however, Japanese and Taiwanese perceived situations in their lives as neither positive nor nega- tive. Other studies (e.g., Kitayama at al., 2000) also evidenced that Americans were more likely to report a higher frequency of positive than negative emotions than Japanese. These findings are in line with the cultural models that account for the differences between independent and interde- pendent orientations of the self. The general assumption is that people want to feel positive emotions (Larsen, 2000), however, the extent to which people want to regulate hedonically (i.e., to dampen their positive emotions or to not savor them) differs across cultures. For example, Americans have been found to mainly focus on the positive aspects of happiness; whereas, Japanese are more likely to indicate negative aspects of happiness more so than positive ones. Research has also shown that Easterners when compared to Westerners are more likely to experience positive and negative emotions in pre- dominantly pleasant situations while no differences are observed in the experience of emotions in predominantly unpleasant situations (Miyamoto, Kumagai, Lang, & Nunn, 2010). According to Gross (1998), these cultural differences in emotional experiences are determined by cultural scripts. The dominant cultural script in Western culture is to maximize positive emotions and minimize negative emotions (Kitayama et al., 2000). On the other hand, the cultural script that is dominant in Eastern culture is characterized by a tendency to seek a middle way by balancing positive and negative emotions. In many Eastern cultures, emotion moderation which refers to balancing positive emotions is a more preferred emotion regulation strategy (Miyamoto & Ma, 2011). It is also possible to under- stand the emphasis on positive-n​ egative balance in Eastern cultures by looking at the relationship between positive and negative emotions. Studies have revealed no significant correlation between positive and negative affects among Western samples; whereas, in individualistic cultures there is a negative, though small, correlation (Schimmack, Osihi, & Diener, 2002). This is in line with the findings of other studies that observed that for Americans, positive and negative emotions are opposites, whereas in Eastern cultures all emotions are accepted more readily (Heine et al., 1999; Miyamoto et al., 2010). Some emotions, such as guilt, are more valued in collectivistic cultures than individualistic cul- tures; whereas, emotions such as pride are perceived as more positive in individualistic cultures (Eid & Diener, 2001). The intensity and level of arousal of emotions also has a cultural component. For instance, low arousal, pleasant emotions such as relaxation are valued to a greater extent in collectivist cultures given that these emotions promote adjustment to others, while high arousal, pleasant emotions such as excitement, are more valued in individualistic cultures since these emo- tions promote influencing others (Tsai, Knutson, & Fung, 2006; Tsai et al., 2007). Westerners are also known to be more likely to think that positive emotions are desirable and appropriate and negative emotions are undesirable and inappropriate (Eid & Diener, 2001). It should be noted, however, that in some cultures, collectivism versus individualism may not be a relevant cultural dimension in terms of emotion regulation. For example, although Mexican culture is a relatively collectivist culture, in this culture there is a culture script called simpatia which basically emphasizes promotion of group harmony through the expression of positive emo- tion (Triandis, Marin, Lisansky, & Betancourt, 1984). Individuals in this culture tend to prefer high arousal emotions such as enthusiasm over low arousal emotions such as relaxation (Ruby et al., 2012) which contradicts with other studies (e.g., Tsai et al., 2006). Therefore, it is important to recognize that two different collectivist cultures may hold different cultural scripts; thus, research- ers should be careful about generalizing their findings. Cultural differences have also been reported in the prevalence and appreciation of anger, such that anger tends to be less prevalent in interdependent than in independent cultures (Markus &

96 Cultural scripts and emotional experience 69 Kitayama, 1991). In a study by Miyake et al. (1986), infants from relatively interdependent cul- tures were found to react stronger to their mother’s vocal expression of anger (but not joy or fear). This finding was explained in terms of the low frequency of anger in interdependent cultures. Moreover, the control of anger is related to high social functioning among Chinese school chil- dren (Zhou et al., 2004). Anger not only occurred in a low frequency in interdependent culture, but individuals from interdependent cultures also tolerated less anger. When anger was expressed in simulated negotiations Asians and Asian Americans made smaller concessions, whereas European Americans made larger concessions (Adam et al., 2010). Zahn-​Waxler et al. (1996) investigated how compared Japanese and American preschool children by investigating how preschoolers reacted to hypothetical interpersonal dilemmas. American, compared to Japanese children were reported to show more anger and undercon- trolled emotions such as disorganized, unusual, or incoherent displays of emotion. American mothers also encouraged their children to express emotions more than Japanese mothers. Japanese mothers, on the other hand, used more guilt and anxiety induction strategies and showed disappointment in the child if they failed to meet parental expectations when com- pared with American mothers. In a study by Lewis and colleagues (2010), white American, black American, and Japanese pre-s​choolers were compared on how they reacted to success and failure on a sticker matching task. Results showed that during the failure manipulation condition, American children expressed more sadness than Japanese children. During the success condition, American compared to Japanese children showed more pride; Japanese children, on the other hand, expressed more embarrassment than American children. In dis- cussing this finding, Lewis and colleagues argued that the Japanese children’s greater display of embarrassment across conditions is most likely related to cultural differences in response to being the object of another’s attention. In attempting to understand the above findings, it is important to note that children are socialized to regulate their emotion in accordance to their cultural script. A study by Miller, Wang, Sandel, and Cho (2002) indicated that American mothers considered it important to highlight their children’s success; Chinese mothers on the other hand considered it important to discipline children. Children’s emotional responses are closely tied to the differences in their parent’s response patterns to an event. For instance, while American parents empha- size their children’s academic success, for Chinese children the case is the opposite (Ng, Pomerantz, & Lam, 2007). In this study it was found that American mothers were more likely to provide positive comments (e.g., “You are so smart!”) than Chinese mothers; Chinese mothers on the other hand were more likely than American mothers to provide neutral and task-r​elevant statements (e.g., “Did you understand what the questions were asking or did you just randomly guess?”). Furthermore, Chinese children were reported to experience fewer positive emotions after success, and more negative emotions after a failure as com- pared to American children. Thus, cultural differences in parenting may affect children’s emotional expression towards certain events. Considering the cultural models of the self, it can be argued that being raised in an interdependent context can make it possible to be more sensitive to negative information. In a recent study by Miyamoto and Ma (2011), Easterners (i.e., East Asian Undergraduates) were found to recall engaging in hedonic emotion regulation less than Westerners (i.e., European American undergraduates) did. They also found cultural differences in emotion regulation to be mediated by dialectical beliefs about positive emotions. Furthermore, cultural differences in emo- tion that changed over time were partly explained by dialectical beliefs about positive emotions. These findings were interpreted in terms of the role that cultural scripts have in shaping emotion regulation and emotional experiences.

07 70 Cultural and Social Aspects of Emotion Regulation Emotion regulation and psychopathology An accumulating number of studies have shown a significant association between emotional sup- pression and psychopathology as well as negative health and social outcomes (Butler et al., 2007; Gross & John, 2003; Srivastava, Tamir, McGonigal, John, & Gross, 2009). For instance anxiety, dis- tress, and depression have been found to be linked with difficulties in emotion regulation (Gross & Munoz, 1995; Mennin et al., 2005). Studies also show that poor emotion regulation predicts eat- ing problems and alcohol abuse (Polivy & Herman, 2002; Tice, Bratslavsky, & Baumeister, 2001). Furthermore, difficulty in emotion regulation is a risk factor for such psychopathologies as social phobia, major depressive disorder, and bipolar disorder (Johnson, 2005; Kashdan & Breen, 2008; Rottenberg, Gross, and Gotlib, 2005). In a recent meta-âa•‰ nalysis, Aldao et al. (2010) documented that maladaptive emotion regulation strategies such as avoidance and suppression were associ- ated with psychopathology, whereas adaptive strategies such as reappraisal and acceptance were associated with less psychopathology. Emotional suppression has been one of the most widely studied emotion regulation strategies. Many studies documented that suppression is a positive predictor of depression and anxiety, and a negative predictor of life satisfaction (Gross & John, 2003; Kashdan & Breen, 2008; Wenzlaff & Luxton, 2003). In particular, anger suppression has been reported to be positively associated with high levels of guilt, irritability, and depression (Martin & Dahlen, 2005). However, most of these studies have been conducted in Western countries which emphasize independent cultural values. Questions have been raised whether this conclusion is universal. More recent studies have reported that the consequences of suppression are dependent on cultural context. As shown by Butler, Lee, and Gross (2007) female undergraduates with higher Asian values tended to suppress their emotion more often in their daily activities compared to those with European American values. Furthermore, cultural values were found to moderate the relation between emotion suppression and negative social outcomes; specifically, suppression seemed to serve prosocial goals among those with Asian values while among those with Western values, suppression seemed to serve a self-âp•‰ rotective function. In interpreting this finding, anger suppression was considered as a form of emotion regulation that promotes social engagement and psychological well-b╉ eing for interdependent individuals (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). In a study by Cheung and Park (2010) among college students, anger suppression mediated the effects of trait anger and family processes on depression. However, the link between anger sup- pression and depression was attenuated by an Asian American status. In one study Soto, Perez, Kim, Lee, and Minnick (2011) found that expressive suppression was linked with poor psychological functioning for European Americans but not for Chinese. Other studies also documented evidence for the positive effect of habitual suppression on negative affec- tivity in Western cultures (e.g., Butler et al., 2007). These findings are in line with the arguments that since Eastern cultures emphasize interdependence and harmony in social relationships, expressive suppression is more encouraged than in Western cultures in which personal values and independence are more important (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). It is also known that indi- viduals in Eastern cultures emphasize moderation of emotions more than European Americans (Matsumoto, 1993). Many studies showed a positive relationship between the interdependent self and depression (Mak, Law, & Teng, 2011). Cultural scripts, in relation to the extent to which positive emotions are valued, also have clini- cal importance. Leu, Wang, and Koo (2011) compared college students from different cultural contexts and found that perceived stress affected depression by means of intensity of positive emotions among European Americans, whereas for immigrant Asians, no such relationship was

17 Conclusion 71 observed. Additionally, for European Americans, but not immigrant Asians, positive emotions were associated with decreased depression. Furthermore, pure positive emotions predict better health outcomes among Western samples, whereas mixed emotions predict better physical health outcomes among Japanese (Miyamoto & Ryff, 2011). Conclusion Despite the general understanding that emotion regulation has a biological basis, the important role of cultural context in emotion regulation has been recognized both theoretically and empiri- cally in recent years (Cheung & Park, 2010). The process of emotion regulation takes place in socio-c╉ ultural contexts and thus is affected by the environment in which it occurs. As such, how individuals regulate their emotions is imperative in order to successfully live in social contexts (Keltner & Haidt, 2001; Lazarus, 1991). In this chapter we reviewed research to document to what extent an individual desires to start, intensify, or terminate emotions depends on cultural factors as well as cultural scripts and cultural models of the self. Several aspects of emotion regulation are influenced by cultural differences such as emotional expression (Matsumoto & Kupperbusch, 2001), cognitive reappraisal (Yeh & Inose, 2002), and emotional suppression (Matsumoto, Yoo, Hirayama, & Petrova, 2005). The larger social context offers standards for what is appropriate to feel and express, and how frequently an emotion regu- lation strategy is to be used. These standards provide expectations about the ways emotions are regulated (Kitayama et al., 2000; Mesquita, 2001). In Western cultures, promoting one’s autonomy and maintaining a positive self-v╉ iew serves as important goals for emotion regulation. On the other hand, in many non-W╉ estern cultures the most important goal for emotion regulation is meeting the expectations of others and maintaining harmonious relationships. Most of the cross-âc•‰ ultural research in this field has compared samples selected from Western and non-âW•‰ estern samples and arrived at similarities as well as differences in emotion regulation. For example, studies showed that emotion suppression is quite common among Asians (Gross & John, 1998; Matsumoto et al., 2008) while emotion expression is more common in Western cultures (Kim & Sherman, 2007). Empirical findings also suggest that the same emotion regu- lation strategies have different effects in different cultures. Although many studies have shown that emotional suppression is associated with psychopathology in Western countries, suppressing emotions leads to positive outcomes for East Asians (Matsumoto et al., 2008). Therefore, behav- iors are more likely to appear and feel right when it fits the individual’s goals. Since different socializing practices put differing emphases on autonomy versus harmony, emotion regulation strategies need to be tailored to these goals whilst considering the cultural microcosm in which the person resides. Despite the increasing studies on the social and cultural differences in emotion regulation, most studies use Japan or China as representations of collectivist cultures and the American as repre- sentative of individualistic cultures. More studies are needed in other Western and non-âW•‰ estern cultures in order to reach more reliable and generalizable conclusions. For instance Middle Eastern cultures or cultures balancing both individualism and collectivism may be interesting to compare. Besides, since cultures are not homogenous and often support both autonomy and harmony, within-c╉ ulture differences should be investigated more closely. Although cross-n╉ ational comparisons involving cultural variables are common methods of cross-âc•‰ ultural research, coun- tries cannot be considered cultures. The findings obtained from studies in social and cultural aspects of emotion regulation should be examined to determine the degree to which they replicate in other cultural groups.

27 72 Cultural and Social Aspects of Emotion Regulation References Adam, H., Shirako, A., & Maddux, W. W. (2010). Cultural variance in the interpersonal effects of anger in negotiations. Psychological Science, 21(6), 882–â8‰• 89. Aldao, A., Nolen-â‰H• oeksema, S., & Schweizer, S. (2010). Emotion-âr•‰ egulation strategies across psychopathology: A meta-╉analytic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 30(2), 217–╉237. Averill, J. R. (1980). A constructivist view of emotion. In R. Plutchik & H. Kellerman (Eds.), Emotion: Theory, research and experience (Vol. 1, pp. 305–â3•‰ 39). New York, NY: Academic Press. Bond, M. H., & Van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2011). Making scientific sense of cultural differences in psychological outcomes: Unpackaging the magnum mysterium. In M. H. Bond (Eds), Cross-‰â•cultural research methods in psychology, pp. 75–1╉ 00. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bruner, J. (1990). Culture and human development: A new look. Human Development, 33(6), 344–â‰3• 55. Butler, E. A., Lee, T. L., & Gross, J. J. (2007). Emotion regulation and culture: are the social consequences of emotion suppression culture-s╉ pecific? Emotion, 7(1), 30–•‰4â 8. Cheah, C. L., & Rubin, K. H. (2004). European American and Mainland Chinese mothers’ responses to aggression and social withdrawal in preschoolers. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 28, 83–‰•9â 4. Cheung, R. Y. M., & Park, I. J. K. (2010). Anger suppression, interdependent self-c╉ onstrual, and depression among Asian American and European American college students. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority, 16 (4), 517–5╉ 25. Cole, P. M., Martin, S. E., & Dennis, T. A. (2004). Emotion regulation as a scientific construct: Methodological challenges and directions for child development research. Child Development, 75, 317–â3‰• 33. Cole, P., Tamang, B. L., & Shrestha, S. (2006). Cultural variations in the socialization of young children’s anger and shame. Child Development, 77, 1237–â1•‰ 251. Cunningham, J. N., Kliewer, W., & Garner, P. W. (2009). Emotion socialization, child emotion understanding and regulation, and adjustment in urban African American families: Differential associations across child gender. Development and Psychopathology, 21, 261–•â‰283. D’Andrade, R. G., & Strauss, C. (1992). Human motives and cultural models (Vol. 1). New York: Cambridge University Press. Denham, S. A. (1998). Emotional development in young children. New York: Guilford Press. Denham, S. A., & Grout, L. (1993). Socialization of emotion: Pathway to preschoolers’ affect regulation. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 17, 215–‰•â227. Diener, E., & Suh, E. (1999). National differences in subjective well-b╉ eing. In D. Kahneman, E. Diener, & N. Schwarz (Eds.).Well-âb•‰ eing: The foundations of hedonic psychology, (pp. 434–4╉ 52). New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Dunsmore, J. C., & Karn, M. A. (2001). Mothers’ beliefs about feelings and children’s emotional understanding. Early Education and Development, 12, 117–‰•1â 38. Eid, M., & Diener, E. (2001). Norms for experiencing emotions in different cultures: inter-a╉ nd intranational differences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(5), 869–‰•8â 85. Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Guthrie, I. K., Murphy, B. C., Maszk, P., Holmgren, R., & Suh, K. (1996). The relations of regulation and emotionality to problem behavior in elementary school children. Development and Psychopathology, 8, 141–≕162. Ekman, P. (1965). Differential communication of affect by head and body cues. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2, 725–‰•7â 35. Ekman, P. (1984). Expression and the nature of emotion. In K. R. Scherer & E Ekman (Eds.). Approaches to emotion, (pp. 319–â3•‰ 44). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1971). Constants across cultures in the face and emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 17, 124–‰â•129.

37 Conclusion 73 Elfenbein, H. A., & Ambady, N. (2002). On the universality and cultural specificity of emotion recognition: a meta-a​ nalysis. Psychological Bulletin, 128(2), 203. Elfenbein, H. A., & Ambady, N. (2003). Cultural similarity’s consequences: A distance perspective on cross-​ cultural differences in emotion recognition. Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology, 34, 92–1​ 10. Ellsworth, P. C. (1994). Sense, culture, and sensibility. In S. Kitayama, & H. R. Markus (Eds.), Emotion and culture: Empirical studies of mutual influence, (pp. 23–5​ 0). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Ford, B. Q., & Mauss, I. B. (2015). Culture and emotion regulation. Current Opinion in Psychology, 3, 1–​5. Gross, J. J. (1998). Antecedent-​and response-​focused emotion regulation: Divergent consequences for experience, expression, and physiology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(1), 224–2​ 37. Gross, J. J., & Muñoz, R. F. (1995). Emotion regulation and mental health.Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 2(2), 151–1​ 64. Gross, J. J., & John, O. P. (1998). Mapping the domain of expressivity: multimethod evidence for a hierarchical model. Journal of Personality and Social psychology, 74(1), 170–​191. 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(2), 348–3​ 62. Gross. J. (Ed.). (2007). Handbook of emotion regulation. New York: Guilford Press. Gross, J. J., & Thompson, R.A. (2006). Emotion regulation: Conceptual foundations. In J. J. Gross (Ed.), Handbook of Emotion Regulation, (pp. 3–​26). New York: Guildford Press. Halberstadt, A. G., Denham, S. A., & Dunsmore, J. C. (2001). Affective social competence. Social Development, 10(1), 79–​119. Heine, S. J., Kitayama, S., Lehman, D. R., Takata, T., Ide, E., Leung, C., & Matsumoto, H. (2001). Divergent consequences of success and failure in Japan and North America: An investigation of self improving motivations and malleable selves. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(4), 599–6​ 15. Heine, S. J., Lehman, D. R., Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1999). Is there a universal need for positive self-r​ egard? Psychological Review, 106(4), 766–7​ 94. Hochschild, A. R. (1995). The culture of politics: traditional, postmodern, cold-​modern, and warm modern ideals of care. Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society, 2(3), 331–3​ 46. Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Hofstede, G. H. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. Hubbard, J. A., & Cole, J. D. (1994). Emotional correlates of social competence in children’s peer relationships. Merrill-​Palmer Quarterly, 40, 1–​20. Johnson, S. L. (2005). Mania and dysregulation in goal pursuit: A review. Clinical Psychology Review, 25, 241–​262. Kashdan, T. B., & Breen, W. E. (2008). Social anxiety and positive emotions: A prospective examination of a self-​regulatory model with tendencies to suppress or express emotions as a moderating variable. Behavior Therapy, 39, 1−12. Katz, L. F., Maliken, A. C., & Stettler, N. M. (2012). Parental meta-​emotion philosophy: A review of research and theoretical framework. Child Development Perspectives, 6(4), 417–4​ 22. Keltner, D., & Haidt, J. (2001). Social functions of emotions. In T. J. Mayne & G. A. Bonanno (Eds.), Emotions: Current issues and future directions. Emotions and social behavior, (pp. 192–​213). New York: Guilford. Keltner, D., Ekman, P., Gonzaga, G. C., & Beer, J. (2003). Facial expression of emotion. In Davidson, R. J., Scherer, K. R., & Goldsmith, H. H. (Eds.), Handbook of affective sciences, (pp. 415–​432). New York: Oxford University Press.

47 74 Cultural and Social Aspects of Emotion Regulation Kim, H. S., & Sherman, D. K. (2007). “Express yourself ”: Culture and the effect of self-​expression on choice. Journal of Personality and Social psychology, 92(1), 1–1​ 1. Kitayama, S. E., & Markus, H. R. E. (1994). Emotion and culture: Empirical studies of mutual influence. Washington, DC, American Psychological Association. Kitayama, S., Duffy, S., & Uchida, Y. (2006). Self as cultural mode of being. In. S. Kitayama & D. Cohen (Eds.), Handbook of cultural psychology, (pp. 136–1​ 73). New York: Guilford Press. Kitayama, S., Markus, H. R., & Kurokawa, M. (2000). Culture, emotion, and well-​being: Good feelings in Japan and the United States. Cognition and Emotion, 14(1), 93–​124. Kitayama, S., Markus, H.R., Matsumoto, H., & Norasakkunkit, V. (1997). Individual and collective processes in the construction of the self: Self-​enhancement in the United States and self-c​ riticism in Japan. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 1245–1​ 267. Kitayama, S., Mesquita, B., & Karasawa, M. (2006). Cultural affordances and emotional experience: socially engaging and disengaging emotions in Japan and the United States. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(5), 890–9​ 03. Kwon, H., Yoon, K. L., Joormann, J., & Kwon, J. H. (2013). Cultural and gender differences in emotion regulation: Relation to depression. Cognition and Emotion, 27, 769–7​ 82. Larsen, R. J. (2000). Toward a science of mood regulation. Psychological Inquiry, 11(3), 129–​141. Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Leu, J., Wang, J., & Koo, K. (2011). Are positive emotions just as “positive” across cultures? Emotion, 11(4), 994–​999. Lewis, M., Takai-K​ awakami, K., Kawakami, K., & Sullivan, M. (2010). Cultural differences in emotional responses to success and failure. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 34, 53–​61. Lutz, C. A. (1988). Unnatural emotions: Everyday sentiments on a Micronesian atoll and their challenge to Western theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Mak, W. S., Law, R. W., & Teng, Y. (2011). Cultural model of vulnerability to distress: The role of self-​ construal and sociotropy on anxiety and depression among Asian Americans and European Americans. Journal of Cross-​Cultural Psychology, 42(1), 75–8​ 8. Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224–2​ 53. Martin, R. C., & Dahlen, E. R. (2005). Cognitive emotion regulation in the prediction of depression, anxiety, stress, and anger. Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 1249−1260. Matsumoto, D. (1990). Cultural similarities and differences in display rules. Motivation and Emotion, 14(3), 195–​214. Matsumoto, D. (1993). Ethnic differences in affect intensity, emotion judgments, display rule attitudes, and self-​reported emotional expression in an American sample. Motivation & Emotion, 17, 107–1​ 23. Matsumoto, D., Kudoh, T., Scherer, K., & Wallbott, H. (1988). Antecedents of and reactions to emotions in the United States and Japan. Journal of Cross-​Cultural Psychology, 19(3), 267–2​ 86. Matsumoto, D., & Kupperbusch, C. (2001). Idiocentric and allocentric differences in emotional expression and experience. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 4, 113–1​ 31. Matsumoto, D., Yoo, S. H., Hirayama, S., & Petrova, G. (2005). Validation of an individual-​level measure of display rules: The display rule assessment inventory (DRAI). Emotion, 5(1), 23–​40. Matsumoto, D. (1996). Culture and psychology. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks Cole. Matsumoto, D. (2006). Are cultural traits in emotion regulation mediated by personality traits? Journal of Cross-​Cultural Psychology, 37(4), 421–4​ 37. Matsumoto, D., & Juang, L. (2013). Culture and psychology (5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/C​ engage Learning. Matsumoto, D., Yoo, S. H., Fontaine, J., Anguas-​Wong, A. M., Arriola, M., Ataca, B., Grossi, E. (2008). Mapping expressive differences around the world: The relationship between emotional display rules and individualism versus collectivism. Journal of Cross-​Cultural Psychology, 39, 55–7​ 4.

57 Conclusion 75 Mauro, R., Sato, K., & Tucker, J. (1992). The role of appraisal in human emotions: a cross-c​ ultural study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62(2), 301–3​ 17. Mead, D. J. (1975). Review of Darwin and facial expression. Journal of Communication, 25, 209–​213. Mennin, D. S., Heimberg, R. G., Turk, C. L., & Fresco, D. M. (2005). Preliminary evidence for an emotion dysregulation theory of generalized anxiety disorder. Behavior Research and Therapy, 43, 1281–1​ 310. Mesquita, B. (2001). Emotions in collectivist and individualist contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 68–​74. Mesquita, B., & Albert, D. (2007). The cultural regulation of emotions. In J. J. Gross (Ed.), The handbook of emotion regulation, (pp. 486–​503). New York: Guilford Press. Mesquita, B., & Karasawa, M. (2002). Different emotional lives. Cognition and Emotion, 16(1), 127–​141. Mesquita, B., & Karasawa, M. (2004). Self-​conscious emotions as dynamic cultural processes. Psychological Inquiry, 161–1​ 66. Mesquita, B., & Markus, H. R. (2004). Culture and emotion: Models of agency as sources of cultural variation in emotion. In N. H. Frijda, A. S. R. Manstead, & A. H. Fischer (Eds.), Feelings and emotions: The Amsterdam Symposium, (pp. 341–3​ 58). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mesquita, B., & Walker, R. (2003). Cultural differences in emotions: A context for interpreting emotional experiences. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 41(7), 777–7​ 93. Meyer, S., Raikes, H. A., Virmani, E. A., Waters, S., & Thompson, R. A. (2014). Parent emotion representations and the socialization of emotion regulation in the family. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 38(2), 164–1​ 73. Miyake, K., Campos, J. J., Kagan, J., & Bradshaw, D. L. (1986). Issues in socioemotional development. In H. Stevenson, H. Azuma & K. Hakuta (Eds.), Child development and education in Japan, (pp. 239–​261). New York, NY: W.H. Freeman. Miller, D. T. (1999). The norm of self-​interest. American Psychologist, 54(12), 1053–1​ 060. Miller, P. J., Wang, S. H., Sandel, T., & Cho, G. E. (2002). Self-​esteem as folk theory: A comparison of European American and Taiwanese mothers’ beliefs. Parenting: Science and Practice, 2(3), 209–​239. Miyamoto, T., Kumagai, T., Lang, M.S. & Nunn, M.E. (2010) Compliance as a prognostic indicator. II. Impact of patient’s compliance to the individual tooth survival. Journal of Periodontology, 81, 1280–​1288. Miyamoto, Y., & Ryff, C. D. (2011). Cultural differences in the dialectical and non-d​ ialectical emotional styles and their implications for health. Cognition and Emotion, 25(1), 22–3​ 9. Miyamoto, Y., & Ma, X. (2011). Dampening or savoring positive emotions: A dialectical cultural script guides emotion regulation. Emotion, 11, 1346–1​ 357. Morelen,D., Zeman,J., Perry-​Parrish, C., & Anderson, E. (2012). Children’s emotion regulation across and within nations: A comparison of Ghanaian, Kenyan, and American youth. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 30, 415–4​ 31. Ng, F. F. Y., Pomerantz, E. M., & Lam, S. F. (2007). European American and Chinese parents’ responses to children’s success and failure: implications for children’s responses. Developmental Psychology, 43(5), 1239–​1255. Ochsner, K. N., & Gross, J. J. (2007). The neural architecture of emotion regulation. In J. J. Gross (Ed.), Handbook of emotion regulation, (pp. 87–​109). New York: The Guilford Press. Oishi, S., & Diener, E. (2003). Culture and well-​being: The cycle of action, evaluation, and decision. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(8), 939–9​ 49. Oyserman, D., Coon, H. M., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2002). Rethinking individualism and collectivism: evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-a​ nalyses. Psychological Bulletin, 128(1), 3. Parkinson, B. (1996). Emotions are social. British Journal of Psychology, 87(4), 663–6​ 84. Peng, K., & Nisbett, R. E. (1999). Culture, dialectics, and reasoning about contradiction. American Psychologist, 54(9), 741–7​ 54. Polivy, J., & Herman, C. P. (2002). Causes of eating disorders. Annual Review of Psychology, 53(1), 187–​213.

67 76 Cultural and Social Aspects of Emotion Regulation Roseman, I. J., Dhawan, N., Rettek, S. I., Naidu, R. K., & Thapa, K. (1995). Cultural differences and cross-​cultural similarities in appraisals and emotional responses. Journal of Cross-​Cultural Psychology, 26(1), 23–4​ 8. Rothbaum, F., & Trommsdorff, G. (2007). Do roots and wings complement or oppose one another: The socialization of relatedness and autonomy in cultural context. In J. Grusec, & P. Hastings (Eds.), Handbook of socialization, (pp. 461–​489). New York: Guilford Press. Rothbaum, F., & Wang, Y. Z. (2010). Fostering the child’s malleable views of the self and the world: Caregiving practices in East Asian and European-​American communities. Psychologie–​Kultur Gesellschaft, Springer, Berlin (pp. 101–1​ 20). Rothbaum, F., Weisz, J., Pott, M., Miyake, K., & Morelli, G. (2000). Attachment and culture: Security in the United States and Japan. American Psychologist, 55(10), 1093–1​ 104. Rottenberg, J., & Gross, J. J. (2003). When emotion goes wrong: Realizing the promise of affective science. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 10, 227–​232. Rottenberg, J., & Gross, J. J. (2007). Emotion and emotion regulation: a map for psychotherapy researchers. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 14, 323–​328. Rottenberg, J., Gross, J. J., & Gotlib, I. H. (2005). Emotion context insensitivity in major depressive disorder. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 114, 627−639. Ruby, M. B., Falk, C. F., Heine, S. J., Villa, C., & Silberstein, O. (2012). Not all collectivisms are equal: Opposing preferences for ideal affect between East Asians and Mexicans. Emotion, 12, 1206–​ 1209. doi:10.1037/​a0029118. Russell, J. A. (1991). Culture and the categorization of emotions. Psychological Bulletin, 3, 426–​450. Saarni, C. (1999). The development of emotional competence. New York: Guilford Press. Saw, A., & Okazaki, S. (2010). Family emotion socialization and affective distress in Asian American and White American college students. Asian American. Journal of Psychology, 1, 81–​92. Scherer, K. R., Matsumoto, D., Wallbott, H. G., & Kudoh, T. (1988). Emotional experience in cultural context: a comparison between Europe, Japan, and the US. In K. R. Scherer (Ed.), Facets of emotion, (pp. 5–3​ 9). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Schimmack, U., Diener, E., & Oishi, S. (2002). Life‐satisfaction is a momentary judgment and a stable personality characteristic: The use of chronically accessible and stable sources. Journal of Personality, 70(3), 345–​384. Shiraev, E. B., & Levy, D. A. (2010). Cross-​cultural psychology: Critical thinking and contemporary applications (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Suveg, C., Raley, J. N., Morelen, D., Wang, W., Han, R. Z., & Campion, S. (2014). Child and Family Emotional Functioning: A Cross-​National Examination of Families from China and the United States. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 23, 1444–​1454. Soto, J. A., Levenson, R. W., & Ebling, R. (2005). Cultures of moderation and expression: emotional experience, behavior, and physiology in Chinese Americans and Mexican Americans. Emotion, 5(2), 154–1​ 65. Soto, J. A., Perez, C. R., Kim, Y. H., Lee, E. A., & Minnick, M. R. (2011). Is expressive suppression always associated with poorer psychological functioning? A cross-​cultural comparison between European Americans and Hong Kong Chinese. Emotion, 11(6), 1450–​1455. Southam-G​ erow, M. A. (2013). Emotion regulation in children and adolescents: A practitioner’s guide. New York: Guilford Press. 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(4), 883–8​ 97. Tao, A., Zhou, Q., & Wang, Y. (2010). Parental reactions to children’s negative emotions: Prospective relations to Chinese children’s psychological adjustment. Journal of Family Psychology, 24, 135–​144.

7 Conclusion 77 Taylor, S. E., Sherman, D. K., Kim, H. S., Jarcho, J., Takagi, K., & Dunagan, M. S. (2004). Culture and social support: who seeks it and why? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(3), 354–​562. Thompson, R. A. (1990). Emotion and self-​regulation. In R. A. Thompson (Ed.), Socioemotional development. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, (pp. 367–​467). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Thompson, R. (1994). Emotion regulation: A theme in search of a definition. Emotion regulation biological and behavioral considerations. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 59, 25–​52. Thompson, R. A., & Meyer, S. (2007). Socialization of emotion regulation in the family. In J. J. Gross (Ed.), Handbook of emotion regulation, 249–2​ 68. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Tice, D. M., Bratslavsky, E., & Baumeister, R. F. (2001). Emotional distress regulation takes precedence over impulse control: If you feel bad, do it! Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 53−67. Triandis, H. C. (1972). The analysis of subjective culture. New York: Wiley. Triandis, H. C. (1989). The self and social behavior in differing cultural contexts. Psychological Review, 96(3), 506–5​ 20. Triandis, H. C., Marin, G., Lisansky, J., & Betancourt, H. (1984). Simpatia as a cultural script of Hispanics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47(6), 1363–1​ 374. Trommsdorff, G. (2009). Intergenerational relations and cultural transmission. In A. Gari & K. Mylonas (Eds.), Quod erat demonstrandum: From herodotus’ ethnographic journeys to cross-c​ ultural research. Book of selected chapters of the 18th international congress of the International Association for Cross-​ Cultural Psychology (pp. 221–2​ 30). Athens, Greece: Pedio Books Publishing. Trommsdorff, G., & Heikamp, T. (2013). Socialization of emotions and emotion regulation in cultural context. In S. Barnow, & N. Balkir (Eds.), Cultural variations in psychopathology, (pp. 67–​92). Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe. Tsai, J. L., & Levenson, R. W. (1997). Cultural influences on emotional responding Chinese American and European American dating couples during interpersonal conflict. Journal of Cross-​Cultural Psychology, 28(5), 600–​625. Tsai, J. L., Miao, F. F., Seppala, E., Fung, H. H., & Yeung, D. Y. (2007). Influence and adjustment goals: Sources of cultural differences in ideal affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 1102–1​ 117. Tsai, J. L., Knutson, B., & Fung, H. H. (2006). Cultural variation in affect valuation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(2), 288–3​ 07. Uchida, Y., & Kitayama, S. (2009). Happiness and unhappiness in east and west: themes and variations. Emotion, 9(4), 441–4​ 56. Warren, H. K., & Stifter, C. A. (2008). Maternal Emotion‐related Socialization and Preschoolers’ Developing Emotion Self‐awareness. Social Development, 17(2), 239–2​ 58. Wang, Q. (2006). Relations of maternal style and child self-c​ oncept to autobiographical memories in Chinese, Chinese immigrant, and European American 3-y​ ear-​olds. Child Development, 77 (6), 1794–1​ 809. Wang, Q., & Fivush, R. (2005). Mother–​child conversations of emotionally salient events: Exploring the functions of emotional reminiscing in European‐American and Chinese families. Social Development, 14(3), 473–​495. Weisz, J. R., Suwanlert, S., Chaiyasit, W., Weiss, B., Achenbach, T. M., & Eastman, K. L. (1993). Behavioral and emotional problems among Thai and American adolescents: Parent reports for ages 12–1​ 6. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 102(3), 395–4​ 03. Wenzlaff, R. M., & Luxton, D. D. (2003). The role of thought suppression in depressive rumination. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 27, 293−308. Wierzbicka, A. (1994). Emotion, language, and cultural scripts. In S. Kitayama & H. R. Markus (Eds.) Emotion and culture: Empirical studies of mutual influence, (pp. 130–​196). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.

87 78 Cultural and Social Aspects of Emotion Regulation Wu, P., Robinson, C. C., Yang, C., Hart, C. H., Olsen, S. F., Porter, C. L., Jin, S., Wo, J., & Wu, X. (2002). Similarities and differences in mothers’ parenting of preschoolers in China and the United States. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 26, 481–4​ 91. Yang, K. S. (1995). Chinese Social Orientation: an Integrated Analysis. In Lin, T. Y., Tseng, W. S., Yeh, E. K. (Eds.), Chinese societies and mental health, (pp. 19–3​ 9). Oxford University Press, New York. Yeh, C., & Inose, M. (2002). Difficulties and coping strategies of Chinese, Japanese, and Korean immigrant students. Adolescence, 37(145), 69–​82. Zahn‐Waxler, C., Friedman, R. J., Cole, P. M., Mizuta, I., & Hiruma, N. (1996). Japanese and United States preschool children’s responses to conflict and distress. Child Development, 67(5), 2462–​2477. Zeman, J., Cassano, M., Perry-​Parrish, C., & Stegall, S. (2006). Emotion regulation in children and adolescents. Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics, 27(2), 155–​168. Zhou, T. & Bishop, G. D. (2012). Culture moderates the cardiovascular consequences of anger regulation strategy. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 86, 291–​298. Zhou, Q., Eisenberg, N., Wang, Y., & Reiser, M. (2004). Chinese children’s effortful control and dispositional anger/​frustration: relations to parenting styles and children’s social functioning. Developmental Psychology, 40(3), 352–3​ 66.

97 Chapter 5 Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) and Emotion Regulation Michael Sun, Meghan Vinograd, Gregory A. Miller, & Michelle G. Craske Emotion control The ability to control one’s emotional experiences can lead to richer, more productive, and healthier lives. For this reason, the study of emotion regulation has played a growing role in cross-âd•‰ isciplinary psychological research over the last two decades. As a result, we know that appropriate emotion regulation in childhood is associated with better mental (Gross & Muñoz, 1995) and physical health (Gross & Levenson, 1993, 1997; John & Gross, 2004), reduced stress (Martin & Dahlen, 2005), improved relationships (John & Gross, 2004; Lopes et al., 2011; Lopes, Salovey, Côté, Beers, & Petty, 2005), increased resistance to temptation (Casey et al., 2011), and more efficient workplace organization (Coté, 2005; Grandey, 2000). On the other hand, poor emo- tion down-r╉ egulation can lead to slower reaction times to emotional pictures (Ortner, Zelazo, & Anderson, 2013) and poorer long-t╉ erm memory (Richards & Gross, 1999, 2000). Emotion regula- tion has established itself as a valuable domain of inquiry in psychological science given its associ- ations with a variety of important outcomes. Although emotion regulation has often been invoked as a concept of relevance to the etiology, pathophysiology, and presentation of mental disorders (e.g., Aldao, Nolen-âH•‰ oeksema, & Schweizer, 2010; Campbell-âS•‰ills & Barlow, 2007; Cicchetti, Ackerman, & Izard, 1995; Gross, 1998; Gross & Muñoz, 1995), the concept itself has been met with confusion (e.g., Bridges, Denham, & Ganiban, 2004; Gross & Barrett, 2011; Thompson, 1994). A theoretical understanding of emotion generation and regulation that incorporates rel- evant findings emerging from the neuroscience literature is essential for scientific advancement and new avenues for clinical treatment. Mental health and disorder: A brief history The sixth United States Census, held in 1840, was the first national attempt to account for individ- uals with mental illness. There was but a single category: “idiocy/i╉nsanity” (American Psychiatric Association, 2016). It was not until 40 years later that attempts were made to refine this broad category, and seven categories emerged: mania, melancholia, monomania, paresis, dementia, dipsomania, and epilepsy (American Psychiatric Association, 2016). There was little need for increased conceptual separation at the time as there was little verifiable understanding of etiology or pathophysiology. Neither were there effective treatments to address mental disorders differen- tially once identified. The motivation for increased clinical utility did not emerge until 1917 in a collaborative effort between the American Medico-âP•‰ sychological Association (now the American Psychiatric Association) and the National Commission on Mental Hygiene (American Psychiatric Association, 2016). In 1949, the World Health Organization published the highly influential, sixth

08 80 Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) and Emotion Regulation edition of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-6​ ), which included 17 categories for mental health and psychological traits for the first time (American Psychiatric Association, 2016). The American Psychiatric Association (APA) Committee on Nomenclature and Statistics com- missioned the first edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-​I) in 1952. This initial version was poorly accepted and, when utilized, exhibited poor reliability. Clinicians could not agree which individuals belonged in which category, and it was lambasted by Dr. Erwin Stengel who was commissioned by the World Health Organization to provide a com- prehensive review of diagnostic issues facing both DSM-I​ and ICD-6​ and 7 (American Psychiatric Association, 2016). Stengel recommended progress be made toward explicitly defining mental disorders for the purposes of reliable clinical diagnosis. It was not until DSM-​III in 1980 that these suggestions were taken fully into consideration through the construction of several important conceptual innovations: 1) An effort toward explicit diagnostic criteria with more emphasis on overt behavioral manifestations and 2) a multiaxial diagnostic assessment system that included acute symptoms, trait abnormalities, medical concerns, and other psychosocial considerations (American Psychiatric Association, 2016). Its 494 pages provided 265 diagnostic categories (American Psychiatric Association, 1980), but concerns regarding diagnostic reliability and valid- ity continued. Efforts were made in subsequent revisions of the DSM to improve reliability. The DSM-5​ , pub- lished in 2013, features 157 diagnostic categories. Despite attempts to improve its reliability as a diagnostic tool, concerns remained. The traditional problem of under-a​ ccounting for dysfunction (i.e., a disorder yet to be discovered or separated from another disorder) persisted, and another problem emerged: The over-​accounting and over-s​eparation of mental disorder concepts which required scientific and clinical reconceptualization (e.g., Asperger’s and autism being moved to a single diagnostic spectrum; American Psychiatric Association, 2013). Moreover, the progression of the DSM has historically given more attention to reliability over validity, although the DSM-5​ did make significant advances in terms of validity (e.g., Clarke et al., 2013; Freedman et al., 2013; Narrow et al., 2013; Regier et al., 2013). As such, diagnostic nosologies such as the DSM and the ICD are continual works in progress, but each is a cultural artifact that roots itself in the language of clinical research, clinical practice, and broader traditions and trends extant at the time. The invocation of diagnostic categories reifies conceptualizations of mental function and dys- function. While generally reliable across health care providers, the literature often indicates that conventional diagnostic categories fail to achieve validity through convergent evidence with allied disciplines such as neuroscience (e.g., Casey et al., 2013; Cuthbert, 2014; Insel et al., 2010). It is anticipated that rapid developments in new methodologies such as genetics and neuroscience will enhance the granularity of analysis of mental disorders. Diagnostic categories describe subgroups with wide-r​anging symptom profiles, leading to problematically heterogeneous patient groups (e.g., Chen, Eaton, Gallo, & Nestadt, 2000; Litten et al., 2015; Wåhlstedt, Thorell, & Bohlin, 2009). The categories limit the capacity to identify new concepts that may advance our understanding of etiology, pathophysiology, and treatment for mental disorders. Solutions to these problems may be found by interweaving behavioral sciences with genetics, molecular biology, cellular biology, and neuroscience. In response to these issues with the DSM, the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) began an initiative in 2008 known as the Research Domain Criteria (RDoC; National Institutes of Mental Health, 2008). The RDoC calls for the “development … of new ways of classifying psycho- pathology based on dimensions of observable behaviors and neurobiological measures” (National Institutes of Health, 2014). The RDoC is a framework in-​progress, mapping current psychological concepts onto seven units of analysis: genes, molecules, cells, brain circuits, physiology, behav- ior, and self-​report. The RDoC also offers space to accommodate current and to-b​ e-d​ eveloped

18 Diverse perspectives of emotion 81 paradigms designed to elicit data relevant to putative psychological concepts. The ultimate goal of the RDoC is to foster research that identifies relationships between the psychological and biological phenomena central to mental illness and, to the extent possible, develop new, hybrid constructs (Kozak & Cuthbert, 2016) and conceptualizations (detailed below in “Importing New Concepts”) to better understand and improve mental health. The research and developing perspectives on emotion and emotion regulation will be used in this chapter to illustrate the application of the RDoC methods and models. The integration of emotion regulation within the RDoC framework fosters intellectual cross-f╉ertilization and inter-╉ disciplinary progress in understanding psychopathology. Furthermore, the controversy between contemporary diagnostic systems and the RDoC mimics the controversy between the basic and the dimensional conceptualization of emotion (e.g., Barrett, 1998; Barrett et al., 2007; Hamann, 2012; Izard, 2010, 2011; Panksepp & Watt, 2011). By extension, the field of emotion regulation is also routinely criticized for issues of reliable conceptualization (e.g., Gross & Barrett, 2011; Thompson, 1994). The RDoC, a unifying framework that is substantially agnostic theoretically, can be a useful approach for organizing the current state of research on emotion and emotion regulation. In doing so, it can identify key gaps on which to focus future inquiry. The aim of this chapter is to describe the RDoC’s relevance to the study of emotions, their regulation, and dysregulation. We outline how the tension between emphasizing DSM/âI•‰CD categories versus the RDoC dimensions parallels historic disputes between views that emphasize discrete ver- sus dimensional accounts of emotions. The two common views described here—t╉he Bradley-╉ Lang view and the Gross-O╉ chsner view—a╉ re dimensional accounts of emotion that complement rather than oppose common-s╉ ense discrete emotion (e.g., anger, sadness, fear, disgust, surprise, happiness) views. The RDoC readily accommodates each of these views of emotion in the service of understanding psychological disorders. At the same time, it preserves the option for viewing them categorically. Diverse perspectives of emotion When William James stated “everyone knows what it is” with regard to the patterns of panic, grief, anger, and sadness (James, 1884, p. 197), he would have never surmised that by 2016 the field would fail to achieve consensus with regard to emotion. Bradley and Lang (2006) claimed that “there are almost as many definitions [of emotion] as there are investigators.” Naturally, defining emotion regulation presupposes an understanding of emotion, making the lack of an agreed-âu•‰ pon definition of emotion a major impediment. Despite these conceptual obstacles, the construct of emotion dysregulation is widely recognized as a common factor across psychiatric disorders (Hofmann, Sawyer, Fang, & Asnaani, 2012; Kring, 2008). At its most basic level, emo- tion dysregulation can be seen as simply problems with emotion regulation. Given this defini- tion, possible classifications of emotion dysregulation can be proposed based on contemporary theories of emotion and emotion regulation. Below we briefly outline some of the major views of emotion and emotion regulation to provide a comparative context in which the RDoC is then placed. A more thorough map of theories of emotions is presented by others (e.g., Gendron & Barrett, 2009). Emotion as action preparation, regulation as action change As suggested by Bradley and Lang (2006, p. 589), one way to think of emotions is in terms of their behavioral functions: “Emotion is, inherently, a disposition to act.” This follows from the William James tradition of searching for ways to index the “organic reverberation” of emotion (James, 1884)  that results in overt behavior and preparation for it by the autonomic nervous

28 82 Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) and Emotion Regulation system. Two major ideas have emerged from the important work of Bradley and Lang. First is the biphasic model of emotion, with the notion that emotions are organized along two motivational systems: Approach and avoidance systems. The second is the bioinformational model of emotion, the notion that emotion-r​elated information is linked to neural activity via propositions. This second model posits that emotions are linked to neural activity that specifically represents the organism’s response propositions (i.e., actions and action tendencies) distinct from its stimulus or meaning propositions. In this section, we review insights derived from these models, explore what they mean for emotion regulation, and evaluate them from the RDoC perspective. The biphasic model of emotion is historically rooted in James’s hypothesis that physiology is the basis for every emotional response—t​hat the peripheral physiology is the emotion. Based on the James-L​ ange theory of emotion, Bradley and Lang evaluated whether discrete emotions (e.g., fear, joy, sadness) have unique physiological profiles. Results from this line of inquiry have thus far been largely disappointing (see Cacioppo, Berntson, & Hatfield, 1993). Instead, the physiological reactions to emotion-l​aden stimuli relative to non-​emotional stimuli support the idea that there are several robust physiological indicators of emotion in general, such as electrodermal, skeletal muscle, pupillary, and cardiac activity as well as numerous non-​invasive electromagnetic, opti- cal, and hemodynamic metrics of central nervous system activity. These indicators are loosely correlated with one another and form valenced motivational sets (or phases) of approach and avoidance behaviors that clearly diverge at increasing levels of emotion arousal. In other words, increases in the coupling of central and peripheral psychophysiological indicators seems to be determined by whether the organism is motivated to approach or avoid based on whether the focal stimulus in question (real or imagined) is appetitive or aversive. The regulation of emotion from this standpoint is a stimulus-i​nduced change in one or more of these action indicators. Its dysregulation therefore can be viewed as some inappropriate deviation from adaptive elicitation of an approach or avoidance action set. The biphasic motivational view complements learning and memory phenomena that play the- oretically important roles in the etiology and pathophysiology of mental disorders and behav- ioral dysfunction. For example, the conditioning equations described by Rescorla-​Wagner and their theoretical progeny (Mackintosh, 1975; Pearce & Hall, 1980; Rescorla, Wagner, & others, 1972)  feature formulations that include summations of the intensity of both non-​emotional conditional stimuli and emotional unconditional stimuli, as well as the organism’s learning rate. In studies of conditioned fear or reward learning, typical physiological and behavioral patterns related to avoidance and approach to unconditional stimuli are robustly elicited. As the associa- tion between conditional stimuli and unconditional stimuli increases over repeated trials, the pat- terns elicited in response to conditional stimuli increasingly resemble the response elicited by the unconditional one, demonstrating the phenomenon of emotional learning—o​ ne route of emotion regulation to a stimulus. Of course, emotions are elicited by imagined as well as environmental stimuli. Recognizing this, Lang and Bradley posited that emotions are elicited through mentalization conceptualized in a bioinformational theory of emotion (Lang, 1979), which they study through imagery para- digms. This theory conceives of emotion as based on sensory, conceptual, and action informa- tion in a network of propositions that includes biology as encoded neural action units. Sensory information is coded as stimulus propositions (e.g., the spider is black), and conceptual informa- tion is coded as meaning propositions (e.g., the spider is dangerous). Response propositions (not stimulus or meaning propositions) are directly linked to emotions, since emotions are viewed as actions and action tendencies: In this model, physiological activity that accompanies an emotion is viewed as being part of, not a response to, the emotion (Miller & Kozak, 1993; Miller, 1996). When imagining stimuli, stimulus-i​nduced neural activation that corresponds to features and

38 Diverse perspectives of emotion 83 meanings that do not result in action (e.g., “a black circle that is a shape” leads to no action) is unemotional. Nonetheless, such activation may influence response proposition-r╉elated neural activation that is emotional (e.g., “a black spider that is dangerous and should be avoided”, leads to flinching upon presentation of a spider). Imagined stimuli may prompt a different physiological profile than in vivo stimuli, in that the mental generation of such stimuli typically induces a non-╉ valence-âs•‰ pecific cardiac acceleration (thus for both positive and negative imaginal stimuli), which is viewed as reflecting emotional action engagement (e.g., Cuthbert, Vrana, & Bradley, 1991). In contrast, in vivo stimuli such as pictures and sounds seem to elicit differential patterns of heart rate and corrugator electromyography (EMG) based on affective valence, with negative and posi- tive stimuli eliciting increases and decreases, respectively (Bradley, Codispoti, Cuthbert, & Lang, 2001; Bradley, Moulder, & Lang, 2005). In the theories outlined above, relying on the three-s╉ystems view (Lang, 1968), emotions are equated with action, manifested in language expression, central and peripheral physiology, and/╉ or overt behavior. Whereas non-âh•‰ uman animals commonly show fairly close correspondence between preparation and behavior (e.g., Panksepp, 1998), the link between motivational engage- ment and overt action is weaker in humans, putatively because of the development of cortical control mechanisms that implement a regulatory function. Emotion regulation can thus be under- stood as a differential correspondence between central and peripheral physiological preparation and behavior: A smile without approach, a shudder without avoidance. The three-s╉ystems view foregrounds publicly observable data and intervening variables derived from them without pro- posing hypothetical constructs that characterize their relationship to emotion as a concept (for a review of the relationship between intervening variables and hypothetical constructs, see Kozak & Miller, 1982; MacCorquodale & Meehl, 1948). A theory of emotion would articulate hypothetical constructs as well as the bridge principles that connect observable variables with the constructs. How a theory constructs these relationships sets the stage for how we understand emotion regula- tion and its dysregulation. Some examples are delineated in Table 5.1. Although such bridge principles can be specified, and the overall psychophysics involved can be further refined, this view provides little with which to construct necessary and sufficient criteria for understanding emotion dysregulation or psychopathology. What makes a changed action set adaptive as opposed to maladaptive? How much deviation from normality can confer functional impairment via emotion dysregulation? The Bradley and Lang view does not have much to say about emotion regulation, and its extension to subsume that construct is not obvious. Thus, the “emotion is action” perspective and its vast empirical database occupy a critical though incom- plete place in the RDoC framework. Emotion and emotion regulation—ât•‰ wo steps of valuation The view that motivated action is necessary and sufficient for emotion is not accepted by some other theorists, who develop more elaborate sets of hypothetical constructs that are connected to observable data by more elaborate and less explicated sets of bridge principles. For example, Barrett and colleagues (e.g., Barrett, 2013; Barrett, Wilson-âM•‰ endenhall, & Barsalou, 2013; Harré, 1986) consider mental construction as a core aspect of emotion. Appraisal processes also often loom large (e.g., Scherer, 2009). A particularly popular view comes from a Gross-âO•‰ chsner understanding of emotion regulation, which was initially derived from peripheral psychophysiological data (Gross & Levenson, 1993) and has been elaborated more recently in a subdomain of psychophysiology now known as social cognitive affective neuroscience that puts more emphasis on phenomena of the central nervous system (Ochsner & Gross, 2005). These theories tend to involve much more diverse cognitive machinery to separate cognitive, emotional, and observable phenomena much more than do the Bradley-âL•‰ ang models, with emotion being framed as a feeling state that may