Emotion Regulation in Couples 281 solution and stability. Journal of Family Psy- elicitation using films. Cognition and Emo- chology, 7, 57–75. tion, 9, 87–108. Gottman, J. M., Coan, J., Carrere, S., & Swan- Gross, J. J., & Levenson, R. W. (1997). Hiding son, C. (1998). Predicting marital happiness feelings: The acute effects of inhibiting nega- and stability from newlywed interactions. tive and positive emotion. Journal of Abnor- Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60, 5–22. mal Psychology, 106, 95–103. Gottman, J. M., & Gottman, J. S. (2008). Gott- Gross, J. J., Richards, J. M., & John, O. P. man method couple therapy. In A. S. Gurman (2006). Emotion regulation in everyday life. (Ed.), Clinical handbook of couple therapy In D. K. Snyder, J. Simpson, & J. N. Hughes (pp. 138–164). New York: Guilford Press. (Eds.), Emotion regulation in couples and Gottman, J. M., & Levenson, R. W. (1985). A valid procedure for obtaining self-report of families: Pathways to dysfunction and health affect in marital interaction. Journal of Con- (pp. 13–35). Washington, DC: American Psy- sulting and Clinical Psychology, 53, 151–160. chological Association. Gottman, J. M., & Levenson, R. W. (1988). The Gross, J. J., Sheppes, G., & Urry, H. L. (2011). social psychophysiology of marriage. In P. Taking one’s lumps while doing the splits: A Noller & M. A. Fitzpatrick (Eds.), Perspectives big tent perspective on emotion generation and emotion regulation. Cognition and Emotion, on marital interaction: Monographs in social 25, 789–793. psychology of language, No. 1. (pp. 182–200). Gyurak, A., Goodkind, M. S., Kramer, J. H., Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Miller, B. L., & Levenson, R. W. (2012). Gottman, J. M., & Levenson, R. W. (1992). Executive functions and the down-regulation Marital processes predictive of later dissolu- and up-regulation of emotion. Cognition and tion: Behavior, physiology, and health. Jour- Emotion, 26(1), 103–118. nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, Gyurak, A., Gross, J. J., & Etkin, A. (2011). 221–233. Explicit and implicit emotion regulation: A Gratz, K. L., & Roemer, L. (2004). Multidi- dual-process framework. Cognition and Emo- mensional assessment of emotion regulation tion, 25, 400–412. and dysregulation: Development, factor struc- Hagemann, T., Levenson, R. W., & Gross, J. ture, and initial validation of the Difficulties J. (2006). Expressive suppression during an in Emotion Regulation Scale. Journal of Psy- acoustic startle. Psychophysiology, 43, 104– chopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 26, 112. 41–54. Havighurst, R. J. (1976). Developmental tasks Gross, J. J. (1998a). Antecedent- and response- and education. New York: David McKay. focused emotion regulation: Divergent con- Hawkley, L. C., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2010). Lone- sequences for experience, expression, and liness matters: A theoretical and empirical physiology. Journal of Personality and Social review of consequences and mechanisms. Psychology, 74, 224–237. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 40, 218–227. Gross, J. J. (1998b). The emerging field of emo- Hektner, J. M., Schmidt, J. A., & Csikszentmih- tion regulation: An integrative review. Review alyi, M. (2007). Experience sampling method: of General Psychology, 2, 271–299. Measuring the quality of everyday life. Thou- Gross, J. J., Carstensen, L. L., Pasupathi, M., sand Oaks, CA: Sage. Tsai, J., Skorpen, C. G., & Hsu, A. Y. C. Holley, S. R., Sturm, V. E., & Levenson, R. W. (1997). Emotion and aging: Experience, (2010). Exploring the basis for gender differ- expression, and control. Psychology and ences in the demand–withdraw pattern. Jour- Aging, 12, 590–599. nal of Homosexuality, 57, 666–684. Gross, J. J., & John, O. P. (2003). Individual dif- Jankowiak, W. R., & Fischer, E. F. (1998). A ferences in two emotion regulation processes: cross-c ultural perspective on romantic love. In Implications for affect, relationships, and J. M. Jenkins, K. Oatley, & N. L. Stein (Eds.), well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Human emotions: A reader (pp. 55–62). Mal- Psychology, 85, 348–362. den, MA: Blackwell. Gross, J. J., & Levenson, R.W. (1993). Emo- John, O. P., & Gross, J. J. (2004). Healthy and tional suppression: Physiology, self-report, unhealthy emotion regulation: Personal- and expressive behavior. Journal of Personal- ity processes, individual differences, and life ity and Social Psychology, 64, 970–986. span development. Journal of Personality, 72, Gross, J. J., & Levenson, R. W. (1995). Emotion 1301–1333.
282 SOCIAL ASPECTS Johnson, S. M. (1996). The practice of emotion- ties and the quality of social interaction. Emo- ally focused marital therapy: Creating connec- tion, 5, 113–118. tion. Philadelphia: Brunner/Mazel. Main, M., & Goldwyn, R. (1984). Adult attach- ment scoring and classification system. Julien, D., Brault, M., Chartrand, É., & Bégin, J. Unpublished manuscript, University of Cali- (2000). Immediacy behaviours and synchrony fornia, Berkeley. in satisfied and dissatisfied couples. Canadian Martin, R. A. (2007). The psychology of humor: Journal of Behavioural Science, 32, 84–90. An integrative approach. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier. Kagan, J. (1984). The nature of the child. New Mather, M. (2012). The emotion paradox in the York: Basic Books. aging brain. Annals of the New York Acad- emy of Sciences, 1251, 33–49. Kunzmann, U., Kupperbusch, C. S., & Leven- Mauss, I. B., Levenson, R. W., McCarter, L., son, R. W. (2005). Behavioral inhibition and Wilhelm, F. H., & Gross, J. J. (2005). The tie amplification during emotional arousal: A that binds?: Coherence among emotion expe- comparison of two age groups. Psychology rience, behavior, and physiology. Emotion, 5, and Aging, 20, 144–158. 175–190. McNulty, J. K., & Hellmuth, J. C. (2008). Emo- Lang, P. J., Greenwald, M. K., & Bradley, M. M. tion regulation and intimate partner violence (1988). The International Affective Picture in newlyweds. Journal of Family Psychology, System (IAPS) standardization procedure and 22, 794–797. initial group results for affective judgments. Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2007). Attach- Gainesville: Center for the Study of Emotion ment in adulthood: Structure, dynamics, and and Attention, University of Florida. change. New York: Guilford Press. Mischel, W., Ayduk, O., Berman, M. G., Casey, Laurent, H., & Powers, S. (2007). Emotion regu- B. J., Gotlib, I. H., Jonides, J., et al. (2011). lation in emerging adult couples: Tempera- “Willpower” over the life span: Decomposing ment, attachment, and HPA response to con- self-regulation. Social Cognitive and Affective flict. Biological Psychology, 76, 61–71. Neuroscience, 6, 252–256. Murray, S. L. (2005). Regulating the risks of Levenson, R. W. (1976). Feedback effects and closeness: A relationship-specific sense of felt respiratory involvement in voluntary control security. Current Directions in Psychological of heart rate. Psychophysiology, 13, 108–114. Science, 14, 74–78. Nelis, D., Kotsou, I., Quoidbach, J., Hansenne, Levenson, R. W. (2013). Emotion and emo- M., Weytens, F., Dupuis, P., et al. (2011). tion regulation. In D. Hermans, B. Rimé, Increasing emotional competence improves & B. Mesquita (Eds.), Changing emotions psychological and physical well-being, social (pp. 105–112). New York: Psychology Press. relationships, and employability. Emotion, 11, 354–366. Levenson, R. W., Cowan, C. P., & Cowan, P. A. Ochsner, K. N., Ray, R. D., Cooper, J. C., Rob- (2010). A specialty clinic model for clinical ertson, E. R., Chopra, S., Gabrieli, J. D., et al. science training: Translating couples research (2004). For better or for worse: Neural sys- into practice in the Berkeley Couples Clinic. tems supporting the cognitive down- and up- In M. C. Schulz, M. K. Pruett, P. K. Kerig, & regulation of negative emotion. NeuroImage, D. Ross (Eds.), Strengthening couple relation- 23, 483–499. ships for optimal child development: Lessons Ochsner, K. N., Ray, R. R., Hughes, B., McRae, from research and intervention (pp. 197–209). K., Cooper, J. C., Weber, J., et al. (2009). Washington, DC: American Psychological Bottom-up and top-down processes in emo- Association. tion generation: Common and distinct neu- ral mechanisms. Psychological Science, 20, Levenson, R. W., & Gottman, J. M. (1983). 1322–1331. Marital interaction: Physiological linkage and Richards, J. M., Butler, E. A., & Gross, J. J. affective exchange. Journal of Personality and (2003). Emotion regulation in romantic rela- Social Psychology, 45, 587–597. tionships: The cognitive consequences of con- Levenson, R. W., & Gottman, J. M. (1985). Phys- iological and affective predictors of change in relationship satisfaction. Journal of Personal- ity and Social Psychology, 49, 85–94. Levenson, R. W., & Ruef, A. M. (1992). Empa- thy: A physiological substrate. Journal of Per- sonality and Social Psychology, 63, 234–246. Lopes, P. N., Salovey, P., Côté, S., Beers, M., & Petty, R. E. (2005). Emotion regulation abili-
Emotion Regulation in Couples 283 cealing feelings. Journal of Social and Per- Sroufe, L. A., Coffino, B., & Carlson, E. A. sonal Relationships, 20, 599–620. (2010). Conceptualizing the role of early Roberts, N. A., Levenson, R. W., & Gross, J. J. experience: Lessons from the Minnesota lon- (2008). Cardiovascular costs of emotion sup- gitudinal study. Developmental Review, 30, pression cross ethnic lines. International Jour- 36–51. nal of Psychophysiology, 70, 82–87. Rowe, J. W., & Kahn, R. L. (1997). Successful Sze, J. A., Gyurak, A., Yuan, J. W., & Levenson, aging. The Gerontologist, 37, 433–440. R. W. (2010). Coherence between emotional Ruef, A. M., & Levenson, R. W. (2007). Contin- experience and physiology: Does body aware- uous measurement of emotion. In J. A. Coan ness training have an impact? Emotion, 10, & J. J. B. Allen (Eds.), The handbook of emo- 803–814. tion elicitation and assessment (pp. 286–297). New York: Oxford University Press. Thompson, R. A. (1991). Emotional regulation Salthouse, T. A. (2004). What and when of cog- and emotional development. Educational Psy- nitive aging. Current Directions in Psycholog- chology Review, 3, 269–307. ical Science, 13, 140–144. Saxbe, D., & Repetti, R. L. (2010). For better Tronick, E., Als, H., Adamson, L., Wise, S., & or worse?: Coregulation of couples’ cortisol Brazelton, T. B. (1978). The infant’s response levels and mood states. Journal of Personality to entrapment between contradictory mes- and Social Psychology, 98, 92–103. sages in face-to-face interaction. Journal of the Shaver, P. R., & Mikulincer, M. (2007). Adult attachment strategies and the regulation of American Academy of Child and Adolescent emotion. In J. J. Gross (Ed.), Handbook of Psychiatry, 17, 1–13. emotion regulation (pp. 446–465). New York: Tronick, E. Z. (1989). Emotions and emotional Guilford Press. communication in infants. American Psychol- Shiota, M. N., & Levenson, R. W. (2009). ogist, 44, 112–119. Effects of aging on experimentally instructed Whisman, M. A., Snyder, D. K., & Beach, S. R. detached reappraisal, positive reappraisal, and H. (2009). Screening for marital and relation- emotional behavior suppression. Psychology ship discord. Journal of Family Psychology, and Aging, 24, 890–900. 23, 247–254. Simpson, J. A., Collins, W. A., Tran, S., & Hay- Wile, D. B. (2002). Collaborative couple therapy. don, K. C. (2007). Attachment and the experi- In A. S. Gurman & N. S. Jacobson (Eds.), ence and expression of emotions in romantic Clinical handbook of couple therapy (3rd ed., relationships: A developmental perspective. pp. 281–307). New York: Guilford Press. Wrzus, C., Hänel, M., Wagner, J., & Neyer, F. J. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, (2013). Social network changes and life events 92, 355–367. across the life span: A meta-a nalysis. Psycho- Sternberg, R. J. (1986). A triangular theory of logical Bulletin, 139, 53–80. love. Psychological Review, 93, 119–135. Yerkes, R. M., & Dodson, J. D. (1908). The rela- Straus, M. A., Hamby, S. H., Boney-McCoy, S., tion of strength of stimulus to rapidity of habit & Sugarman, D. B. (1996). The Revised Con- formation. Journal of Comparative Neurol- flict Tactics Scales (CTS2). Journal of Family ogy and Psychology, 18, 459–482. Issues, 17, 283–316. Yuan, J. W., McCarthy, M., Holley, S. R., & Levenson, R. W. (2010). Physiological down- regulation and positive emotion in marital interaction. Emotion, 10, 467–474.
Chapter 18 The Cultural Regulation of Emotions Batja Mesquita Jozefien De Leersnyder Dustin Albert Emotion regulation promotes an individu- the central cultural tasks of standing out and al’s social adjustment. Having an emotion accomplishing personal and material goals means to take a stance, to have a particu- (e.g., Hochschild, 1995). Happiness com- lar relationship with the world (Solomon, municates to other Americans a “good inner 2004), and to have a specific intention to act self” and psychological well-being (Markus (Frijda, 1986). To take anger as an example, & Kitayama, 1994). Yet, as natural as the the experience of anger implies an attitude desire to be happy may seem to most Ameri- of nonacceptance, an assessment that one can readers, this emotion norm is far from has a relatively high level of control over universal. The anthropologist Catherine (others in) the situation (Frijda, Kuipers, & Lutz (1987), herself a European American, Terschure, 1989), and a readiness to act in was reprimanded for smiling at a girl who such a way that these other people accom- acted happy during her stay with the Ifaluk modate to your wishes, goals, and values (on a Pacific atoll). The Ifaluk condemn hap- (Stein, Trabasso, & Liwag, 1993). Emotions piness, because they believe it leads a person are thus relationship engagements (Mes- to neglect his or her social duties. Whereas quita, Marinetti, & Delvaux, 2012). Emo- European Americans seek to yield and to tion regulation refers to all those processes maximize happiness, Ifaluk life is geared involved in fashioning emotions to be most toward minimizing this emotion. An emo- adaptive within the relationship. tion’s fit with the cultural models of self and relationships will thus determine whether it Cultural differences in emotion regulation is up- or down-r egulated. are to be expected, because the common and most valued relationships differ across socio- In this chapter we propose, first, that the cultural contexts (e.g., Markus & Kitayama, endpoints of emotion regulation in each cul- 1991). Therefore, the emotions that are most ture are those that match the culture’s valued adaptive within those relationships—the ideas and norms of how to be a good person endpoints of emotion regulation—a re likely and how to relate to other people—the so- to differ cross-culturally as well. For exam- called cultural models of self and relating ple, feelings of cheerfulness and happiness (Bruner, 1990; D’Andrade, 1984; Markus are conceived as “good” and “desirable” in & Kitayama, 1991). Second, we propose European American culture (D’Andrade, that cultural regulation of emotions may be 1984; Wierzbicka, 1994), because they sig- initiated by an individual, but often is an nal that a person has successfully managed effect of the way the social environment is 284
The Cultural Regulation of Emotions 285 organized. Third, we will show that culture like others and to enhance the fit between (defined both at the level of the individual what one is doing and what is expected (e.g., and at the level of the social environment) Heine et al., 1999; Lebra, 1992). The culture plays an important role in all stages of emo- values a person’s self-improvement, with the tion regulation. aim of meeting these relational expectations, fulfilling role-based obligations, and dem- Cultural Models onstrating one’s loyalty to significant social To provide a foundation for the discus- ingroups (Heine et al., 1999; Rothbaum sion on emotion regulation, we first briefly Pott, Azuma, Miyake, & Weisz, 2000). Cul- review the idea of the cultural model itself. ture in the world is organized toward these Dominant cultural models of self and goals: Politeness rituals and strictly prescrip- relating are manifest in two distinct ways tive role behavior are cases in point. “Cul- that may be described as “culture in the ture in the head” can be seen from the East world” and “culture in the head” (Adams Asian tendency to take the perspective of the & Markus, 2004) On the one hand, “cul- generalized other and thus focus on meeting ture in the world” refers to a culture’s daily expectations (Cohen, Hoshino-Brown, & routines and organizational structures, to Leung, 2007; Masuda et al., 2008). the reward structures that are in place, to social expectancies, and to the common It should be noted that the theoretical types of social interaction. “Culture in the framework of cultural models does not world” thus stands for the affordances and assume or argue that people who live in constraints that implicitly (but powerfully) the same cultural context engage in exactly shape individual experience. On the other the same way. First, people engage in many hand, “culture in the head” refers to inter- models at the same time, such as models nalized goals, values, meanings, representa- of gender, socioeconomic status, cohort, tions, and behavioral repertoires, and thus ethnicity, religion, and professional status. translates into experiential and behavioral These models all structure individuals’ real- tendencies. Both manifestations of cultural ity, as do family dynamics, close relationship models—in the world and in the head— characteristics, and parenthood. Second, appear to be involved in emotion regulation. and perhaps relatedly, people do not inter- nalize the dominant cultural models in the This idea can be illustrated by contrasting same way and to the same extent. Yet even if the most widely studied cultural models: the people have not completely internalized the European American and East Asian cultural dominant models, they still have to contend models. According to middle-class Euro- with cultural models in the world (Shweder, pean American models of self and relating, 1991). the individual should be independent and free from others, as well as stand out among The “Right” Emotions Match them (e.g., Kim & Markus, 1999). On the the Cultural Models one hand, everyday social arrangements fos- What feels “right” differs substantially ter a self that is independent and free. Exam- across cultures, yet we propose that every- ples are sleeping arrangements: In contrast where the endpoints of emotion regulation to infants in many areas of the world, Euro- match the cultural models of self and rela- pean American infants sleep by themselves tionships (Eid & Diener 2001; Kitayama, very early on (Morelli, Rogoff, Oppenheim, Mesquita, & Karasawa, 2006; Mesquita & & Goldsmith, 1992; Shweder, 1991). On Leu, 2007; Tsai, Knutson, & Fung, 2006). the other hand, culture is internalized as the The “right” emotions may be those consis- psychological tendency of self-e nhancement tent with injunctive norms (ought-emotions, and the value attached to choice in Euro- [dis]approved by most others in the culture), pean American contexts (Heine, Lehman, ideal emotions (emotions wanted by most Markus, & Kitayama, 1999; Hochschild, others in the culture), or descriptive norms 1995). (emotions actually experienced by most oth- ers in the culture). Cultural differences in In contrast, the dominant goal of the self the explicit feeling rules and ideal emotions in most East Asian cultural contexts is to be
286 SOCIAL ASPECTS illustrate the different endpoints of regula- such as peaceful and serene feelings. Further tion; cultural differences in the commonly research showed that ideal emotions prepare experienced emotions are taken as evidence individuals best for the tasks that are cul- for culture-specific emotion norms, if they turally central (Tsai, Miao, Seppala, Fung, match the respective models of self and relat- & Yeung, 2007). High-activation positive ing. emotions, promoted in North American contexts, prepare individuals for influencing Feeling Rules and Ideal Emotions others. In contrast, low-activation positive Match the Cultural Models emotions, promoted in East Asian contexts, A culture’s feeling rules—the most desirable facilitate social adjustment. and valued emotional states—a re endpoints of emotion regulation. Differences in feeling Patterns of Emotional Experience rules can be understood from differences in Match the Cultural Models the dominant cultural models. For instance, That the endpoints of regulation differ may Eid and Diener (2001) conducted a large also be inferred from cultural differences cross-cultural study in which participants in the prevalent emotional patterns (i.e., from both independent (European American the patterns of frequencies and intensities), and Australian) and interdependent (China which can be understood from the pertinent and Taiwan) cultural contexts rated the cultural models of self and relating. Adopt- desirability of several emotions, both posi- ing a variety of methods, Kitayama and his tive and negative. The largest cultural differ- colleagues (2006; Kitayama & Markus, ences in desirability were found for “pride” 2000) found that European American par- and “guilt.” Feelings of pride were more ticipants reported more socially disengag- positively valued in independent than in ing emotions—such as feeling pride, anger, interdependent cultures, whereas the oppo- or irritation—and Japanese participants site was true for feelings of guilt. This may reported more socially engaging emotions— be the case, because pride signals a person’s such as feeling close, ashamed or indebted. autonomy and uniqueness, which are val- The dimension of social engagement was ued in independent cultures but considered empirically derived, and emotions on the “dangerous” in interdependent cultures that disengaging end of the dimension underline recognize the potential of pride to disrupt an individual’s independence, whereas emo- social harmony. Conversely, guilt may be tions on the engaging end foreground the desirable from the viewpoint of East Asian connectedness between people. The studies cultural models, because it signals an indi- made use of the self-reported frequency of vidual’s concern for relational harmony (and emotions in the past month, the self-r eported the readiness to take full responsibility for a emotional experience in response to a pre- violation of this harmony), but undesirable defined set of situation types, and daily dairy in Western cultures because it suggests a less studies. Cultural differences in emotions, as than positive performance of the individual. they appear from these studies, correspond with other reports of emotions for the same There are also systematic cultural dif- cultures (see the high frequency and preva- ferences in the emotions people “ideally lence of shame in Japanese cultural contexts would like to feel” (Tsai et al., 2006). Tsai as reported by Benedict, 1946; Heine et al., and her colleagues asked people from dif- 1999). Culturally prevalent patterns of emo- ferent cultures to rate their “ideal feelings” tions thus appeared to match the cultural on emotion scales that represented the models of self and relating. four quadrants of the affective circumplex; The affective circumplex is defined by the That the endpoints of regulation are cul- dimensions of pleasantness (unpleasant– turally defined is also suggested by research pleasant) and activation (low–high). They on emotional acculturation: changes in the found consistent differences between Euro- patterns of emotional experience after peo- pean Americans, who “ideally” wanted to ple move to a different culture. In a series feel more high-activation positive states such of studies, we asked immigrant and majority as excitement and elation, and East Asians, groups to rate the patterns of emotions expe- who preferred low-activation positive states rienced in different types of situations that
The Cultural Regulation of Emotions 287 were defined according to the valence (posi- negative consequences for well-being. Tsai tive, negative) and the social engagement and her colleagues (2006) found that the (engaged, disengaged) of the emotion they discrepancy between a person’s actual and tended to elicit. For each type of situation, ideal emotions predicted that person’s level we compared immigrants’ pattern of emo- of depressive symptoms, but only for the tion ratings with the average majority mem- domain of emotions that was culturally most ber’s pattern. The more an immigrant had focal: The discrepancy between actual and been exposed to the new culture, the more ideal high-aÂ
288 SOCIAL ASPECTS her boss, or who tries to see the situation in a different light. However, a full under- indisputably plays a role in “what emotions standing of the role of culture in emotion we have” and “when we have them” (Gross regulation requires that we move beyond et al., 2011, p. 767). To the extent that individual emotion regulation to include either individual or social processes seem to what we call social emotion regulation. We increase the match of emotions to norms, we speak of social emotion regulation when the consider them forms of emotion regulation. social environment is the agent of emotion regulation. Culture “in the world” is clearly We assume that a culture’s individual and important to this type of regulation. Exam- social emotion regulation strategies go hand ples abound: Sex segregation in some cul- in hand, and supplement each other, in an tures is a means to avoid situations of embar- attempt to realize the cultural norms (Kita- rassment (Abu-Lughod, 1986); head hunting yama, Karasawa, & Mesquita, 2004; Mauss rituals in another culture serve to channel et al., 2008). Below we discuss evidence for individuals’ ingroup anger (Rosaldo, 1980). the role of culture in multiple strategies of Closer to home, social sharing with friends emotion regulation; for each strategy we can help to restore a person’s self-esteem consider evidence for both individual and after a painful breakup, thereby alleviating social emotion regulation. distress. Thus, culture plays an important role in both individual and social emotion Situation Selection regulation. One major path of emotion regulation has been termed situation selection, described It should be noted that our approach dif- as “approaching or avoiding certain people, fers from accounts that assimilate emotion places, or objects in order to regulate emo- regulation to the effortful redirection of tions” (Gross, 1998, p. 283). Cultural dif- “the spontaneous flow” of emotions (Koole, ferences in situation selection are suggested 2009, p. 6). First, in light of cultural differ- with regard to individual and social emotion ences in the most prevalent emotions, we regulation. Differences in individuals’ moti- challenge the notion of spontaneous flow. vational focus are taken as evidence for the Second, we propose that emotion regula- role of culture in individual emotion regula- tion is often automatic (cf. Bargh & Wil- tion; differences in the social realities that liams, 2007; Gyurak, Gross, & Etkin, 2011; individuals encounter—the a priori selec- see Mauss, Bunge, & Gross, 2008, for a tion of situations—are considered a form of cultural perspective on automatic emotion social emotion regulation. regulation). Individual Regulation It is not always possible (and perhaps not of Situation Selection meaningful either; see Mesquita & Frijda, There is some evidence that different cul- 2011) to draw a distinction between cultural tural models affect individuals’ situation emotion regulation and culturally influenced selection. A number of studies found that emotion generation. Regulatory processes the relative focus of individuals on either are clearly distinct when individual and avoiding negative or approaching posi- social emotion regulation changes the course tive situations differs across cultures (e.g., of an ongoing emotion in culture-specific Elliott, Chirkov, Kim, & Sheldon, 2001; ways, but in many cases, emotion regulation Lee, Aaker, & Gardner, 2000). Whereas is inferred from the fact that emotional out- the dominant focus in American contexts comes cross-culturally vary in nonrandom appears to be on the accomplishment of ways. For example, the types of situations positive outcomes (i.e., a promotion focus), that individuals encounter may be responsi- East Asians and Russians have been found ble for aligning emotions with the endpoints to be more concerned with avoiding failures of regulation (e.g., politeness reduces anger, to meet social expectations (i.e., a preven- and may thus help to achieve relational har- tion focus). These cultural differences in mony). In this case, the distinction between motivational focus can be understood from emotion generation and emotion regulation the respective models of self and relating: An becomes futile (Mesquita & Frijda, 2011). independent American model emphasizes However, we speak of emotion regulation in these cases because the social organization
The Cultural Regulation of Emotions 289 self-enhancement and the achievement of self-e steem is nicely illustrated by anecdotal positive outcomes, whereas the more inter- evidence. In his book The Geography of dependent East Asian and Russian models Thought, the American psychologist Rich- underline the importance of avoiding social ard Nisbett (2003) describes how the school violations, and may thus be more driven by board in his hometown even “debated avoidance than approach. whether the chief goal of the schools should be to impart knowledge or inculcate self- That differences in situation selection esteem” (p. 55). may affect emotional experience was sug- gested by a cross-cultural vignette study by In contrast, many of the practices in Japa- Lee et al. (2000, Studies 3–5). The research- nese cultural contexts promote anticipatory ers examined differences in emotional reac- fear or shame, consistent with a cultural tions to success and failure between Euro- model emphasizing the continuing obliga- pean Americans (promotion focus) and tion to accommodate others, fulfill one’s East Asian Hong Kong Chinese (prevention roles, and perfect one’s contributions in focus). They hypothesized that a promo- order to approach others’ expectations or tion focus would foster happiness under cultural ideals in general (Heine et al., 1999). conditions of success, and sadness under For example, at the end of each day Japanese conditions of failure, whereas a prevention schoolchildren are encouraged to engage in focus would lead to reports of relaxation self-reflection or self-criticism (i.e., hansei), or relief upon success, and anxiety upon so that they can look for ways to improve failure. Consistent with the differences in their shortcomings or weaknesses in order motivational focus, the European Ameri- to meet the group’s standards (e.g., Lewis, can participants reported higher intensi- 1995). The constant awareness of one’s ties of happiness–depressed emotions than shortcomings is conducive to the experience relief–anxiety emotions, whereas the Chi- of emotions such as anticipated fear and nese participants reported higher intensities shame. of relief–anxiety than happiness–depressed emotions. This is some of the first evidence Culturally comparative research provides that cultural differences in situation selec- systematic support for the idea that situa- tion may be related to differences in the tions eliciting culturally condoned emotions, prevalent types of emotions. In summary, such as shame in Japan, are relatively more cultural models of self and relating moti- frequent than culturally condemned emo- vate individual-level selection of situations, tions, such as anger in Japan (e.g., Boiger, which itself can be understood as a form of Mesquita, Uchida, & Barrett, 2013). In a emotion regulation. recent study, we compared the frequency of shame and anger situations in Japan and the Social Regulation of Situation Selection United States, utilizing carefully selected, Social situation selection may render certain representative elicitors of shame and anger emotions either more frequent or more rare. that had been reported in extensive pilot For example, European American social studies by either Japanese or U.S. college life is characterized by practices that serve students. Shame was chosen because it was to make individuals feel special and unique, expected to be consistent with an inter- and that promote happiness and feeling dependent, but not with an independent, good about themselves (D’Andrade, 1984). model of self and relating; anger was selected Contemporary American schools promote because it was thought to have the opposite the happiness and pride of their students connotations. New samples of Japanese and with practices that make the children feel U.S. students read standardized vignettes important and special. As early as preschool, describing these eliciting situations, and children are the focus of attention during rated (1) their likelihood of occurrence “show-and-tell” meetings, and throughout and (2) the degree to which the situations elementary school, children’s accomplish- would elicit the intended emotion (anger or ments are marked by smiley faces, stickers, shame). In the United States, where shame and gift-box rewards for every achieve- violates the cultural model of independence, ment, however small. The importance of we expected people to avoid shame, but in Japan, where shame is an expression of the cultural model of interdependence, we
290 SOCIAL ASPECTS expected them to promote it. In contrast, we expected anger to be avoided in Japan In summary, cultural differences in the (because it interferes with social harmony), common forms of social interaction account and promoted in the United States (since it for differences in emotion experience. We underlines independence). The findings pro- speak of social situation selection if these vided support for culturally different pat- differences in emotional experience match terns of situation selection. Situations that the respective cultural models of self and elicited higher levels of shame were rated relating. Several studies suggest the exis- as more likely to occur in Japan, and as less tence of cultural differences in social situa- likely to occur in the United States. In con- tion selection. trast, situations that were thought to elicit more anger were rated as more frequent in Focus of Attention the United States, and less frequent in Japan. Culture may also be instrumental in regu- Thus, the “social” selection of situations lating the focus of attention, or what in the may contribute to the previously reported emotion regulation literature has been called differences in the frequencies with which attentional deployment (Gross, 1998): the people in American and Japanese cultural channeling of attention in ways that are con- contexts experience anger (disengaging) and ducive to the desired emotional outcome. shame (engaging) emotions (see Kitayama et There is some evidence that attention may be al., 2006). One way of understanding these channeled in ways that are consistent with findings is that Americans simply encoun- the cultural models. ter more anger-provoking situations, and Japanese more shame-provoking situations Individual Regulation of the Focus in their everyday lives. Social conventions of Attention may help to avoid situations of interper- Cultural models may affect individuals’ sonal frustration in Japan, and situations of focus of attention on relatively different interpersonal criticism in the United States, aspects of emotional situations. In a com- respectively. In other words, social interac- parative study on emotion perception, Japa- tions may be structured in culture-specific nese and Americans rated the emotions of ways that affect emotional experience. a central person expressing anger, sadness, or happiness, who was surrounded by four Child-rearing practices provide another other people (Masuda et al., 2008). The example of social situation selection affect- facial expressions of the other people var- ing emotional experience. Several studies ied, independent of the expression of the suggest that Japanese mothers structure central person. Consistent with an indepen- their children’s environment in ways that dent model, Americans exclusively focused encourage relative stability and modera- attention on the central person’s emotions, tion of emotion, whereas American mothers disregarding the emotions of the surround- provide greater situational variability, thus ing people. Consistent with an interdepen- increasing the probability that their children dent model, however, the Japanese focused will experience a range of both positive and attention on the other people in the picture negative emotions (Rothbaum et al., 2000). as well. For example, Japanese rated the Japanese mothers lull and comfort their sadness of the central person to be higher if infants more by soothing and maintaining the other people in the situation were sad as close proximity to their children. In doing well, relative to situations in which the other so, they create a safe and stable environ- people were not sad. Eye tracking confirmed ment, thus decreasing the likelihood that that, compared to American participants, their children experience strong negative Japanese participants spent more time scan- emotions. In contrast, American mothers ning the periphery of the picture for the allow their children more exploratory activ- facial expressions of the other people. There- ity and use more distal proximity strategies fore, consistent with interdependent models (e.g., eye contact) than do Japanese mothers of self and relating, Japanese focused their (Rothbaum et al., 2000). They offer their attention on everybody involved in the social children the opportunity for exploration, situation. and in doing so create more excitement but also greater potential for negative emotions.
The Cultural Regulation of Emotions 291 Culture might focus individuals’ atten- was angry at them. Both groups of moth- tion on not only different types of social ers channeled their children’s attention in information but also differently valenced ways that were consistent with the cultural information. A recent study by Grossmann, models. The majority of Tamang mothers Ellsworth, and Hong (2012) compared Rus- reported that they would give the children sian and European American participants’ food and cajole them in order to calm them focus on positive and negative emotional down; this distraction (of attention) strategy stimuli, respectively. This was based on eth- is consistent with Tamang Buddhist models nographic and empirical work that charac- of social harmony that focus on egalitarian- terized Russian people as “brooders” who ism, compassion, and tolerance. In contrast, place greater value than European Ameri- the majority of Chhetri-Brahmin mothers cans on immersing themselves in negative reported they would respond by telling their feelings. The researchers hypothesized that children to behave, to study, and to go to Russians’ attention would be drawn more to school. The Chhetri-B rahmin mothers thus negative stimuli. In support of this hypoth- focused their children’s attention on the val- esis, Russians, but not European Americans, ues of social order and disciplined action spent significantly more time looking at neg- central to their Hindu cultural models, sup- ative than at positive stimuli. In a follow-u p posedly inducing more conflictual emotions. study with biculturals, Russian culture was In both cases, the refocusing of attention compared to a European culture (Latvia). had an effect on emotional experience that Making use of a technique used to study was consistent with the cultural model. cultural frame switching in biculturals, the authors primed bicultural Russian Latvians’ Further evidence for the role of others in with either Russian or Latvian culture, by focusing attention comes from an observa- presenting them with Russian or Latvian tional study with European American and cultural symbols. Priming biculturals with Taiwanese mothers of 3-year-olds. Euro- their Russian heritage led to a faster recogni- pean American mothers drew the child’s tion of negative words and a slower recogni- attention to his or her independent achieve- tion of positive words as compared to their ments, thereby fostering the child’s hap- baseline reaction time to these words; also piness and pride. In contrast, Taiwanese consistent with the authors’ expectations, mothers shamed their children by focusing Russian Latvians primed with Latvian cul- their attention on their transgressions, and tural symbols failed to focus more attention the negative effects these transgressions had on negative information. Interestingly, the had on the mothers (Miller, Fung, & Mintz, effect of priming Russian culture was more 1996). In both cases, parental regulation of pronounced for biculturals who reported the child’s attention served to increase the more affinity with their Russian heritage; it fit between the child’s emotional experience is possible that the priming activated a more and the cultural model. elaborate Russian emotional repertoire in these individuals. Although more obvious in child research (for a review, see Diamond & Aspinwall, Social Regulation of the Focus 2003), emotion regulation by others does of Attention not cease in childhood or adolescence; even Other people are often involved in funnel- after children are mature enough to inter- ing an individual’s attention. We refer to nalize effective emotion regulation strate- this as social regulation when the changed gies of their own, significant social partners focus of attention aligns the individual’s continue to contribute regulatory influence emotional experiences with the dominant across the lifespan. This can be observed in cultural model of self and relating. Research not only adult interpersonal practices such on caregiver–child interactions in two Nep- as the provision of comfort and support, alese groups illustrates this idea nicely (Cole, the expression of empathy, the redirection Tamang, & Shrestha, 2006). Tamang and of attention, or suggestions for cognitive Chhetri-Brahmin mothers were asked what reframing of emotionally salient informa- they would do if their 4- or 5-year-old child tion (Diamond & Aspinwall, 2003), but also other common practices of social sharing of emotions in adults (e.g., support groups). In summary, other people may focus a person’s
292 SOCIAL ASPECTS ”salience” of certain interpretations, the attention in ways that render emotional woman would feel a different emotion. We experience consistent with cultural mod- refer to these cultural differences in appraisal els of self and relating. Individuals’ social as forms of cultural emotion regulation, even environments may be especially likely to if they may not involve attempts at effortful help and channel attention when individuals regulation on the part of the individual. The focus on aspects of the situation that render salience of concerns that fit the cultural mod- their emotional experience inconsistent with els is “culture in the head.” It is this culture the cultural model. in the head that renders the emotion norma- tive (i.e., “regulates” the emotion). Regulation of Appraisal Another major path of emotion regulation is Differences in daily emotional experi- through fashioning the individual’s apprais- ences can often be understood from cultural als of the situation. Appraisal always occurs differences in individuals’ common world against the backdrop of the cultural models views or daily preoccupations (also “culture that constitute reality. These cultural models in the head”). For example, the emotion of may be internalized, in which case they play anger is characterized by appraisals of an a role in individual emotion regulation, or event as unpleasant, going against personal they may be instantiated by the social con- goals, but relatively controllable. In trying to text, in which case they may activate in the understand the near absence of frustration individual certain appraisals; the latter may and anger among Tahitians, the American be seen as a form of social appraisal regula- anthropologist Robert Levy (1978, p. 226) tion. pointed to “a shared common sense that individuals have very limited control over Individual Regulation of Appraisal nature and over the behavior of others.” Cultural models form the background Thus, as Levy notes, a universe so defined is against which situations are appraised, and “cognitively less frustrating than those cul- emotional experience is contingent on an tures which define realities in which almost individual’s interpretation of the situation anything is possible to individuals” (p. 226). (e.g, Ellsworth, 1994; Mesquita & Ells- The general expectation that the world is worth, 2001). One obvious way in which minimally rewarding, and that there is no cultural models of self and relating are way to force rewards, leads to a lower preva- essential to emotion regulation is by fashion- lence of anger. The Tahitian perspective on ing the appraisal processes to create certain life contrasts with middle-class American emotions. models that emphasize and value control and predictability (Mesquita & Ellsworth, Individual appraisal is fashioned, in the 2001). In middle-class American contexts, first place, by the concerns and schemas the prevailing view is that the world is mal- against which situations are appraised. Cul- leable. Changing or influencing the environ- tures differ with respect to these concerns. ment rather than adjusting to it tends to be For instance, what it means to a woman a dominant response, reflecting the assump- that a man—not her intimate—looks at her tion that circumstances can be made to fit may differ depending on whether her culture one’s personal goals (Boiger, Mesquita, construes such attention as an honor viola- Tsai, & Markus, 2012; Morling, Kitayama, tion, a sign that she is attractive, or a marker & Miyamoto, 2002; Weisz, Rothbaum, & that she is being objectified in a sexist world. Blackburn, 1984). Hence, there is a relative Receiving male attention has different emo- emphasis on control and agency in middle- tional consequences in each of these cases: class American appraisals of emotional A woman would feel an emotion of shame situations. As such, people more readily or embarrassment if she lived in an honor appraise events in terms of inconsistency culture, an emotion of pride or excitement with their goals, the responsibility of other if she experienced the male attention as a people, and the possibility of forcing oth- sign of her attractiveness, and an emotion ers to accommodate to their wishes; hence, of indignation if she considered it an act of the emotional experiences of frustration and sexism. Depending on the “availability” or anger are more likely (Frijda, 1986). Cultural models thus provide the backdrop against
The Cultural Regulation of Emotions 293 which events are meaningful. A sense that The combined results thus suggest that (1) the world is a place in which agents make culturally salient concerns are more readily a difference also renders the experience of available as standards of evaluation for emo- a lack of agency more unpleasant. This is tional situations, and (2) the different types illustrated by a study by Roseman, Dha- of concerns translate into different patterns wan, Rettek, Naidu, and Thapa (1995), in of emotional experience. As such, emotional which Indian and American college students experiences are culturally regulated to be reported instances of anger, sadness, and about the most important cultural themes fear, and rated their experiences on several and concerns. appraisal dimensions. Cultural models for Indian college students are less likely to make In summary, cultural models appear to salient the possibility of successful control of provide the backdrop of expectations and one’s circumstances than are cultural mod- point(s) of view with which individuals meet els for American students (Savani, Markus, the world. As such, culture regulates the Naidu, Kumar, & Berlia, 2010). Consistent meaning and thus the emotional significance with this understanding, Roseman and col- of the world to the individual. leagues (1995) found that Indian college stu- dents rated self-reported emotional events Social Regulation of Appraisal to be less “incongruent with their motives” Other people appear to influence an indi- than did their American counterparts. As vidual’s appraisals in two ways. One is by expected, Indian students also reported example: Other people’s emotions and lower overall intensities of both sadness and appraisals inform an individual’s appraisals anger; moreover, these cultural differences in in a given situation. There is developmental emotion intensity were fully mediated by the work showing that children look at their perception that the event was less discrepant caregivers’ facial expressions in trying to with goals. Although the link between the appraise a situation as, for example, danger- cultural emphasis on controllability and the ous or safe (e.g., Campos & Stenberg, 1981). perception of goal relevance was not mea- Adults also use other people’s appraisals as sured, we suggest that cultural representa- input for the meaning of the situation (Par- tions of agency affected the perception of a kinson & Simons, 2009). We expect that discrepancy between emotional events and social appraisal regulation plays a large role personal goals, and in turn influenced the in cultural differences, because the prevalent intensity of felt sadness and anger. emotions in each culture differ. When other people’s emotions are used as a compass, this A more direct test of the relationship compass will point in different directions between concerns and emotional experiences for different cultural environments. There was provided by two recent studies of Bel- are some illustrations of this phenomenon gian students (De Leersnyder & Mesquita, in the parenting literature: Parents’ own 2013), who were asked to describe a recently reactions to their children’s emotions may experienced emotional situation and to indi- sometimes model their children’s appraisal. cate if and to what extent the situation had For instance, Japanese parents rarely express been either consistent or inconsistent with a direct disagreement with their angry chil- number of different concerns, some of which dren; instead, they go through cycles of were other-focused (e.g., being loyal, helping mutual perspective taking (Trommsdorff & others), and others which were self-focused Kornadt, 2003) or express negativity indi- (personal success, ambition). The frequency rectly (e.g., by silence). Parents thus model with which these values were judged as rele- the interpretation of the situation as one vant to the emotional situations exactly mir- that requires perspective taking. In contrast, rored young Belgians’ value hierarchy (i.e., German parents in the same study (Trom- most important values as “guiding prin- msdorff & Kornadt, 2003) were much more ciples in people’s life”), as obtained from a confrontational, and in that way, modeled national representative sample by the Euro- the appraisal as one of conflict. pean Social Survey (ESS, Round 5; Norwe- gian Social Science Data Services, 2012). A second social appraisal situation con- Moreover, the types of emotions depended sists of more explicit approval or disapproval on the types of values considered relevant. of certain emotions or interpretations. There
294 SOCIAL ASPECTS is again some cross-cÂ
The Cultural Regulation of Emotions 295 express less) or masking (i.e., hide emo- and with detrimental effects on memory, tion with smile). The authors found that felt affect (less positive and no less nega- the country’s scores on individualism (as tive emotion), and social relationships (e.g., indexed by Hofstede, 2001) predicted the Gross, 1998; Richards & Gross, 2000). country’s mean level of emotional expressiv- Finally, habitual suppression in European ity. However, several qualifications of these Americans was related to both high levels of results are in order. depressive symptoms and low levels of life satisfaction (Cheung & Park, 2010; Soto et First, much of the relationship between al., 2011). individualism and expression was “carried by the relationship between individualism In Western cultures, emotional suppres- with happiness and surprise” (Matsumoto sion has therefore been found to be maladap- et al., 2008, p. 66). Thus, whereas people tive. However, there are many indications in the United States, Canada, and Australia that this is not the case in Asian American expressed a desire to up-regulate happiness or East Asian samples. First, emotion sup- and surprise, people in East Asian countries pression may be more effective in these sam- indicated that they would actively seek to ples. For example, in a study by Mauss and avoid these emotional states (see also Tsai et Butler (2010), Asian Americans who valued al., 2006). Second, nearly all of the emotions emotional control were not only coded as included in the current study except sadness expressing less anger but they also reported were high-activation (disengaging) emo- feeling less angry than before. Moreover, tions. Since the expression of high-activation they showed a “challenge pattern” of car- disengaged emotions would be more incon- diovascular responding, suggesting that the sistent with the prevalent cultural models, suppression was not that effortful, because there may indeed be a higher need to regu- their resources met or exceeded the demands late these types of emotions in East Asian of the situation. Second, habitually engag- than in Western cultural contexts. Conse- ing in emotionally suppressive behavior quently, the association between emotion was unrelated to psychological well-being expressivity and individualism may not have in Hong Kong Chinese participants (Soto been found (or even be in the opposite direc- et al., 2011) and much less associated with tion) if only low-activation engaging emo- depression in Asian American compared to tional experiences had been included—an European American respondents (Cheung & idea that is supported by the negative (par- Park, 2010). tial) correlation between individualism and emotional expressivity of sadness (Matsu- The different meanings of suppression can moto et al., 2008). Therefore, rather than be understood from the respective cultural concluding that individuals in collectivist models (see Mesquita & Delvaux, 2012). cultures suppress their emotions more than Whereas the expression of one’s feeling in individuals in individualist cultures, a bet- independent cultural contexts defines iden- ter conclusion might be that people across tity, it does not do so in interdependent con- cultural contexts engage in the suppression texts. These latter contexts emphasize situ- of those emotions that are inconsistent with ational adjustment, and may thus encourage the pertinent cultural models. suppression of emotions whenever the situa- tion requires it. There are also cultural differences in both the effectiveness and costs of emotion sup- Culturally comparative work has focused pression (Cheung & Park, 2010; Mauss & on up- and down-r egulation of emotions but Butler, 2010; Soto, Perez, Kim, Lee, & Min- has not paid much attention to the quality nick, 2011) Convergent results from experi- of emotional behavior: What do people usu- mental and questionnaire studies show that ally do when they feel a certain emotion? suppression of emotional responses is effort- Descriptive, ethnographic work has sug- ful in European American samples, and gested that individuals in some cultures have although effective in modifying emotional specific behavioral scripts associated with behavior, it does not change the emotional certain emotions (Mesquita & Frijda, 1992). experience. Furthermore, in European These behavioral scripts may be considered American samples, suppression is associ- the outcome of regulation to the extent that ated with increases in physiological arousal they serve the prevalent cultural models of self and relationships. A good illustration
296 SOCIAL ASPECTS is the Balinese reaction to socially threat- essential for survival of the group. Ilongots, ening events, falling asleep (Bateson & therefore, saw it as a communal responsibil- Mead, 1942), which can be understood as ity to regulate emotions that could threaten an expression of the emotion of fear that the harmony of the group. Liget—an emo- avoids disrupting the cultural model. Falling tion denoting energy, passion, and anger asleep satisfies, at least subjectively, the goal simultaneously—w as one of those threaten- of reducing one’s exposure to threat, while ing emotions (Rosaldo, 1980). A ritual of avoiding the emotional disruption that other headhunting was in place, should feelings fear responses are felt to cause. Therefore, of liget arise. When one or more Ilongot falling asleep can be considered a culturally men experienced the heavy feeling of liget, effective form of individual emotion regula- a group of them would go out to kill an out- tion. sider. After the beheading, the Ilongot men came home purged of violence, and the com- In summary, cultural models implicate munity celebrated the overcoming of liget display rules for emotion regulation: Indi- by singing together. The ritual thus directed viduals tend to suppress emotions that are the behavioral intentions elicited by liget inconsistent with the cultural models. Emo- toward an out-group target, channeling a tional suppression is an individual regula- potentially intraculturally disruptive behav- tion strategy that requires different efforts, ior into one that reinforced the solidarity of that differs in effectiveness and is associated the group. Rituals may thus be understood with different psychological costs across dif- as prototypes for the mechanisms by which ferent cultural contexts, in ways that can sociocultural practices afford opportunities be understood from the cultural models of to express (or act on) emotions in culturally self and relationship. Furthermore, cultures supported ways. may model specific behaviors that meet the cultural models. When individuals engage in In summary, there are cultural differences behavior that is culturally modeled, we call in both individual and social behavioral reg- this regulation. We do not think that indi- ulation. Some of these are differences in sup- viduals necessarily suppress another (more pression versus expressivity. However, the natural) response before engaging in culture- connotations of suppression are not cultur- specific behavior. Rather, the fact that they ally the same. Other differences are better choose a culturally valued, rather than a less seen as differences in the selection of behav- valued response, makes this a meaningful ior, often in the function of the models and case of cultural regulation. practical opportunities for behavior that the culture provides. Social Regulation of Behavior Across cultures, the preferred contexts and Cultural Differences in the Preference practices for behavioral expression differ as for Different Strategies well. Certain social contexts provide oppor- of Emotion Regulation tunity for emotional expression, whereas In a number of studies that have compared other cultural contexts inhibit the display of cultural preferences for particular types of emotions, or of certain emotions. Rituals are emotion regulation, the suppression of emo- an example: “Rituals consist of prescribed tional responses was not contrasted with behavior modes that remove the need to expression, but rather with reappraisal, a expose one’s individual feelings. Yet at the different type of emotion regulation. In dif- same time, they form opportunities to vent ferent studies, participants from indepen- one’s emotions in a socially acceptable way” dent cultural contexts expressed a stronger (Mesquita & Frijda, 1992, p. 197). A good preference for reappraisal over suppression example of a ritual that appears to provide than participants in interdependent cultural an institutionalized means for expressing contexts, for whom this preference was emotional behaviors that would otherwise sometimes even absent (e.g., Novin, Ban- conflict with the prevailing cultural model jeree, Dadhkah, & Rieffe, 2009; Soto et al., was described for the Philippine Ilongots by 2011). These differential preferences may the anthropologist Michelle Rosaldo. In this correspond to different cultural models. In small community, in-group harmony was independent cultural contexts, the expres-
The Cultural Regulation of Emotions 297 sion of one’s feeling is identity defining. A interactions, to focus attention on certain change in emotional expression achieved by aspects of the situation, and to appraise a reappraisal respects the link between feeling situation in a certain way. These psychologi- and expression. On the other hand, suppres- cal tendencies may originate from culture- sion of emotions seems fine in interdepen- level regulation. Thus, individuals’ tenden- dent cultural contexts, where the emphasis cies to experience certain emotions may be is on situational adjustment; suppression a consequence of repeated exposure to a cul- and reappraisal would be equivalent means tural set of daily situations (see Kitayama & to reaching this goal. Among respondents Imada, 2010). For instance, a habitual focus from independent cultural contexts, the use on controllability may chronically increase of suppression is inversely related to the use the propensity to appraise a situation as one of reappraisal, suggesting that they more of high control, and thus of experiencing readily use the one or the other strategy. anger. In the same way, caregivers’ repeated In contrast, there is a positive correlation emphasis on the child’s inability to meet between the use of suppression and reap- social standards may bias the child’s focus praisal among respondents from interdepen- toward noticing failures, thus enhancing the dent cultural contexts, suggesting that they tendency to feel shame. The resulting regula- use both strategies when they attempt to tion is implicit and antecedent-focused. regulate their emotions (Matsumoto et al., 2008). The large cultural differences observed in everyday emotional experience suggest that Conclusion emotion regulation is widespread. How- There is substantial evidence of the cultural ever, given the functional role of emotions regulation of emotions, conceived here as in guiding adaptive behavior, we contend the combined mechanisms that align an that effortful emotion regulation must be individual’s emotional experience to the per- very limited; it is “culture’s last resort” for tinent cultural model. Cultural regulation shaping emotions in a culturally normative takes place not only at the level of culture, fashion, used only when all other means by way of the habitual social practices and have failed. Most regulatory processes must interpersonal interactions that constitute be automatic, as in the culturally different an individual’s lived environment, but also psychological tendencies that align an indi- at the level of individual schemas, goals, vidual’s experience and expression with the and modes of attention. Moreover, regula- cultural models. tion takes place at all the different stages of the emotion: Both cultural and individual The cultural perspective contributes sev- processes are instrumental in creating and eral insights to emotion regulation generally. modifying emotional events, channeling an First, it suggests that while the goal of emo- individual’s attention, and shaping an indi- tion regulation may universally be proper vidual’s appraisals of the situation in ways self-presentation and relationship mainte- that promote culturally desirable emotions; nance, specific cultural models define the moreover, both cultural and individual norms for self-presentation, as well as the processes shape emotion expression into ways to maintain a relationship. Cultural congruence with cultural norms. Cultural models thus set specific goals for emotion practices and psychological tendencies thus regulation. In this way, emotion regulation co-constitute emotional experiences and ties a person to the most important cultural expressions that are aligned with prevailing goals and values, just as it ties a person to his cultural models of self and relating. or her personality (e.g., Tamir, 2005). At the level of the individual, emotion Second, the cultural perspective suggests regulation is often implicit and automatic, that emotion regulation is not merely an although it can also be conscious and effort- intrapersonal process. Rather, emotions are ful. When it is automatic, it can be con- importantly regulated by the ways in which ceived in terms of psychological tendencies: our worlds are structured and our lives are the tendency to engage in certain types of organized. We have illustrated how emotion is regulated at the level of cultural practices through the structuring of social situations and the dynamics of social interactions; close others’ attempts to modify the indi-
298 SOCIAL ASPECTS vidual’s focus of attention within a situation; referencing. In M. E. Lamb & L. R. Sher- and the opportunities afforded for emo- rod (Eds.), Infant social cognition: Empirical tional behavior. The structure of everyday and theoretical considerations (pp. 273–314). life can be seen as the primary way in which Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. emotions are culturally regulated, although Cheung, R. Y. M., & Park, I. J. K. (2010). Anger at this level the distinction between emotion suppression, interdependent self-construal, generation and emotion regulation is mute and depression among Asian American and (see also Kappas, 2011; Mesquita & Frijda, European American college students. Cul- 2011). tural Diversity and Ethnic Minority, 16(4), 517–525. Taken together, the results suggest that Cohen, D., Hoshino-B rowne, E., & Leung, A. there is “redundancy” in the cultural regu- K.-Y. (2007). Culture and the structure of lation of emotions (Levy, 1978), such that personal experience: Insider and outsider phe- regulatory processes at many different loci nomenologies of the self and social world. In of the emotion, and as initiated by many M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental different sources, converge into a pattern of social psychology (Vol. 39, pp. 1–67). San emotional experience and expression that Diego, CA: Academic Press. fits the cultural model (more than not). Cole, P. M., Tamang, B. L., & Shrestha, S. (2006). Cultural variations in the socialization References of young children’s anger and shame. Child Development, 77, 1237–1251. Abu-Lughod, L. (1986). Veiled sentiments. Conroy, M., Hess, R. D., Azuma, H., & Kashi- Berkeley: University of California Press. wagi, K. (1980). Maternal strategies for regulating children’s behavior: Japanese and Adams, G., & Markus, H. R. (2004). Toward American families. Journal of Cross-C ultural a conception of culture suitable for a social Psychology, 11, 153–172. psychology of culture. In M. Schaller & C. S. D’Andrade, R. G. (1984). Culture meaning sys- Crandall (Eds.), Psychological foundations of tems. In R. A. Shweder & R. A. Levine (Eds.), culture (pp. 335–360). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Culture theory: Essays on mind, self, and emotion (pp. 88–119). Cambridge, UK: Cam- Bargh, J. A., & Williams, L. E. (2007). The bridge University Press. nonconscious regulation of emotion. In J. J. De Leersnyder, J., Boiger, M., & Mesquita, B. Gross (Ed.), Handbook of emotion regulation (2013). Cultural regulation of emotion: Indi- (pp. 429–445). New York: Guilford Press. vidual, relational, and structural sources. Frontiers in Psychology, 4(55). [E-publication Bateson, G., & Mead, M. (1942). Balinese char- prior to print] acter: A photographic analysis. New York: De Leersnyder, J., & Mesquita, B. (2013). What New York Academy of Sciences. are emotions about?: The role of cultural val- ues in emotional experience. Manuscript in Benedict, R. (1946). The chrysanthemum and preparation. the sword. Patterns of Japanese culture. Bos- De Leersnyder, J., Mesquita, B., & Kim, H. ton: Houghton Mifflin. (2011). Where do my emotions belong?: A study of immigrants’ emotional acculturation. Boiger, M., & Mesquita, B. (2012). The construc- Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, tion of emotion in interactions, relationships, 37, 451–463. and cultures. Emotion Review, 4, 221–229. De Leersnyder, J., Mesquita, B., & Kim, H., (2013). Emotional acculturation. In D. Her- Boiger, M., Mesquita, B., Tsai, A., & Markus, mans, B. Mesquita, & B. Rime (Eds.), Chang- H. (2012). Influencing and adjusting in daily ing emotions (pp. 127–133). Hove, UK: Psy- emotional situations: A comparison of Euro- chology Press. pean and Asian American action styles. Cog- De Leersnyder, J., Mesquita, B., & Kim, H. nition and Emotion, 26, 332–340. (2013). Emotional fit with culture: A predic- tion of individual differences in relational Boiger, M., Mesquita, B., Uchida, Y., & Barrett, well-being. Manuscript under review. L. F. (2013). Condoned or condemned: The Diamond, L. M., & Aspinwall, L. G. (2003). situational affordance of anger and shame in Japan and the US. Personality and Social Psy- chology Bulletin, 39(4), 540–553. Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Campos, J. J., & Stenberg, C. (1981). Perception, appraisal, and emotion: The onset of social
The Cultural Regulation of Emotions 299 Emotion regulation across the life span: An Hofstede, G. H. (2001). Culture’s consequences: integrative perspective emphasizing self- Comparing values, behaviors, institutions regulation, positive affect, and dyadic pro- and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). cesses. Motivation and Emotion, 27, 125–156. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Eid, M., & Diener, E. (2001). Norms for expe- Kappas, A. (2011). Emotion and regulation are riencing emotions in different cultures: Inter- one! Emotion Review, 3, 17–25. and intranational differences. Journal of Kim, H., & Markus, H. R. (1999). Deviance Personality and Social Psychology, 81(5), or uniqueness, harmony or conformity?: A 869–885. cultural analysis. Journal of Personality and Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1969). The reper- Social Psychology, 77(4), 785–800. toire of nonverbal behavior: Categories, ori- Kitayama, S., & Imada, T. (2010). Implicit inde- gins, usage, and coding. Semiotica, 1, 49–98. pendence and interdependence: A cultural task Elliott, A., Chirkov, V., Kim, Y., & Sheldon, K. analysis. In B. Mesquita, L. F. Barrett, & E. R. (2001). A cross-cultural analysis of avoidance Smith (Eds.), The mind in context (pp. 174– (relative to approach) personal goals. Psycho- 200). New York: Guilford Press. logical Science, 12, 505–510. Kitayama, S., Karasawa, M., & Mesquita, B. Ellsworth, P. C. (1994). Sense, culture, and sensi- (2004). Collective and personal processes bility. In S. Kitayama & H. R. Markus (Eds.), in regulating emotions: Emotion and self Emotion and culture: Empirical studies of in Japan and the US. In P. Philippot & R. S. mutual influence (pp. 23–50). Washington, Feldman (Eds.), The regulation of emotion DC: American Psychological Association. (pp. 251–273). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. ESS Round 5: European Social Survey Round 5 Kitayama, S., & Markus, H. R. (2000). The pur- Data. (2012). Data file edition 3.0. Norway: suit of happiness and the realization of sym- Norwegian Social Science Data Services, data pathy: Cultural patterns of self, social rela- archive and distributor of ESS data. tions, and well-being. In E. Diener & E. Suh Frijda, N. H. (1986). The emotions. Cambridge, (Eds.), Subjective well-being across cultures UK: Cambridge University Press. (pp. 113–161). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Frijda, N. H., Kuipers, P., & Terschure, E. (1989). Kitayama, S., & Masuda, T. (1995). Reapprais- Relations between emotion, appraisal and ing cognitive appraisal from a cultural per- emotional action readiness. Journal of Person- spective. Psychological Inquiry, 6, 217–223. ality and Social Psychology, 57, 212–228. Kitayama, S., Mesquita, B., & Karasawa, M. Gross, J. J. (1998). The emerging field of emotion (2006). The emotional basis of independent regulation: An integrative review. Review of and interdependent selves: Socially disengag- General Psychology, 2, 271–299. ing and engaging emotions in the US and Gross, J. J., Sheppes, G., & Urry, H. L. (2011). Japan. Journal of Personality and Social Psy- Emotion generation and emotion regulation: A chology, 91(5), 890–903. distinction we should make (carefully). Cogni- Koole, S. L. (2009). The psychology of emotion tion and Emotion, 25, 765–781. regulation: An integrative review. Cognition Grossmann, I., Ellsworth, P. C., & Hong, Y. and Emotion, 23(1), 4–41. (2012). Culture, attention, and emotion. Jour- Lebra, T. S. (1992). Self in Japanese culture. In nal of Experimental Psychology: General, N. E. Rosenberger (Ed.), Japanese sense of 14(1), 31–36. self. New York: Oxford University Press. Gyurak, A., Gross, J. J., & Etkin, A. (2011). Lee, A. Y., Aaker, J. L., & Gardner, W. L. Explicit and implicit emotion regulation: A (2000). The pleasures and pains of distinct dual-p rocess framework. Cognition and Emo- self-c onstruals: The role of interdependence in tion, 25(3), 400–412. regulatory focus. Journal of Personality and Heine, S. J., Lehman, D. R., Markus, H. R., & Social Psychology, 78(6), 1122–1134. Kitayama, S. (1999). Is there a universal need Levy, R. I. (1978). Tahitian gentleness and redun- for positive self-r egard? Psychological Review, dant controls. In A. Montagu (Ed.), Learn- 106(4), 766–794. ing non-aggression: The experience of non- Hochschild, J. L. (1995). What is the American literate societies (pp. 222–235). New York: dream? In J. L. Hochschild (Ed.), Facing up Oxford University Press. to the American dream: Race, class and the Lewis, C. C. (1995). Educating hearts and minds. soul of the nation (pp. 15–38). Princeton, NJ: New York: Cambridge University Press. Princeton University Press. Lutz, C. (1987). Goals, events, and understand-
300 SOCIAL ASPECTS ing in Ifaluk emotion theory. In N. Quinn & variations in emotions: A review. Psychologi- D. Holland (Eds.), Cultural models in lan- cal Bulletin, 112(2), 179–204. guage and thought (pp. 290–312). New York: Mesquita, B., & Frijda, N. H. (2011). An emo- Cambridge University Press. tion perspective on emotion regulation. Cog- Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture nition and Emotion, 25, 782–784. and self: Implications for cognition, emotion, Mesquita, B., & Leu, J. (2007) The cultural and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), psychology of emotions. In S. Kitayama & D. 224–253. Cohen (Eds.), Handbook for cultural psychol- Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1994). The ogy (pp. 734–759). New York: Guilford Press. cultural construction of self and emotion: Mesquita, B., Marinetti, C., & Delvaux, E. Implications for social behavior. In S. Kita- (2012). The social psychology of emotions. In yama & H. R. Markus (Eds.), Emotion and S. Fiske & N. Macrae (Eds.), Sage handbook culture: Empirical studies of mutual influence of social cognition (pp. 290–310). Thousand (pp. 89–130). Washington, DC: American Psy- Oaks, CA: Sage. chological Association. Miller, P. J., Fung, H., & Mintz, J. (1996). Self- Masuda, T., Ellsworth, P. C., Mesquita, B., Leu, construction through narrative practices: A J., Tanida, S., & Veerdonk, E. (2008). Plac- Chinese and American comparison of early ing the face in context: Cultural differences socialization. Ethos, 24(2), 237–280. in the perception of facial emotion. Journal Morelli, G. A., Rogoff, B., Oppenheim, D., & of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(3), Goldsmith, D. (1992). Cultural variation in 365–381. infants’ sleeping arrangements: Questions of Matsumoto, D. (1990). Cultural similarities and independence. Developmental Psychology, differences in display rules. Motivation and 28(4), 604–613. Emotion, 14(3), 195–214. Morling, B., Kitayama, S., & Miyamoto, Y. Matsumoto, D., Yoo, S. H., Fontaine, J., Anguas- (2002). Cultural practices emphasize influence Wong, A. M., Arriola, M., & Ataca, B. (2008). in the United States and adjustment in Japan. Mapping expressive differences around the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, world: The relationship between emotional 28(3), 311–323. display rules and individualism versus collec- Nisbett, R. E. (2003). The geography of thought. tivism. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, How Asians and Westerners think differ- 39(1), 55–74. ently . . . and why. New York: Free Press. Mauss, I. B., Bunge, S. A., & Gross, J. J. (2008). Novin, S., Banjeree, R., Dadhkah, A., & Rieffe, Culture and automatic emotion regulation. C. (2009). Self-reported use of display use in In S. Ismer, S. Jung, S. Kronast, C. van Sch- the Netherlands and Iran: Evidence for socio- eve, & M. Vanderkerckhove (Eds.), Regulat- cultural influence. Social Development, 18(2), ing emotions: Culture, social necessity and 397– 411. biological inheritance (pp. 39–60). London: Parkinson, B., & Simons, G. (2009). Affecting Blackwell. others: Social appraisal and emotion contagion Mauss, I. B., & Butler, E. A. (2010). Cultural in everyday decision making. Personality and context moderates the relationship between Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 1071–1084. emotion control values and cardiovascular Richards, J. M., & Gross, J. J. (2000). Emotion challenge versus threat responses. Biological regulation and memory: The cognitive costs of Psychology, 84, 521–530. keeping one’s cool. Journal of Personality and Mesquita, B., & Delvaux, E. (2012). A cultural Social Psychology, 79, 410–424. perspective on emotion labor. In A. Grandey, Rosaldo, M. Z. (1980). Knowledge and passion: J. Diefendorff, & D. Rupp (Eds.), Emotional Ilongot notions of self and social life. New labor in the 21st century: Diverse perspectives York: Cambridge University Press. on emotion regulation at work (pp. 251–272). Roseman, I., Dhawan, N., Rettek, S., Naidu, R. New York: Psychology Press/Routledge. K., & Thapa, K. (1995). Cultural differences Mesquita, B., & Ellsworth, P. C. (2001). The role and cross-cultural similarities in appraisals of culture in appraisal. In K. R. Scherer & A. and emotional responses. Journal of Cross- Schorr (Eds.), Appraisal processes in emotion: Cultural Psychology, 26(1), 23–48. Theory, methods, research (pp. 233–248). Rothbaum, F., Pott, M., Azuma, H., Miyake, New York: Oxford University Press. K., & Weisz, J. (2000). The development of Mesquita, B., & Frijda, N. H. (1992). Cultural close relationships in Japan and the United
The Cultural Regulation of Emotions 301 States: Paths of symbiotic harmony and gen- school girls’ distress and mothers’ sensitivity erative tension. Child Development, 71(5), in Japan and Germany. European Journal of 1121–1142. Developmental Psychology, 7, 350–370. Savani, K., Markus, H. R., Naidu, N. V. R., Trommsdorff, G., & Kornadt, H. (2003). Parent– Kumar, S., & Berlia, N. (2010). What counts child relations in cross-c ultural perspective. In as a choice?: U.S. Americans are more likely L. Kuczynski (Ed.), Handbook of dynamics in than Indians to construe actions as choices. parent–c hild relations (pp. 271–305). Thou- Psychological Science, 21, 391–398. sand Oaks, CA: Sage. Shweder, R. A. (1991). Thinking through cultures. Tsai, J. L., Knutson, B., & Fung, H. H. (2006). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Cultural variation in affect valuation. Jour- Solomon, R. C. (2004). Thinking about feeling: nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, Contemporary philosophers on emotions. 288–307. New York: Oxford University Press. Tsai, J. L., Miao, F., Seppala, E., Fung, H. H., Soto, J. A., Perez, C. R., Kim, Y.-H., Lee, E. & Yeung, D. (2007). Influence and adjustment A., & Minnick, M. R. (2011). Is expressive goals: Mediators of cultural differences in suppression always associated with poorer ideal affect. Journal of Personality and Social psychological functioning?: A cross-cultural Psychology, 92(6), 1102–1117. comparison between European Americans Weisz, J. R., Rothbaum, F. M., & Blackburn, T. and Hong Kong Chinese. Emotion, 11(6), C. (1984). Standing out and standing in: The 1450 –1455. psychology of control in America and Japan. Stein, N. L., Trabasso, T., & Liwag, M. (1993). American Psychologist, 39(9), 955–969. The representation and organization of emo- Wierzbicka, A. (1994). Emotion, language, tional experience: Unfolding the emotion epi- and cultural scripts. In S. Kitayama & H. R. sode. In M. Lewis & J. M. Haviland (Eds.), Markus (Eds.), Emotion and culture: Empiri- Handbook of emotions (pp. 279–300). New cal studies of mutual influence (pp. 133–196). York: Guilford Press. Washington, DC: American Psychological Tamir, M. (2005). Don’t worry, be happy?: Neu- Association. roticism, trait-consistent affect regulation, Zahn-Waxler, C., Radke-Y arrow, M., & King, and performance. Journal of Personality and R. A. (1979). Child rearing and children’s pro- Social Psychology, 89, 449–461. social initiations toward victims of distress. Trommsdorff, G., & Friedlmeier, W. (2010). Pre- Child Development, 50, 319–330.
Part VI Personality Processes and Individual Differences
Chapter 19 Temperament and Emotion Regulation Mary K. Rothbart Brad E. Sheese Michael I. Posner In recent years, advances in research on tem- ity, emotion, and emotion regulation. We perament have contributed to many other then consider how defense and approach areas of psychology, including socioemo- emotion systems regulate each other, fol- tional and personality development, psycho- lowed by a review of links between emotion pathology, emotion, and emotion regulation regulation and individual differences in ori- (Zentner & Shiner, 2012). Temperament enting. We then examine in detail the rela- refers to constitutionally based individual tion of emotion regulation to temperamen- differences in reactivity and self-regulation, tal effortful control (EC) and describe the and historically, has been linked to the biol- underpinnings of EC in the brain’s executive ogy of the person (Rothbart, 2011). Recent attention network. Because temperament temperament research has employed increas- develops, and because EC provides a general ingly sophisticated psychometric methods, mechanism for the control of emotion that developing a basic taxonomy of tempera- is not well-d eveloped until early childhood ment that extends from infancy to adult- (Rueda, 2012), we describe emotion regu- hood and links temperament to neural anat- lation in a developmental context. Finally, omy and function. we raise empirical issues about the study of emotional reactivity and regulation, and In our research, broad factors of Fear, describe future directions for research. Frustration, Negative Affectivity, Extraver- sion/Surgency, Affiliativeness, Orienting/ Definitions of Key Terms Perceptual Sensitivity, and Effortful Control Rothbart and Bates (2006) define tempera- have been extracted from questionnaire data ment as “constitutionally based individual (Putnam, Ellis, & Rothbart, 2001; Roth- differences in reactivity and self-regulation, bart, 2011). These dimensions show strong in the domains of affect, activity, and atten- similarities to those found in other laborato- tion.” This chapter focuses on the tempera- ries, and reactive and self-regulative aspects ment domains of affect and attention, and of temperament have been observed in both the term affect is used synonymously with the laboratory and in parent and self-report emotion. The term constitutional indicates data (Zentner & Shiner, 2012). that temperament is biologically based and influenced over time by heredity, matura- In this chapter we describe concepts of emotion and emotion regulation within a temperament framework. We first put for- ward definitions of temperament, personal- 305
306 PERSONALITY PROCESSES AND INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES tion, and experience. Reactivity and self- the questions “Is it good for me?”; “Is it bad regulation are terms originally used broadly for me?”; and “What shall I do about it?” by Rothbart and Derryberry (1981) to orga- (action tendencies). These networks have nize the temperament domain. Reactivity been evolutionarily conserved to allow the refers to responses to change in the external organism to deal with environmental and and internal environment, including reac- internally generated threat and opportu- tions that can be conceptualized broadly nity. When we discuss temperamental reac- or narrowly (e.g., fear, motor activity, ori- tivity, we include individual differences in enting, negative affectivity, cardiac reactiv- emotion-processing networks. Because the ity). Reactivity is measured in terms of the emotions include both action tendencies and latency, duration, and intensity of affective, physiological support for these tendencies, motor, and orienting reactions (Rothbart & they have regulatory aspects, and one emo- Derryberry, 1981). Self-regulation involves tion can regulate another. Thus, fear poten- effortful attention that serves to modulate tiates withdrawal, attack, or inhibition, and reactivity and organize change. positive affectivity potentiates the speed and energy of approach. Individual differences in temperament fall within the more general rubric of per- By emotion regulation, we mean the sonality. We define personality as individual modulation of a given emotional reaction, differences in dispositional traits, coping including its inhibition, activation, or graded strategies, and cognitions of self and oth- modulation. Down- and up-regulation refer ers that influence the person’s adjustments to general reductions or increases in the acti- to the environment. Dispositional traits are vation of emotion-related neural networks. patterns of thoughts, emotions, and behav- Emotion regulation includes attentional ior that show consistency across situations strategies employed through effortful con- and stability over time (Allport, 1937), and trol (EC), as well as the modulating effects temperament traits constitute a subset of of other emotions and orienting. Orienting personality traits (Rothbart, 2011). Tem- early in life is chiefly reactive, and when perament traits include consistent patterns distractors are presented to infants, orient- of reactivity of the emotions and the self- ing modulates the expression of the infants’ regulation of thoughts, emotions, and action emotions (Harman, Rothbart, & Posner, through attention. We note that this defini- 1997). Later, orienting comes more under tion relates temperament to personality and the control of executive attention. A purer at the same time differentiates temperament form of self-regulation is seen in the execu- from other personality domains. tive attentional processes underlying EC that regulate reactivity (Posner & Rothbart, Personality goes beyond temperament to 2007a, 2007b). include attitudes, cognitive coping strate- gies, concepts of self and other, values, mor- Thus when we consider individual differ- als, and beliefs, but there is also evidence ences in temperament, we are dealing with that the broad personality traits of Extra- a dynamic balance between emotional ten- version, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, dencies, and between emotions and atten- Neuroticism, and Openness may be orga- tion. Again, it is important to recognize nized around the basic temperament traits that emotion regulation strategies go far that can be observed early in life (McCrae et beyond temperament to reflect cognitive and al., 2000; Rothbart, 2011; Shiner & Caspi, experience-dependent behavioral strategies, 2012). although temperamental characteristics are likely to be involved in their development Emotions can be seen as broadly integra- (Rueda, 2012). tive systems that order feelings, thoughts, and actions (LeDoux, 1989, 2000). They Temperament and represent the output of neural information- Emotion–Motivation processing networks that assess the mean- Emotion, cognition, and behavior are orga- ing or affective significance of events for the nized around the goals of the organism individual. Whereas object recognition sys- (Campos, Caplovitz, Lamb, Goldsmith, & tems and spatial processing systems address the questions “What is it?” and “Where is it?,” emotion-processing networks address
Temperament and Emotion Regulation 307 Stenberg, 1983; Derryberry & Rothbart, ger are detected, so very low levels of fear 1997). These goals have been evolutionarily and anxiety can also be problematic. There conserved in the nervous system but are fur- is a need for some level of fear and anxiety ther programmed by the person’s specific to promote adaptive patterns of respond- experiences, plans, and effortful actions. ing, while under- or overactivation of the Affective–motivational systems of emotion system may promote maladaptive respond- evaluate goal-relevant situations and orga- ing. Although all negative emotions contrib- nize goal-appropriate behavior. Based on ute to general negative affectivity or stress a review of the literature, Derryberry and proneness, we have also found it useful to Rothbart (1997) described temperament differentiate anger from fear (Rothbart, systems that include emotional components. 2011; Rothbart & Bates, 2006). Anger is These include systems that support defense positively related to the approach (Extraver- and fear, approach and appetitive behaviors, sion/Surgency) system described next, and and nurturance/affiliation. Here, we con- it is particularly linked to the development centrate on the first two of these, the defense of externalizing problems (Rothbart, 2011; and approach systems. Rothbart & Bates, 2006). Defense and Approach Systems An approach system serves the goal of The term defense describes a system of brain resource acquisition by promoting organized networks that serve to avoid harm by pro- responses to potential rewards (Derryberry moting organized responses to immediate & Rothbart, 1997). Dopaminergic neurons and long-term threats (Derryberry & Roth- appear to form the core of this network, bart, 1997). Portions of the lateral and cen- which also extends to the basolateral amgy- tral amygdala appear to be key neural struc- dala, ventral tegmental area, and the nucleus tures in the functioning of this network. accumbens. Positive emotional states, such Fear, anxiety, and defensive anger are emo- as joy and elation, as well as feelings of eager tions that reflect activation of the defense anticipation, are thought to reflect the broad system. These emotions are related to alterations in neurological and physiologi- behavioral tendencies to inhibition or with- cal responding that occur in the activation drawal from active threats and avoidance of of approach. These serve to bias responding potentially threatening situations in a flight toward positive emotion and reward acquisi- response. When withdrawal from severe tion, and can be seen in behavioral tendencies threats is blocked, however, the defense sys- to seek out and approach rewards and atten- tem also serves to promote defensive aggres- tional sensitivity to rewards (Derryberry sion and a fight response. Systems analogous & Reed, 1994). When goals are blocked, to the defense system are common to many anger and possibly aggression may result (see psychobiological approaches to emotion, review by Deater-Deckard & Wang, 2012). including LeDoux’s (1989) fear system and Gray’s behavioral inhibition system (Gray & Co‑Occuring Approach McNaughton, 1996; see review by Zucker- and Defense Reactions man, 2012). When situations present potential reward along with risk, both approach and defense Fear and anxiety are aversive states com- systems can become active and may either monly associated with various forms of cooperate or compete to influence process- dysfunction and pathology in the clinical ing. In some networks, there appears to be literature (Rothbart & Posner, 2006). Con- localized competition affecting specific cor- sequently, it might be expected that indi- tical and subcortical processes in a winner- viduals exhibiting high levels of fear would take-all process, in which the “stronger” sys- be more prone to pathology than those tem dominates (Norman & Shallice, 1986). exhibiting lower levels, and there is some However, over time, activation strength may evidence that this is the case (Rothbart & wax and wane, leading to an alternation of Bates, 2006). A psychobiological approach, opposing behaviors or to the appearance of however, notes that fear and anxiety are disorganized or inconsistent responding. In evolutionarily conserved to promote poten- our laboratory, we have seen such oppos- tially adaptive behavior when signals of dan- ing behaviors in infants, who show abrupt
308 PERSONALITY PROCESSES AND INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES alternation between approach-related and positive experiences. Thus, although fear withdrawal-related behaviors, such as smil- and its component inhibition allows the first ing directly followed by distress in response major control system over approach, it is a to potentially threatening stimuli. reactive one that can lack flexibility. Inhibitory influences of defense and Other temperament emotion systems also approach systems may not be symmetrical. regulate each other. For example, affiliative- Instead, defense systems appear to have ness is related to lower anger/aggression, preferential status. Observation of a norma- and affiliativeness is also related to higher tive “negativity bias” in humans and other internalizing negative affect, including sad- animal species (e.g., Ito & Cacioppo, 2005) ness (Rothbart, 2011). In this chapter, how- suggests that defense tends to dominate ever, we focus on individual differences in approach in situations that present both developing networks of attention and emo- risk and reward. While the balance may be tion regulation. We begin with individual usually skewed toward defense, this bal- differences in orienting. ance may not characterize every individual. Instead, individuals will differ in the degree Attention and Emotion Regulation to which they exhibit a negativity bias based Orienting on temperament and life experience (Ito & Much of the early life of the infant is con- Cacioppo, 2005). cerned with the regulation of state, includ- ing regulation of distress (Rothbart, 2011). Aspects of the approach system, includ- Orienting, that is, the selection of informa- ing sociability, smiling and laughter, and tion from sensory input (Posner, 2012), is a approaching novel objects, can be observed major mechanism for this regulation (Pos- by 3 months of age, and show normative ner, Rothbart, Sheese, & Voelker, 2012). increases over the first year of life (Rothbart, Caregivers report how they use attention Derryberry, & Hershey, 2000). Late in the to regulate the state of the infant, distract- first year, some infants also begin to demon- ing their infants by bringing their attention strate fear and related behavioral inhibition to other stimuli. As infants orient, they are of approach and positive emotion in response often quieted, and their distress appears to to unfamiliar and intense stimuli (Rothbart, diminish. 1988), and fearful inhibition shows consid- erable longitudinal stability across child- We have studied orienting and sooth- hood and into adolescence (Kagan & Fox, ing in 3- to 6-month-old infants (Harman, 2006). In our longitudinal research, infant Rothbart, & Posner, 1997). Infants were fear was assessed by inhibited approach and first shown a sound and light display that negative emotion in the laboratory, and it led to distress in about 50% of the infants. predicted childhood fear, sadness, and shy- These infants strongly oriented to interest- ness at 7 years of age (Rothbart et al., 2000). ing visual and auditory soothing events Fear also predicted lower approach, impul- when they were presented, and during their sivity, and aggression. These findings sug- orienting, facial and vocal signs of dis- gest that fear is involved in the regulation of tress disappeared. As soon as the orienting both approach and aggressive tendencies (as stopped (e.g., when the object was removed), argued by Gray & McNaughton, 1996). however, infant distress returned to almost exactly the level shown prior to presentation More fearful infants also showed greater of the distractor. An internal system, which empathy, guilt, and shame in childhood we termed the “distress keeper,” appeared (Rothbart, Ahadi, & Hershey, 1994). to hold a computation of the initial level of These findings suggested that fear might be distress, so that it returned if the infant’s ori- involved in the early development of moral entation to the novel event was lost. In later motivation, and Kochanska (1997) has studies, we found that infants could be qui- found that temperamental fearfulness pre- eted by distraction for as long as 1 minute, dicts conscience development in preschool- without changing the eventual level of dis- age children. Extreme fear, on the other tress reached once the orienting had ended hand, may lead to problems through chil- (Harman et al., 1997). dren’s rigid control of their own behavior, as in Block’s (2002) description of overcon- trolled responses that can limit children’s
Temperament and Emotion Regulation 309 For young infants, the control of orienting tive emotion. In one study of 7-month-olds, is at first largely in the hands of caregiver parent reports of infants’ orienting in daily presentations. By 4 months, however, infants life were related to higher levels of positive have gained considerable control over disen- emotionality and lower levels of negative gaging their gaze from one visual location emotionality (Sheese, Voelker, Posner, & and moving it to another, and greater ori- Rothbart, 2009). Early mechanisms for cop- enting skill in the laboratory has been asso- ing with negative emotion may also later be ciated with lower parent-reported negative transferred to the control of cognition and emotion and greater soothability (Johnson, behavior (Posner & Rothbart, 1998). Cor- Posner, & Rothbart, 1991). Sustained atten- relations have been found, for example, tion, as indexed by engagement with low- between infants’ use of regulatory strategies intensity toys (blocks) at 9 months, is also in anger-inducing situations and their pre- predictive of observed effortful control at school ability to delay responses (Calkins & 22 months (Kochanska, Murray, & Harlan, Williford, 2003). In research by Mischel and 2000). Difficulty with sustaining attention his colleagues (Sethi, Mischel, Aber, Shoda, at 9 months predicts behavioral inhibition in & Rodriguez, 2000), toddlers’ use of dis- toddlers and social difficulties in adolescents traction strategies in an arousing situation (Pérez-Edgar et al., 2010), and Crockenberg, was positively related to their later delay of Leerkes, & Barrig (2008) found that infants gratification at age 5. who focused more on frustrating stimuli at 6 months of age were more aggressive as tod- Activation of defense or approach may dlers. also alter orienting and the processing of sensory information (LeDoux, 2000). Selec- We observed a number of changes in emo- tion and attention to emotion-related stim- tion regulation in longitudinal observations uli may be critically important in situations of infants between 3 and 13 months (Roth- related to the health and well-being of the bart, Ziaie, & O’Boyle, 1992). Older infants individual. This selection process can be increasingly looked to their mothers dur- viewed as involving multiple potential tar- ing presentation of arousing stimuli such as gets in competition for attention. Orienting masks and unpredictable mechanical toys. of attention can produce a bias toward one or Infants’ disengagement of attention from more of these targets, and emotion is related arousing stimuli was also related to lower to attentional bias (see review by Kanske & levels of negative affect in the laboratory at Kotz, 2012). For example, more threatening 13 months. Stability from 10 to 13 months stimuli are associated with greater vigilance was found in infants’ use of attentional dis- in a probe detection task (Beaver, Mogg, & engagement, mouthing, hand to mouth (e.g., Bradley, 2005), and presentation of aversive thumb sucking), approach, and withdraw- stimuli is associated with increased interfer- ing the hand, suggesting that some of the ence during mathematical problem-solving infants’ regulatory strategies were becom- and line detection tasks (Schimmack, 2005). ing habitual. Over the period from 3 to 13 months, passive self-soothing decreased The effect of emotions on perceptual and more active approach, attack on the processes varies as temperament systems object, and body self-stimulation increased. develop and differs across individuals, Infants who showed the greatest distress at reflecting each person’s pattern of tempera- 3 months, however, tended to persist in an mental reactivity. In adults, negative emo- early form of regulation, self-soothing. Once tionality, neuroticism, and trait anxiety have a mechanism for emotion regulation devel- been related to biases in patterns of look- ops, it may persist because it has brought ing to various kinds of threatening stimuli relief, even though more sophisticated emo- (see review by Derryberry & Reed, 2002), tion regulation mechanisms are now avail- as well as to patterns of attention toward able, an important consideration in devel- detecting errors (Paulus, Feinsten, Simmons, opmental approaches to social relationships & Stein, 2004). Neuroticism has also been and clinical problems (Rothbart, 2011). linked to difficulty in disengaging attention from sources of threat, and extraversion is Other studies have found direct links related to similar difficulties in disengag- between infants’ disengagement of atten- ing from rewarding stimuli (Derryberry & tion and decreases in their concurrent nega- Reed, 2002).
310 PERSONALITY PROCESSES AND INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES Initial orienting to threatening or reward- behavior. It has been argued that individuals ing stimuli is often accompanied by behav- with higher EC are better able to regulate the ioral quieting and muted physiological affective responses that promote antisocial responding, including cardiac deceleration, behavior (e.g., Kochanska et al., 2000). EC but orienting may be quickly followed by has also been positively linked to empathy an action phase involving behaviors such as and prosocial behavior (Rothbart & Bates, approach, fight, or flight that require dra- 2006), and it interacts with contextual vari- matic changes in metabolic functioning. The ables to predict behaviors linked to emotion modulation of autonomic arousal in prepa- regulation. For example, early temperament ration for behavioral responding is another interacts with parenting practices to predict mechanism through which defense and conscience development (Kochanska, 1997) approach systems can influence respond- and psychopathology (see review in Roth- ing. Relevant here are changes in skin con- bart, 2011). ductance, heart and respiration rate, blood pressure and patterns of blood circulation, Kochanska et al. (2000) have character- potentiation of the startle response, and ized the construct of EC as “situated at the secretion of cortisol and catecholamines intersection of the temperament and behav- (Bradley, Codispoti, Cuthbert, & Lang, ioral regulation literatures” (p. 220). What 2001). does EC mean for theories of temperament and personality? It means that contrary We now turn to attention processes under- to earlier theories that emphasized how lying the development of EC, a flexible and behavior is driven by positive and nega- attention-based form of self-regulation of tive emotions or one’s level of arousal, we thought, action, and emotion. We focus par- are not always at the mercy of emotion and ticularly on this topic because of its impor- the affective–motivational systems (Roth- tance to behavior and emotion regulation, bart, 2011). Using EC, we can more flexibly its susceptibility to training, and the many approach the situations we fear and inhibit recent research advances in this area. the actions we desire. The efficiency of EC, however, may depend on the strength of the EC and Executive Attention emotional processes against which effort is EC is defined as the ability to inhibit a domi- exerted. For example, when a child must nant response so as to activate a subdomi- delay an approach to an appealing toy, the nant response (Rothbart & Bates, 2006). EC child with a stronger disposition to approach initially emerged from psychometric temper- is likely to require greater EC to succeed. ament research as a higher-order factor that included lower-order scales of attentional EC is also involved in the inhibition focusing, inhibitory control, perceptual sen- of immediate approach, with the goal of sitivity, and low-intensity pleasure in child- attaining a larger reward later, as in delay hood (Rothbart, 2011; Rothbart, Ahadi, of gratification research (Shoda, Mischel, & Hershey, & Fisher, 2001), and attentional Peak, 1990), and in Block’s (2002) hedonism control, inhibitory control, and activational of the future. EC also allows activation of control in adulthood (Evans & Rothbart, behavior that would otherwise not be per- 2007). We have proposed that EC describes formed, letting one act “on principle” when individual differences in self-regulatory the principle opposes one’s otherwise domi- capacities linked to the functioning of the nant response. EC is not itself a basic moti- executive attention network (Posner & vation; rather, it provides the means to effec- Rothbart, 1998, 2007a, 2007b). tively satisfy desired ends. It resembles the attentional capacities that underlie Block’s EC predicts a broad array of outcomes, (2002) construct of ego resiliency, that is, including the development of higher proso- the ability to shift one’s level of control flex- cial and lower antisocial behavior (Lengua ibly depending on requirements of the situ- & Wachs, 2012; Rueda, 2012). The direct ation. regulation of negative emotional reactions, such as anger, anxiety, or fear, represents There is substantial evidence that during one avenue through which EC can influence childhood EC, as measured bytemperament questionnaires, is correlated with the ability to resolve conflict in many cognitive tasks
Temperament and Emotion Regulation 311 (Rothbart, 2011; Rueda, 2012). This pro- negative emotions (Ochsner, Bunge, Gross, vides an opportunity to examine the brain & Gabrieli, 2002). systems that are related to both conflict res- olution and EC. As noted previously, dorsal areas of the cingulate have been implicated in regulating The Executive Attention Network cognitive processing and more ventral areas Posner and colleagues have identified three in emotional processing (Bush et al., 2000). brain networks that serve different functions The portion of the ACC related to emotion of attention and have different neural anato- regulation has a very high level of tonic mies and neuromodulators (Posner, 2012). activity, even at rest. This activity, together The first two networks involve alerting and with the widespread connectivity of the cin- orienting, respectively. The third, the execu- gulate to other brain areas, may be related tive attention network, which functions to to the need to maintain emotional control monitor and resolve conflict, involves the even when one is not performing any spe- anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), anterior cific task. There is also some evidence of an insula, and basal ganglia. Dorsal areas of the inhibitory interaction between the more ven- cingulate have been implicated in the regula- tral emotion regulation part of the ACC and tion of cognitive processing, while more ven- the more dorsal areas related to cognitive tral areas have been implicated in emotional control (Drevets & Raichle, 1998). processing (Bush, Luu, & Posner, 2000). In more recent research, individual differences ACC activation in response to perceived in the functioning of the executive attention errors has been reported in infants as young network have been theoretically and empiri- as 7 months of age (Berger, Tzur, & Pos- cally linked to the temperament construct of ner, 2006). Adults show ACC activation EC (Chang & Burns, 2005; Posner, 2012; and usually slow down following an error. Rothbart, 2011). However, in a study using a Simple Simon task, we found that slowing down follow- According to one theory, executive atten- ing an error did not arise until children were tion, and the ACC in particular, is involved between 39 and 41 months of age (Jones, primarily in the monitoring of conflict Rothbart, & Posner, 2003). We believe that between potentially competing systems the difference between infants who detect (Botvinick, Braver, Barch, Carter, & Cohen, the error and children who modify action 2001) whereas the prefrontal cortex, partic- based on the error involves the change in ularly on the right side, is involved in inhibi- connectivity of the ACC to other brain tion of competing systems (see review by Pos- structures that takes place during child- ner, 2012). This division of labor between hood (Fair et al., 2009; Gao et al., 2009). the ACC and the prefrontal cortex may not The connectivity hypothesis may also have be the full story, but these ideas suggest com- implications for other issues in develop- plementary associations between the ACC ment, for example, the observation that and prefrontal cortex in self-regulation. fear is shown in distress reactions before it is linked to behavioral inhibition (Rothbart The ACC, one of the main nodes of the et al., 2000). Further research is needed to executive attention network, has been linked relate connectivity to behavioral changes to specific functions related to self-r egulation such as slowing. (see reviews by Posner, 2012; Rueda, 2012). These include the monitoring of conflict, One assessment of executive attention in control of working memory, regulation of early childhood is the spatial conflict task, emotion, and response to error. In emotion in which object identity and spatial loca- studies, the cingulate is often seen as part of tion of a stimulus are placed in conflict a network involving the orbitofrontal cortex (Gerardi-Caulton, 2000). Here the child and amygdala that regulates our emotional has two response keys, labeled with pictures response to input. Activation of the ACC is of stimuli. Stimuli are presented on a com- observed when people are asked to control puter screen, and the child is instructed to their reactions to strong positive (Beaure- press the key corresponding to the picture gard, Levesque, & Bourgouin, 2001) and presented. Conflict trials are those in which the stimulus appears on the side opposite the correct key.
312 PERSONALITY PROCESSES AND INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES Between 30 and 36 months of age, chil- negative emotion (Rothbart, 2011). In ado- dren learn to perform this task, which lescents and adults, performance on the requires inhibiting the dominant response ANT has also been linked to a number of toward a spatial location in order to make psychopathologies (see review by Posner, a response based on matching identity 2012). These studies illustrate the close rela- (Gerardi-Caulton, 2000; Rothbart, Ellis, tion between attention, EC, and emotion Rueda, & Posner, 2003). At 24 months, regulation throughout life. children are only able to carry out this task when the stimulus is on the same side of the EC in Childhood computer screen as the matching response Evidence for stability of EC has been found key (the congruent condition), but by 30 in research by Mischel and his colleagues months, most children can handle incongru- (Shoda et al., 1990). Preschoolers were tested ent trials in which the matching target is on on their ability to wait for a delayed treat the opposite side of the stimulus, although that was larger than a readily accessible one. they are greatly slowed in conflict trials Children better able to delay gratification (adults are also slowed in this condition). were found to have better self-control and greater ability to regulate reactions to stress Children with higher levels of perfor- and frustration. Their delay of gratification mance on spatial conflict have also been in seconds also predicted parent-reported reported by their parents as having higher attentiveness, concentration, emotion regu- levels of EC and lower levels of negative lation, and intelligence during adolescence. emotionality on the Children’s Behavior In follow-u p studies when the participants Questionnaire (CBQ; Rothbart et al., 2001, were in their 30s, preschool delay predicted 2003). Two-year-old children who could not goal-setting and self-regulatory abilities complete the spatial conflict task were also (Ayduk et al., 2000), suggesting remarkable described by their parents as having lower continuity in self-regulatory skills. EC and higher negative emotionality. These findings are consistent with the idea that the Some of the complexity of this continuity capacity to engage in rule-based action in in self-regulation is reflected in longitudi- conflict situations can support responding nal studies of genetic contributions to early to social rules and regulation of emotion in development. There is substantial evidence daily life. in adult studies that genetic alleles in the dopamine system are related to executive Another important conflict task is the attention (Posner, 2012). One of these genes, Attention Networks Task (ANT), which the dopamine 4 receptor gene, was found to measures efficiency of the alerting, orient- influence sensation seeking behavior as early ing, and executive attention networks. In the as 18–20 months in interaction with the qual- ANT flanker task, the response to a target is ity of parenting (Sheese, Voelker, Rothbart, in conflict with surrounding flanker stimuli & Posner, 2007). When the 7-repeat allele (Rueda et al., 2004). Both spatial conflict was present, relatively low-q uality parenting and flanker tasks have been linked in imag- produced higher sensation-seeking ratings, ing studies to the functioning of the brain’s but when the 7-repeat was absent, sensa- executive attention network (Fan, Flom- tion seeking was moderate or low, regard- baum, McCandliss, Thomas, & Posner, less of parenting quality. The remarkable 2003) and have been used as model tasks susceptibility of children with the 7-repeat for assessing the functioning of this net- allele to parental and other environmental work (Posner, 2012). Using the Child ANT influences has been replicated multiple times (Rueda et al., 2004), significant improve- (e.g., Belsky & Pluess, 2009). We did not ment in conflict resolution has been found see any relation of this gene to EC at 18–20 up until age 7, but a remarkable similarity in months (Sheese et al., 2007), but by 4 years both reaction time and accuracy was found there was a gene × parenting quality inter- from the age of 7 to adulthood. action in which EC ratings of children with the 7-repeat were more positively influenced Throughout childhood, ANT perfor- by parenting quality than children without mance is related to EC performance (Roth- bart, 2011; Rueda, 2012), and adults high in EC show lower conflict scores and lower
Temperament and Emotion Regulation 313 the 7-repeat (Sheese, Voelker, Rothbart & or increased until something occurs to inter- Posner, 2012). Adult studies have also indi- rupt the cycle. One way to interrupt the cated that people with the 7-repeat allele are cycle is to perform actions that remove the more influenced by their environment than stimulus or make it less relevant. For exam- those without it (Larsen et al., 2010). Thus, ple, if a person is afraid of heights, visual there appears to be an underlying continu- cues indicating precipitous drops may initi- ity of genetic influence even though neural ate a cycle of anxiety and fear. One way to networks may be changing in their connec- interrupt this cycle is to back away from the tivity. ledge. If such an action is not available or is undesirable, a second approach is to “not EC plays an important role in the develop- look down.” Information reception can thus ment of conscience, with greater internalized be controlled to reduce the activation of the conscience in children high in EC (Kochan- system. This kind of regulation can also be ska et al., 2000). Both the reactive tempera- applied to the approach system. Just as one mental control system of fearful inhibition can look away from things that are feared, and the attention-based system of EC appear one can also look away from things that are to regulate the development of socialized desired. Consistent with this hypothesis, thought and behavior, with the influence of children who are most able to resist temp- fear found earlier in development. We have tation are those most likely to orient away found that 6- to 7-year-old children who from desired stimuli while waiting for them were high in EC were also high in empathy (e.g., Sethi et al., 2000). and guilt/shame, and low in aggressiveness (Rothbart et al., 1994). EC may support Regulation of orienting may not always empathy by allowing children to attend to be sufficient to manage emotional reactions. another child’s condition instead of focus- Not looking at a cookie may reduce the ing only on their own sympathetic distress. probability we will eat it, but even when we Eisenberg, Fabes, Nyman, Bernzweig, and are not looking at it, we still know it is there. Pinulas (1994) found that 4- to 6-year-old Conceptual processing and memory allow us boys with good attentional control tended to to maintain an internal representation of the deal with anger by using nonhostile verbal stimulus over time. Internal representations methods rather than overt aggression. may be just as effective, or even more so, in triggering and maintaining the activation of During the toddler and preschool years, affective systems. Consequently, regulating development of the executive attention net- internal representations becomes an impor- work underlying EC allows children greater tant avenue for the regulation of emotional control of stimulation and response, includ- responding. Executive attention has been ing the ability to select responses in a con- related to regulation of inappropriate cogni- flict situation. Aksan and Kochanska (2004) tions, as in the Stroop effect (Posner, 2012), found that children who were more fearful and similar mechanisms are likely involved and inhibited at 33 months showed more in emotional regulation. volitional inhibitory control at 45 months. They suggest that more fearful and inhibited The same general network involved in children have a greater opportunity to foster control of emotions is active during the their own self-control during their periods manipulation of internal representations, of slow approach to novel situations. such as generating word associations (Pos- ner & Raichle, 1994). Because working Attention and Emotion Regulation memory is finite, focusing attention on other We now consider contributions of execu- representations may lead to the exclusion of tive attention to emotion regulation via dis- “unwanted” representations. The execu- traction, suppression, and reappraisal. In tive attention system serves to monitor and the section on orienting we described how resolve conflict among brain networks and defense and approach systems monitor for may facilitate the manipulation of internal goal-relevant stimuli and, once activated, representations by allowing for the selection bias orienting toward some targets. Levels of one representation over another. We can of emotional activation are thus maintained thus attempt to control emotional respond- ing by literally thinking about other things,
314 PERSONALITY PROCESSES AND INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES a process that has been referred to as dis- does not result in the same reduction in traction. However, as an emotion regulation amygdala activity in patients as in normal strategy, distraction may have limited util- participants. However, distraction worked ity and ultimately adverse long-term conse- similarly in both groups (Kanske, Heissler, quences (Gross, this volume). Schönfelder, & Wessa, 2012). Research on sensory systems has shown Controlling attentional orienting, exclud- that attention can work by increasing acti- ing prepotent representations, and reinter- vation in an attended sensory system, as well pretation are strategies for reducing activa- as by reducing or suppressing activation of tion of reactive systems by altering overt or other systems (Posner & Raichle, 1994). To internal input into those systems. A differ- date, the upregulation of emotions has not ent avenue for regulation concerns altering been commonly addressed in either theoreti- output of the reactive systems. Bidirectional cal treatments or empirical studies of emo- links between the affective–motivational tion regulation, although Kieras, Tobin, systems and areas of output, such as the Graziano, and Rothbart (2005) have found autonomic system, allow for feedback loops that children higher in EC skills are more that can maintain emotional states (Tang & likely to be able to smile at the presenta- Posner, 2009). The executive attention sys- tion of a disappointing gift, and laboratory tem may enable efforts to modulate different research has linked high executive attention aspects of physiological arousal, including on the Child ANT to smiling in this para- both up-regulation and down-regulation. digm (Rothbart et al., 2003). It seems likely Direct manipulation of aspects of physio- that, as in orienting to sensory systems, the logical arousal that may be under conscious ability to smile in the face of disappointment control, such as changes in rates of respira- involves both activation of smiling and the tion and body muscle tension, is one pos- suppression of the emotion related to the sibility. Evidence from imaging studies and disappointing gift. animal models indicates that the ACC plays a substantial role in the modulation of auto- Links have also been found between the nomic reactivity in response to situational executive attention network and another demands (e.g., Critchley et al., 2003). strategy for altering representations to pro- mote emotion regulation, reappraisal, which So far, we have primarily considered involves reinterpreting the meaning or value emotion regulation in terms of reduction of of a representation (Gross, 2002). Ochsner activation. The defense and approach sys- et al. (2002) found that reappraisal led to tems motivate adaptive behavior by induc- reduced activity in the amgydala, suggest- ing emotional states, while the executive ing that reappraisal changes emotion-r elated attention system allows for the suppres- processing. Subsequent research has indi- sion of these reactive systems. However, it cated that prefrontal and anterior cingu- is important to note that the same mecha- late regions are involved in the modulation nisms through which the executive attention of emotion processing through reappraisal system produces reductions in activation of (Ochsner et al., 2004). In some studies the reactive systems can also be used to produce orbitofrontal area that lies adjacent to the increases in activation. If we want to induce ACC seems to account for the major differ- an affective state, we can consciously shift ence in brain activity found between dis- attention to the appropriate affect-inducing traction and reappraisal (Kanske, Heissler, stimuli, recall affect-inducing representa- Schönfelder, Bongers, & Wessa, 2011). tions, or reinterpret neutral representa- Reappraisal may thus be another mecha- tions to promote affective responses. The nism through which the executive attention executive attention system may also allow system regulates affective systems, in that us to elicit emotional responses by increas- it involves a competition among alterna- ing physiological arousal or by produc- tive internal representations. The executive ing behaviors that are consistent with the attention system facilitates the selection of desired emotional state. a secondary representation over the prepo- tent representation (Posner, 2012). Recent Since the executive attention network is studies of depressed patients have found important in emotional control, an obvious that emotion regulation through reappraisal question is whether intervention during pre- school or later can improve the functioning
Temperament and Emotion Regulation 315 of this network and thus alter the ability to ing a cognitive challenge of mental arithme- regulate emotion. We now describe efforts tic. After 30 days of training, cortisol levels to improve executive attention through were lower even at baseline, suggesting that training. the meditation group members experienced reduced stress in their daily life to a greater Training Executive Attention degree than those without this training There may be two quite different ways to (Tang et al., 2007). The mechanism of these train attention (Tang & Posner, 2009). One changes appears to be in alterations of the involves training by exercising a particular activation and connectivity of the ACC to attention network, and the other, a change other brain areas (Tang, Lu, Fan, Yang, & in brain state through meditation or related Posner, 2012). procedures. We have examined training of the executive attention system in children Issues in Temperament Assessment ages 4–6 years (Rueda, Rothbart, McCan- In temperament studies involving emotion dliss, Saccomanno, & Posner, 2005). The regulation it has been common to consider programs we have used were adapted from only individual differences in components of those used to train monkeys for space flight reactive temperament, without considering (Rumbaugh & Washburn, 1995). They either regulatory aspects of temperament, involve first training the child to use a joy- such as EC, or the interactions between stick to place a cat on grass rather than on these components. Studies focusing on only mud. As training proceeds, the grass shrinks single traits or looking only at main effects and control becomes more difficult; these may be missing important opportunities for skills are further built on to train anticipa- understanding the dynamic contribution of tion, improve memory, and exercise the abil- temperament to outcomes. Research sup- ity to resolve conflict (Rueda et al., 2005). ports the importance of considering inter- actions among dimensions of temperament Both 4- and 6-year-olds showed greater in predicting external criteria. For example, improvements in the brain networks related Gunnar, Sebanc, Tout, Donzella, and van to executive attention after 5 days of com- Dulmen (2003) found that high levels of sur- puter training than a control group that gency (approach) combined with low levels interacted with videos (Rueda et al., 2005). of EC were associated with higher cortisol The group taking attention training also levels and higher peer rejection in childhood showed improved IQ scores. A replication (see reviews by Rothbart, 2011; Rothbart & and extension of this study to 10 days of Bates, 2006). training was carried out in a Spanish pre- school (see review in Rueda, 2012). In addi- It is also important to note that depend- tion to replicating previous work, attention ing on context, the systems may either act training in this study improved children’s relatively independently, in direct competi- emotion regulation and self-c ontrol, includ- tion, or complement one another. Without ing their performance on delay of reward considering the person’s goals, it is difficult and children’s gambling tasks. A number to predict his or her particular reactions a of other methods used in classroom stud- priori. For example, considering fearfulness ies have also been effective in enhancing the in terms of the defense system emphasizes development of executive attention; they are that the network serves not only to inhibit helpful to children with and without prob- behavior in some circumstances but also to lems in attention (see Diamond & Lee, 2011, motivate avoidance or attack. In contrast, for a summary). EC, considered as an index of individual differences in the functioning of the execu- Studies of mindfulness meditation have tive attention system, serves to inhibit and also reported improvements of adults on facilitate processing in diverse cognitive and the conflict measure of the ANT and more affective networks, with the goal of modu- positive mood after only 5 days of training lating prepotent responses. Sometimes, the in comparison with a control group given goals of the defense and executive atten- relaxation training (Tang et al., 2007). After tion systems may agree. In these instances 5 days of training, stress levels, as measured by cortisol secretion, were reduced follow-
316 PERSONALITY PROCESSES AND INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES we would expect both temperamental fear- (r = .36), parent-r eported approach/anticipa- fulness and EC to contribute to predicting tion was a better predictor (r = –.56). Thus, an outcome (e.g., following directions dur- while inhibitory control may be properly ing a fire drill). In other circumstances the considered a facet of EC, inhibitory control goals of the systems may be at odds, and we measures may reflect an interaction between would expect behavioral outcomes to reflect the approach and the executive attention an interaction between the two systems (e.g., systems. jumping out of an airplane). Dynamic interaction between brain The approach adopted here also suggests areas is also found in imaging studies when that it is important to consider how each increases in activation of the ACC are accom- system contributes to a given temperament panied by reduced activity in the amygdala assessment. When we bring a child into the during control of negative emotion (Etkin, laboratory and attempt to assess EC using a Egner, Peraza, Kandel, & Hirsch, 2006). In variety of game-like tasks, task performance patient populations such as those suffering reflects dynamic interactions among several from borderline personality disorder (Gold- systems, not just EC. The approach sys- stein et al., 2007) or depression (Kanske & tem may respond to engaging activities and Kotz, 2012), this interaction is disrupted. rewards; the defense system may respond to the novelty of the laboratory, the procedures, This dynamic view of interacting systems and the experimenters. Finally, the executive suggests that single-m ethod assessments of attention system contributes to task per- temperament may be problematic. When formance, and also to keeping emotional possible, researchers should employ batter- responses in line with the parent’s, experi- ies of differentiated assessments in which the menter’s, and personal expectations. We can common feature is the temperament charac- try to get direct assessments of one aspect of teristic of interest. Multimethod assessment temperament, but outcomes almost always procedures are further complemented when reflect a mix of reactive and regulatory pro- multiple temperament traits are assessed cesses. For example, Laptook, Klein, Olino, (e.g., in questionnaires), particularly when Dyson, and Carlson (2010) showed that reactive and regulatory components of tem- children displaying the same low approach/ perament are being examined. A multitrait engagement could be differentiated into chil- approach allows us to better assess individ- dren with low positive affect and children ual differences in regulation by controlling with high behavioral inhibition. for individual differences in reactivity, and vice versa. Inhibitory control tasks, commonly employed in behavioral assessments of EC, Future Directions present an interesting example of how even We suggest that our understanding of emo- basic assessments may potentially tap into tion regulation will be advanced if we con- multiple temperament systems. Assessments ceptualize temperament constructs in terms such as the day–night Stroop task focus of affective–m otivational and attentional on assessing the inhibition of prepotent systems, study these systems at multiple lev- responses. However, to perform this task els, including the level of neural networks, successfully, children must also sit still, fol- and consider dynamic interactions among low instructions, attend to the stimuli, and these systems. Considering emotional reac- activate nonprepotent responses; motivation tivity and emotion regulation as core compo- to perform the task is also important (Hui- nents of temperament represents a first step zenga, van der Molen, Bexkens, Bos, & van toward a more dynamic, process-oriented den Wildenbeg, 2012). view. The second step leads to considering reactive and regulative components of tem- Even in the absence of overt feedback or perament together rather than in isolation. reward from the experimenter, we might Linking temperament to the study of emo- expect participants’ reactive responses to tion and emotion regulation also provides vary in the performance of these tasks. Con- temperament researchers with a rich empiri- sistent with this idea, Wolfe and Bell (2004) cal base for generating models of tempera- found that while parent-reported inhibitory control was a significant predictor of perfor- mance on inhibitory control laboratory tasks
Temperament and Emotion Regulation 317 ment development, such as models of the gulate cortex. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, development of social interaction and the 215–222. development of coping strategies (Rothbart, Calkins, S. D., & Williford, A. P. (2003, April). 2011). Advances in understanding the basic processes in emotional reactivity and emo- Anger regulation in infancy: Consequences tion regulation should inform and enrich and correlates. Paper presented at the meeting research on temperament. At the same time, of the Society for Research in Child Develop- research on temperament offers a unique ment, Tampa, FL. perspective for examining emotion and emo- Campos, J. J., Caplovitz, B. K., Lamb, M. E., tion regulation. Goldsmith, H. H., & Stenberg, C. (1983). Socioemotional development. In P. H. Mussen, References M. M. Haith, & J. J. Campos (Eds.), Hand- book of child psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 783– Aksan, N., & Kochanska, G. (2004). Links 915). New York: Wiley. between systems of inhibition from infancy Chang, F., & Burns, B. M. (2005). Attention in to preschool years. Child Development, 75, preschoolers: Associations with effortful con- 1477–1490. trol and motivation. Child Development, 76, 247–263. Allport, G. W. (1937). Personality: A psychologi- Critchley, H. D., Mathias, C. J., Josephs, O., cal interpretation. Oxford, UK: Holt. O’Doherty, J., Zanini, S., Dewar, B. K., et al. (2003). Human cingulate cortex and auto- Ayduk, O., Mendoza-Denton, R., Mischel, W., nomic control: Converging neuroimaging and Downey, G., Peake, P., & Rodriguez, M. clinical evidence. Brain, 126, 2139–2152. (2000). Regulating the interpersonal self: Stra- Crockenberg, S. C., Leerkes, E. M. J., & Barrig, tegic self-regulation for coping with rejection P. S. (2008). Predicting aggressive behavior sensitivity. Journal of Personality and Social in the third year from infant reactivity and Psychology, 79, 776–792. regulation as moderated by maternal behav- ior. Development and Psychopathology, 20, Beauregard, M., Levesque, J., & Bourgouin, P. 37–54. (2001). Neural correlates of conscious self- Deater-Deckard, K., & Wang, Z. (2012). Anger regulation of emotion. Journal of Neurosci- and irritability. In M. Zentner & R. L. Shiner ence, 21(RC165), 1–6. (Eds.), Handbook of temperament (pp. 124– 144). New York: Guilford Press. Beaver, J. D., Mogg, K., & Bradley, B. P. (2005). Derryberry, D., & Reed, M. A. (1994). Tem- Emotional conditioning to masked stimuli and perament and attention: Orienting toward and modulation of visuospatial attention. Emo- away from positive and negative signals. Jour- tion, 5, 67–79. nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 1128–1139. Belsky, J., & Pluess, M. (2009). Beyond diathesis Derryberry, D., & Reed, M. A. (2002). Anxiety- stress: Differential susceptibility to environ- related attentional biases and their regulation mental stress. Psychological Bulletin, 135, by attentional control. Journal of Abnormal 895–908. Psychology, 111, 225–236. Derryberry, D., & Rothbart, M. K. (1997). Reac- Berger, A., Tzur, G., & Posner, M. I. (2006). tive and effortful processes in the organization Infant brains detect arithmetic error. Proceed- of temperament. Developmental Psychopa- ing of the National Academy of Sciences USA, thology, 9, 633–652. 103, 12649–12653. Diamond, A., & Lee, K. (2011). Interventions shown to aid Executive Function develop- Block, J. (2002). Personality as an affect- ment in children 4–12 years old. Science, 333, processing system: Toward an integrative the- 959–964. ory. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Drevets, W. C., & Raichle, M. E. (1998). Recip- rocal suppression of regional cerebral blood Botvinick, M. M., Braver, T. S., Barch, D. M., flow during emotional versus higher cogni- Carter, C. S., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). Conflict tive processes: Implications for interactions monitoring and cognitive control. Psychologi- between emotion and cognition. Cognition cal Review, 108, 624–652. and Emotion, 12, 353–285. Bradley, M. M., Codispoti, M., Cuthbert, B. N., & Lang, P. J. (2001). Emotion and motivation I: Defense and appetitive reactions in picture processing. Emotion, 1, 276–299. Bush, G., Luu, P., & Posner, M. I. (2000). Cogni- tive and emotional influences in anterior cin-
318 PERSONALITY PROCESSES AND INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Nyman, M., Bern- in preschoolers. Developmental Psychobiol- zweig, J., & Pinulas, A. (1994). The relations ogy, 43, 346–358. of emotionality and regulation to children’s Harman, C., Rothbart, M. K., & Posner, M. I. anger-
Temperament and Emotion Regulation 319 (2000). Effortful control in early childhood: Pérez-Edgar, K., McDermott, J. N. M., Korelitz, Continuity and change, antecedents, and K., Degnan, K. A., Curby, T. W., Pine, D. S., implications for social development. Develop- et al. (2010). Patterns of sustained attention mental Psychology, 36, 220–232. in infancy shape the developmental trajectory Laptook, R. S., Klein, D. N., Olino, T. M., of social behavior from toddlerhood through Dyson, M. W., & Carlson, G. (2010). Low adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 46, positive affectivity and behavioral inhibition 1723–1730. in preschool-age children: A replication and extension of previous findings. Personality Posner, M. I. (2012). Attention in a social world. and Individual Differences, 48, 547–551. New York: Oxford University Press. Larsen, H., van der Zwaluw, C. S., Overbeek, G., Granic, I., Franke, B., & Engels, R. C. (2010). Posner, M. I., & Raichle, M. E. (1994). Images A variable-n umber-o f-tandem-r epeats poly- of mind. New York: Scientific American morphism in the dopamine D4 receptor gene Library. affects social adaptation of alcohol use: Inves- tigation of a gene–environment interaction. Posner, M. I., & Rothbart, M. K. (1998). Atten- Psychological Science, 21, 1064–1068. tion, self-regulation and consciousness. Philo- LeDoux, J. E. (1989). Cognitive–emotional inter- actions in the brain. Cognition and Emotion, sophical Transactions of the Royal Society of 3, 267–289. London B, 353, 1915–1927. LeDoux, J. E. (2000). Emotion circuits in the Posner, M. I., & Rothbart, M. K. (2007a). Edu- brain. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 23, cating the human brain. Washington, DC: 155–184. American Psychological Association Books. Lengua, L. J., & Wachs, T. D. (2012). Tem- Posner, M. I., & Rothbart, M. K. (2007b). perament and risk: Resilient and vulnerable Research on attentional networks as a model responses to adversity. In M. Zentner & R. for the integration of psychological science. L. Shiner (Eds.), Handbook of temperament Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 1–23. (pp. 519–540). New York: Guilford Press. Posner, M. I., Rothbart, M. K. Sheese, B. E., & McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T., Jr., Ostendorf, F., Voelker, P. (2012). Control networks and neu- Angleitner, A., Hrebícková, M., Avia, M. D., romodulators in early development. Develop- et al. (2000). Nature over nurture: Tempera- mental Psychology, 48, 827–835. ment, personality, and life span development. Putnam, S. P., Ellis, L. K., & Rothbart, M. K. (2001). The structure of temperament from Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, infancy through adolescence. In A. Eliasz & 78, 173–186. A. Angleitner (Eds.), Advances in research on Norman, D. A., & Shallice, T. (1986). Atten- temperament (pp. 165–182). Lengerich, Ger- tion to action: Willed and automatic control many: Pabst Science. of behavior. In G. E. Schwartz & D. Shap- Rothbart, M. K. (2011). Becoming who we are: iro (Eds.), Consciousness and self-regulation (Vol. 4, pp. 1–18). New York: Plenum. Temperament and personality in develop- Ochsner, K. N., Bunge, S. A., Gross, J. J., & ment. New York: Guilford Press. Gabrieli, J. D. E. (2002). Rethinking feelings: Rothbart, M. K. (1988). Temperament and the An FMRI study of the cognitive regulation of development of inhibited approach. Child emotion. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, Development, 59, 1241–1250. 14, 1215–1229. Rothbart, M. K., Ahadi, S. A., & Hershey, K. Ochsner, K. N., Ray, R. D., Cooper, J. C., Rob- L. (1994). Temperament and social behavior ertson, E. R., Chopra, S., Gabrieli, J. D., et al. in childhood. Merrill–Palmer Quarterly, 40, (2004). For better or for worse: Neural sys- 21–39. tems supporting the cognitive down- and up- Rothbart, M. K., Ahadi, S. A., Hershey, K. L., regulation of negative emotion. NeuroImage, & Fisher, P. (2001). Investigations of tempera- 23, 483–499. ment at three to seven years: The children’s Paulus, M. P., Feinstein, J. S., Simmons, A., & behavior questionnaire. Child Development, Stein, M. B. (2004). Anterior cingulate activa- 72, 1394–1408. tion in high trait anxious subjects is related to Rothbart, M. K., & Bates, J. E. (2006). Tem- altered error processing during decision mak- perament in children’s development. In W. ing. Biological Psychiatry, 55, 1179–1187. Damon, R. Lerner, & N. Eisenberg (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol 3. Social, emotional, and personality development (6th ed., pp. 99–166). New York: Wiley. Rothbart, M. K., & Derryberry, D. (1981). Devel-
320 PERSONALITY PROCESSES AND INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES opment of individual differences in tempera- of gratification from mother–toddler interac- ment. In M. E. Lamb & A. L. Brown (Eds.), tions. Developmental Psychology, 36, 767– Advances in developmental psychology (Vol. 777. 1, pp. 37–86). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Sheese, B. E., Voelker, P., Posner, M. I., & Roth- Rothbart, M. K., Derryberry, D., & Hershey, bart, M. K. (2009). Genetic variation influ- K. (2000). Stability of temperament in child- ences on the early development of reactive hood: Laboratory infant assessment to parent emotions and their regulation by attention. report at seven years. In V. J. Molfese & D. L. Cognitive Neuropsychiatry, 14, 332–355. Molfese (Eds.), Temperament and personality Sheese, B. E., Voelker, P. M., Rothbart, M. K., & development across the life span (pp. 85–119). Posner, M. I. (2007). Parenting quality inter- Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. acts with genetic variation in dopamine recep- Rothbart, M. K., Ellis, L. K., Rueda, M. R., & tor DRD4 to influence temperament in early Posner, M. I. (2003). Developing mechanisms childhood. Development and Psychopathol- of temperamental effortful control. Journal of ogy, 19, 1039–1046. Personality, 71, 1113–1143. Sheese, B. E., Voelker, P. M., Rothbart, M. K., Rothbart, M. K., & Posner, M. I. (2006). Tem- & Posner, M. I. (2012). The dopamine recep- perament, attention, and developmental psy- tor D4 gene 7-repeat allele interacts with par- chopathology. In D. Cicchetti & D. J. Cohen enting quality to predict effortful control in (Eds.), Developmental psychopathology: Vol. four-year-old children. Child Development 2. Developmental neuroscience (2nd ed., Research, 86, 32–42. pp. 465–501). New York: Wiley. Shiner, R. L., & Caspi, A. (2012). Temperament Rothbart, M. K., Ziaie, H., & O’Boyle, C. G. and the development of personality traits, (1992). Self-regulation and emotion in infancy. adaptations, and narratives. In M. Zentner & In N. Eisenberg & R. A. Fabes (Eds.), Emo- R. L. Shiner (Eds.), Handbook of temperament (pp. 497–518). New York: Guilford Press. tion and its regulation in early development Shoda, Y., Mischel, W., & Peake, P. K. (1990). Pre- (pp. 7–23). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. dicting adolescent cognitive and self-regulatory Rueda, M. R. (2012). Effortful control. In M. competencies from preschool delay of gratifica- Zentner & R. L.Shiner (Eds.), Handbook of tion: Identifying diagnostic conditions. Devel- temperament (pp. 145–167). New York: Guil- opmental Psychology, 26, 978–986. ford Press. Tang, Y.-Y., Lu, Q., Fan, M., Yang, Y., & Pos- Rueda, M. R., Fan, J., McCandliss, B. D., Hal- ner, M. I. (2012). Mechanisms of white matter parin, J. D., Gruber, D. B., Lercari, L. P., et changes induced by meditation. Proceedings al. (2004). Development of attentional net- works in childhood. Neuropsychologia, 42, of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 1029–1040. 109, 10570–10574. Rueda, M. R., Rothbart, M. K., McCandliss, B. Tang, Y.-Y., Ma, Y., Wang, J., Fan, Y., Feng, S., D., Saccomanno, L., & Posner, M. I. (2005). Lu, Q., et al. (2007). Short term meditation Training, maturation, and genetic influences training improves attention and self regula- on the development of executive attention. tion. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 104, 17152–17156. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sci- Tang, Y., & Posner, M. I. (2009). Attention ences USA, 102, 14931–14936. training and attention state training. Trends Rumbaugh, D. M., & Washburn, D. A. (1995). in Cognitive Science, 13, 222–227. Attention and memory in relation to learning: Wolfe, C. D., & Bell, M. A. (2004). Working A comparative adaptation perspective. In G. memory and inhibitory control in early child- R. Lyon & N. A. Krasengor (Eds.), Attention, hood: Contributions from electrophysiology, memory and executive function (pp. 199– temperament, and language. Developmental 219). Baltimore: Brookes. Psychobiology, 44, 68–83. Schimmack, U. (2005). Attentional interference Zentner, M., & Shiner, R. L. (2012). Handbook effects of emotional pictures: Threat, negativ- of temperament. New York: Guilford Press. ity, or arousal? Emotion, 5, 55–66. Zuckerman, M. (2012). Models of adult temper- Sethi, A., Mischel, W., Aber, J. L., Shoda, Y., & ament. In M. Zentner & R. L. Shiner (Eds.), Rodriguez, M. L. (2000). The role of strate- Handbook of temperament (pp. 41–68). New gic attention deployment in development of York: Guilford Press. self-regulation: Predicting preschoolers’ delay
Chapter 20 Three Approaches to Individual Differences in Affect Regulation: Conceptualizations, Measures, and Findings Oliver P. John Joshua Eng Over the past two decades, interest in the intensely stressful life situation and try to way people can and do regulate their affec- maintain well-being (e.g., Carver & Scheier, tive states has increased rapidly. Much of 1994; Folkman & Lazarus, 1980). Clinical the research has been experimental (e.g., psychologists tend to focus on the dysregu- Webb, Miles, & Sheeran, 2012). However, lation of affect (i.e., failures and problems to understand the antecedents and conse- with regulation) and its contribution to quences of affect regulation in everyday life, various forms of pathology (e.g., Kring & outside the laboratory, one must study natu- Sloan, 2009). Emotion researchers exam- rally occurring individual differences (John ine the specific experiential, expressive, and & Gross, 2007). Although it is now widely physiological components of the emotional agreed that individuals differ systematically response process and the role of regulation and consistently in affect regulation, these within this process (e.g., Gross & Leven- individual differences have been conceptual- son, 1993). Developmental psychologists are ized and measured in many different ways. interested in how children learn to regulate Different conceptualization and measures emotional states in family and peer contexts arose, in part, because individual differences and to do so in ways that are adaptive and in affect regulation are not uniquely associ- socially appropriate, thus becoming emo- ated with just one field within psychology. tionally competent adults (e.g., Morris, Silk, Instead, researchers in several distinct sub- Steinberg, Myers, & Robinson, 2007). disciplines in psychology are keenly inter- ested in this topic. With such a wide range of stakehold- ers and their particular interests, concep- Personality and social psychologists are tual preferences, and measurement tradi- interested in positive and negative mood tions, it is not surprising that research on states, and how stable individual differ- individual differences in the regulation of ences in self-control influence longer-term affective states (e.g., stress, mood, specific adaptation (e.g., Block & Block, 1980; emotions) has not proceeded as a unified Baumeister, Zell, & Tice, 2007). Stress and science. Many researchers agree that this is coping researchers study the myriad ways not a desirable state of affairs. For example, individuals differ when they encounter an Weinberg and Klonsky (2009, p. 616) noted, 321
322 PERSONALITY PROCESSES AND INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES “Despite growing consensus regarding the vidual differences in coping with stress and importance of emotion dysregulation in psy- individual differences in emotional compe- chopathology, the field has not yet reached tence. We begin with a brief overview of an agreement on the construct’s definition. these three approaches. Then we consider Multiple components of emotion regulation each approach in turn, focusing on concep- have been proposed. . . . ” Similarly, Mor- tualization and major measures. In the final ris et al. (2007, p. 363) concluded, “Existing section we outline limitations, continuing empirical studies of ER [emotion regulation] issues, and future directions for research. differ widely in the measures, methods, and levels of analyses employed.” Overview: Three Approaches to Individual Differences More generally, research on individual in Affect Regulation differences Humans have multiple kinds of affective (i.e., valenced) states that they may control in the emotion regulation domain is still in or regulate, such as stress, negative affect, its infancy. A consequence is the lack of a or distinct emotions (e.g., pride or sadness) definitive conceptualization and assessment (Gross & Thompson, 2007). Therefore, we methods of ER, with significant inconsisten- designate individual differences in affect reg- cies across studies. . . . In order to contrib- ulation as the superordinate domain; here ute to greater scientific and methodological we include all kinds of regulatory attempts rigor, there is a need to empirically examine to influence any valenced responses. Figure these relationships within a valid theoretical 20.1 shows that below that broad rubric, we framework that conceptualizes ER in a multi- may consider three somewhat overlapping faceted way. . . . Utilization of a model, such subdomains, namely, individual differences as Gross’ (1998), would do good service to this (1) in specific processes used to regulate weakness in the existing literature. (Bariola, emotions, (2) in coping with stress, and (3) Gullone, & Hughes, 2011, p. 208) in emotional competence. Indeed, the process model proposed by Gross (1998, this volume; see also Gross & Most goal-d irected actions and cognitions Thompson, 2007) has attracted much atten- can serve to maximize pleasure or minimize tion and has proven influential in research on pain and may therefore be said to regu- individual differences as well (e.g., Gross & late affective states. Nonetheless, the three John, 2003; John & Gross, 2004), because it approaches to the study of individual dif- defines core constructs and provides a gen- ferences in Figure 20.1 do differ from each eral terminology. other, in terms of the particular affective In the first major part of this chapter, responses subject to regulation, the relevant we describe this model and the individual- situational contexts, and the nature of the differences research it has inspired, focus- cognitive and behavioral processes included. ing on a small set of carefully specified pro- cesses used to regulate emotions. We begin Broadly speaking, the coping approach with this approach to individual differences can be distinguished from the specific emo- for two reasons, one personal and the other tion regulation process approach by the fact conceptual. First, having contributed to this that coping focuses primarily on reducing research, we are obviously more familiar negative affect rather than distinct emo- with this work than with other approaches. tions, and typically extends across longer Second, Gross’s process model is sufficiently periods of time (e.g., coping with loss). general to serve as a framework that can help Stress responses also are less clearly defined organize, interpret, and compare the various than specific emotions in terms of behav- ways individual differences in affect regula- ioral response tendencies; thus, coping is tion have been conceptualized and studied. more likely to involve changing experiential, Our review of the existing research on rather than behavioral–expressive, compo- individual differences suggests that, in nents of the affective response. addition to work based on the emotion regulation process model, two other major Whereas the coping approach is narrowly approaches address the regulation of affec- focused on those situations that are stress- tive states broadly defined, namely, indi- ful, individual differences in the emotional
Individual Differences in Affect Regulation 323 AFFECT REGULATION Specific Processes to Coping with Stress Emotional Regulate Emotion Competence • Ways of Coping (WOC; • Emotion Regulation Folkman & Lazarus, • Negative Mood Regulation Questionnaire 1980) Scale (NMR; Catanzaro & (ERQ; Gross & John, Mearns, 1990) 2003) • COPE Inventory (Carver, Scheier, & Weintraub, • Trait Meta-Mood Scale • Emotion Regulation 1989) (TMMS; Salovey et al., Questionnaire for 1995) Children and • Cognitive Emotion Adolescents (ERQ-CA; Regulation • Difficulties in Emotion Gullone & Taffe, Questionnaire Regulation Scales (DERS; 2012) (CERQ; Garnefski & Gratz & Roemer, 2004) Kraaij, 2007) • Mayer–Salovey–Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT; Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2002) FIGURE 20.1. Three major approaches to studying individual differences in affect regulation via self- report and some of the major measures. competence approach apply to a broader Figure 20.1. We now describe each approach set of contexts. Furthermore, the emotional and the associated measures in some detail. competence approach includes a host of processes, skills, and competencies (e.g., Individual Differences attention to feelings; clarity about feeling in Specific Processes Used states) that do not directly regulate emo- to Regulate Emotions tions but make it easier for the individual The Process Model to behave in socioemotionally appropriate We begin with an approach to individual ways. Additionally, in the emotional compe- differences that is based on the model of tence approach, the specific processes used specific emotion regulation processes devel- to regulate feelings or moods are not of core oped by Gross (1998). He derived this model importance and thus tend to remain undif- from a generally accepted conception of the ferentiated; individual differences in strat- emotion-generative process, which holds egy use are often summarized in terms of a that an emotion begins with an evalua- single concept, such as whether the individ- tion (or appraisal) of emotion cues. When ual makes greater or lesser efforts at “mood attended to and evaluated in certain ways, repair” (e.g., Salovey et al., 1995) or has emotion cues trigger a coordinated set of great or only limited “access to effective reg- experiential, behavioral, and physiological ulation strategies” (e.g., Gratz & Roemer, response tendencies. Once these response 2004). Thus, the emotional competence tendencies arise, they may be modulated approach is much broader than the specific in various ways. Because emotion unfolds emotion regulation process approach. over time, emotion regulation strategies can be differentiated in terms of when they Each of these three broad conceptual have their primary impact on the emotion- approaches has generated a number of measures. Examples of the major measures associated with each approach are listed in
324 PERSONALITY PROCESSES AND INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES Situation Situation Attention Cognitive Response Deployment Change Modulation Selection Modification (Distraction) (Reappraisal) (Suppression) (Avoidance) (Self-Assertion) Situation Attention Appraisal Response FIGURE 20.2. A process model of emotion regulation. Individual differences in emotion regulation may arise at five points in the emotion-g enerative process: (1) selection of the situation; (2) modification of the situation; (3) deployment of attention; (4) change of cognitions; and (5) modulation of experien- tial, behavioral, or physiological responses. Specific instantiations of these five families of regulatory strategies (given in parentheses) may be used for the down-regulation of negative emotion, as described in the text. From John and Gross (2007). Copyright 2007 by The Guilford Press. Reprinted by permis- sion. generative process. As shown in Figure 20.2, Individual Differences five families of more specific strategies can Measured with the Emotion be located along the timeline of the emotion Regulation Questionnaire process (Gross, 1998). Empirical research on individual differences has focused on two specific regulatory pro- Here we illustrate the use of these strat- cesses (for reviews, see John & Gross, 2004, egies for the most frequent goal of emo- 2007). Cognitive reappraisal is a form of tion regulation in everyday life, namely, cognitive change that involves construing a down-regulating (decreasing) emotions potentially emotion-eliciting situation in a that typically have a negative valence, such way that changes its emotional impact. For as anxiety/fear, sadness, and anger (Gross, example, during an admissions interview, Richards, & John, 2006). Specific forms of one might view the give and take as an oppor- emotion down-regulation are indicated in tunity to find out how much one likes the Figure 20.2 in parentheses under each fam- school, rather than as a test of one’s worth. ily name. In particular, situation selection Expressive suppression is a form of response refers to avoiding certain people, places, or modulation that involves inhibiting ongoing activities so as to limit one’s exposure to sit- emotion-expressive behavior. For example, uations likely to generate negative emotion. one might keep a poker face while holding Once a situation has been selected, situation a great hand during an exciting card game. modification operates to tailor or change a Antecedent-focused strategies such as reap- situation so as to decrease its negative emo- praisal influence whether or not particular tional impact. Third, situations have many emotion response tendencies are triggered, different aspects, so attentional deploy- and are therefore expected to have generally ment can be used to focus on less negatively positive implications for affective and social valenced aspects of the situation. Once one functioning. In contrast, response-focused has focused on a particular aspect of the sit- strategies such as suppression influence how uation, cognitive change refers to construct- emotion response tendencies are modulated ing a more positive meaning out of the many once they have been triggered, and are possible meanings that may be attached to therefore expected to have generally more that situation. Finally, response modulation negative implications for affective and social refers to various kinds of attempts to influ- functioning (cf. Gross, 1998). ence emotion response tendencies once they already have been elicited.
Individual Differences in Affect Regulation 325 To test whether there are reliable and sys- suppression are two independent regulatory tematic individual differences in these two strategies that different individuals use to emotion regulation processes, Gross and varying degrees. John (2003) developed the Emotion Regu- lation Questionnaire (ERQ), a brief 10-item In terms of mean differences, gender and measure of the habitual use of reappraisal culture differences emerged for suppres- and suppression. Items were derived ratio- sion, which is expected to reflect culturally nally, starting with the experimental manip- defined display rules for emotion (Ekman, ulations used in previous experimental 1972). The pattern of gender differences was research, and indicating clearly in each item highly consistent across cultures. Masculin- the intended emotion regulatory process, ity is generally associated with acting tough such as “I control my emotions by changing and unemotional, thus avoiding any indica- the way I think about the situation I’m in” tion of weakness or dependency (Knobloch (reappraisal) and “I control my emotions by & Metts, 2013). Indeed, emotion expression not expressing them” (suppression). These may be costly for men; for example, expres- example items refer to emotion in general. In sion of negative emotion has been linked addition, the Reappraisal and Suppression to lower social status for men but not for scales each include at least one item asking women (Anderson, John, Keltner, & Kring, about regulating negative emotion (illus- 2001). In general, then, men should use sup- trated for the participants by giving sad- pression more often than women. As shown ness and anger as examples) and one item in Figure 20.3, men indeed reported lower about regulating positive emotion (exempli- levels of suppression use than women; in fied by joy and amusement). Gross and John contrast, there were no gender differences in also were careful to limit the item content reappraisal use in any of the cultures stud- to the intended emotion regulatory strategy ied. in order to avoid potential confounding by mentioning any positive or negative conse- Figure 20.3 also shows that among both quences on affect, social functioning, or men and women, the Japanese samples scored well-being. highest in suppression use. This is consistent with mean suppression scores in 23 nations The structure of the ERQ is consistent (Matsumoto et al., 2008); individuals in across samples, ages, and cultures, indicat- Western countries that value independence ing a clear two-factor structure. Factor anal- were less likely to suppress their emotions yses have shown two independent factors in than individuals in East Asian countries multiple samples of young and older adults that value interdependence. However, cross- in the United States (John & Gross, 2004), national comparisons cannot conclusively Germany (Abler & Kessler, 2009), Italy pinpoint the origin of the national–group (Balzarotti, John, & Gross, 2010), China differences, so Eng et al. (2013) tested for (English & John, 2013), Japan (Eng, Akutsu, acculturation effects (1) between groups Gross, & John, 2013), and more than 15 of European Americans and East Asian other language communities in which the Americans and (2) within a group of Asian ERQ has been adapted (Matsumoto et al., American immigrants who differed in their 2008). Consistent with factor-analytic acculturation to Western culture (indexed findings, the correlation between the ERQ by the length of their residence in the United Reappraisal and Suppression scales tends States). Figure 20.4A shows that European to be close to zero. That is, individuals who Americans scored lower in suppression than frequently use reappraisal are no more (or did East Asian Americans. Figure 20.4B less) likely to use suppression than individu- shows parallel suppression differences in als who use reappraisal infrequently. These the within-group analysis: The longer East findings are important because they provide Asian immigrants had lived in the United clear evidence against a single, general-f actor States and been exposed to Western cultural model, in which some individuals regulate values and practices, the less suppression their emotions a lot using both reappraisal they reported, in effect becoming more like and suppression, whereas other individuals European Americans. How can these cul- regulate their emotions rarely, using neither tural group differences and acculturation strategy frequently. Instead, reappraisal and effects be explained? As we will argue in the final section of this chapter, models of
326 PERSONALITY PROCESSES AND INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES Women Men 4.5 4 Mean Suppression 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 Germany Italy Japan U.S. FIGURE 20.3. Men suppress more than women across four cultures. Mean ERQ suppression scores are shown for men and women in samples from the United States (Gross & John, 2003), Germany (Abler & Kessler, 2009), Italy (Balzarotti, John, & Gross, 2010), and Japan (Eng et al., 2013). individual differences in emotion regulation cal health, whereas greater habitual use of need to consider values, goals, and other suppression should have less favorable impli- motivational factors, such as the culturally cations. Thus, it is important that any such transmitted values associated with indepen- adjustment effects cannot be attributed to dent and interdependent self-construal. other factors, such as intelligence, socially desirable responding, or general tempera- Finally, it is important to comment on ment and personality traits. discriminant validity. The ERQ Reappraisal and Suppression scales were not related to In terms of adjustment outcomes, the various measures of cognitive ability (Gross general process model (Gross, 1998) holds & John, 2003; McRae, Jacobs, Ray, John, that reappraisal occurs early in the emotion- & Gross, 2012). Similarly, correlations with generative process, before emotion response social desirability were small, probably tendencies have been fully generated, and because the ERQ items are worded fairly thus permits the modification of the entire neutrally and do not mention adjustment or emotional sequence, including the expe- psychological health outcomes. Finally, cor- rience of more positive and less negative relations with the broad personality dimen- emotion, without notable physiological, sions defined by the Big Five traits (e.g., cognitive, or interpersonal costs. Suppres- John, Naumann, & Soto, 2008) showed sion, by contrast, comes relatively late in the only modest relations; highly neurotic indi- emotion-generative process and primarily viduals were slightly less likely to use reap- modifies behavioral emotion response ten- praisal, and highly extraverted individuals dencies, without reducing the experience were somewhat less likely to use suppres- of negative emotion. Because suppression sion. Overall, these findings are consistent comes late in the emotion-generative pro- with a conceptualization of reappraisal cess, it requires the individual to effortfully and suppression as rather specific and nar- manage emotion response tendencies that rowly defined individual differences in emo- arise continually, thus consuming cognitive tion regulation processes. The discriminant resources that could otherwise be used for validity findings are particularly important optimal performance in the social contexts here, because theory predicts habitual use of in which the emotions occur. Moreover, in reappraisal should have generally favorable everyday life, the habitual suppression of implications for adjustment and psychologi- one’s true feelings is expected to create in the
Individual Differences in Affect Regulation 327 (A) effects of regulation should depend on the Independence particular regulatory process used: Indi- vidual differences in the habitual use of +– reappraisal and suppression have differen- tial implications for effective functioning Asian vs. White – Suppression (e.g., Abler & Kessler, 2009; Balzarotti et Ethnicity al., 2010; English & John, 2013; English, John, & Gross, 2013; Gross & John, 2003; – n.s. Richards & Gross, 2000; Srivastava, Tamir, Interdependence McGonigal, John, & Gross, 2009). Figure 20.5 illustrates typical findings. In terms of (B) Independence affective implications, habitual use of reap- praisal was related to more positive emo- +– tion and less negative emotion. Cognitively, reappraisal does not appear to have reliable Length of – Suppression effects on social memory. In the domains of Residence interpersonal functioning and well-being, reappraisal was generally associated with in U.S. better psychological health. However, these relationships may turn out to be more com- – n.s. plex; for example, the positive interpersonal effects of reappraisal may be more apparent Interdependence in peer ratings of relationship quality than in self-ratings, and the well-being effects FIGURE 20.4. Explaining the effects of culture of reappraisal may vary somewhat depend- on emotion regulation: Ethnicity and accul- ing on measures and samples (e.g., Aldao, turation effects on suppression were mediated Nolen-H oeksema, & Schweizer, 2010; Eng- by independent (but not interdependent) self- lish & John, 2013; English, John, Srivastava, construal. Panel (A) shows that in a sample of & Gross, 2012). Asian and White students, the between-group effect of ethnicity (coded Asian = 0, White = 1) A rather different picture emerges for on suppression was mediated through indepen- habitual use of suppression. As shown in dence (but not through interdependence). Panel Figure 20.5, suppression is related to less (B) shows parallel mediation effects within the positive and more negative emotion experi- group of Asian immigrants: length of accultura- ence. Cognitively, suppression is associated tion (residence) in the United States was associ- with degraded memory for socially relevant ated with less suppression use, and this effect was information. Socially, suppression is con- mediated through greater independence (but not sistently related to relationships that are interdependence) in self-c onstrual. Signs indicate less close, satisfying, and supportive, even the relationship between variables: “+” indicates in highly interdependent cultures such as a positive effect, “-“ a negative effect, and “n.s.” China (English & John, 2013). In terms of a null effect. well-being, suppression again has unfavor- able effects, although that may be limited individual a sense of discrepancy between to Western cultures that highly value inde- inner experience and outer expression, lead- pendence and authenticity (English & John, ing to negative feelings about the self and 2013). to interpersonal behavior that is distracted, strained, and avoidant, thus impeding the Whereas there is now considerable evi- development of emotionally close relation- dence for effects on adjustment and psycho- ships (see also English & John, 2013; Eng- logical health, much less is known about lish, John, & Gross, 2013; John & Gross, the development of individual differences 2004). in reappraisal and suppression (see John & Gross, 2004). For example, research on In general, empirical evidence has sup- adults suggests that gender and cultural ported the prediction that more regulation socialization processes are likely playing a is not necessarily better but, instead, the role. As discussed earlier (see Figures 20.3 and 20.4), on average men report higher lev-
328 PERSONALITY PROCESSES AND INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES .35* Positive –.58* Emotion –.47* Negative .36* Emotion REAPPRAISAL .17 Cognitive –.27* SUPPRESSION .26* (e.g., memory) –.25* .30* Social –.34* (e.g., closeness) Well-Being (e.g., life satisfaction) FIGURE 20.5. Individual differences in the habitual use of reappraisal and suppression are differen- tially associated with healthy adaptation in emotion experience, cognition, relationships, and well- being (adapted from John & Gross, 2004, 2007). Specific correlational findings in the figure are given only for illustrative purposes, and effect sizes vary across samples and measures used. els of suppression use than women, and East tive states (e.g., Shaver & Mikulincer, Asians report higher levels of suppression 2007; Westen & Blagov, 2007). For several use than Westerners. However, at this point decades, stress researchers have studied we know little about when and how these individual differences in coping styles—the differences in emotion regulation develop. ways individuals attempt to deal with adver- sity (e.g., Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; see There is reason to expect this state of also Carver & Scheier, 1994). In their pio- affairs to change for the better in the near neering work, Folkman and Lazarus (1985) future. A version of the ERQ adapted for emphasized that coping has two major func- children and adolescents (ERQ-CA) has tions, namely, “the regulation of distressing recently been published (Gullone & Taffe, emotions and doing something to change 2012). Using this instrument, promising for the better the problem causing the dis- findings on the development of reappraisal tress” (p. 152). That is, coping includes and suppression are beginning to appear regulatory efforts directed at internal emo- (e.g., Bariola et al., 2011). tional responses (e.g., anxiety) or at external problems facing the individual (e.g., a final The Coping‑with‑Stress Approach exam). What are the major ways, or dimen- and Its Major Measures sions, of coping in which individuals differ The literature on stress and coping origi- from each other? nated from psychodynamic concepts and ideas on anxiety and defense mechanisms Ways of Coping Questionnaire that have provided an important start- Folkman and Lazarus (1980, 1985, 1988) ing point for much thinking about affec- reasoned that multiple ways of coping could
Individual Differences in Affect Regulation 329 be distinguished but, lacking an established process of changing the personal meaning theoretical framework, tried to discover or appraisal of an emotion-eliciting event. the major dimensions of coping empiri- Instead, these items describe diverse, though cally. They initially assembled in the Ways generally positive, consequences arising of Coping Questionnaire 68 items intended from or after the stressful experience (e.g., to capture a wide variety of behavioral and “I came out of the experience better than I cognitive coping responses, representing went in”), including personal growth, self- the things people commonly do when deal- transformation, greater creativity, and even ing with stress. Some of these items were spiritual renewal. inspired by previous theory and literature, including defense mechanisms (e.g., wish- This complex item content poses serious ful thinking, denial), whereas others were issues for research on the correlates and added later at the suggestion of subjects in adaptive consequences of using a particu- their studies (e.g., prayer). Exploratory fac- lar coping style. As Lazarus (2000, p. 666) tor analyses and rational item selection led explained, “The danger of confounding is eventually to eight scales assumed to mea- that measures of coping could contain some sure distinct ways of coping: Confrontive, of the same variables—for example, distress Distancing, Self-C ontrolling, Seeking Social or psychopathology—as the outcome mea- Support, Accepting Responsibility, Escape- sure of mental health. Thus, if the anteced- Avoidance, Planful Problem Solving, and ent and consequent measures are essentially Positive Reappraisal (Folkman & Lazarus, the same, any correlation between them 1988). These eight coping styles constituted would represent some degree of tautology.” the first and “most commonly used measure of basic coping responses” (Parker, Endler, This problem—confounding the predictor & Bagby, 1993, p. 361). or causal variable (i.e., regulation) with sub- sequent outcomes to be predicted (i.e., better The inclusion of cognitive coping styles adjustment) within the same item—is a com- such as Planful Problem Solving and Accept- mon issue in research on individual differ- ing Responsibility shows that the concep- ences in affect regulation. It highlights that tual domain of coping (see Figure 20.1) also in writing items researchers should focus includes processes that are not aimed at the item content specifically on the regulatory regulation of affective states per se, such as process of interest. Indeed, among the items “analyzing the problem in order to under- listed earlier, only one (“I prayed”) describes stand it better.” a potential emotion regulatory activity with- out mentioning some other, positive out- Some scales, however, do fit with the comes as well. broader notion of affect regulation set out in Figure 20.1. Consider, for example, the In addition to confounding, lack of speci- scale initially labeled Emphasizing the Posi- ficity is another potential issue in these tive (Folkman & Lazarus, 1985). Its revised items. For example, the item “I prayed” is label, Positive Reappraisal, implies a concep- vague vis-à-vis the particular regulatory pro- tual link to the family of emotion regulation cess at work: Individuals may pray in order strategies that Gross (1998) called Cognitive to gain a new perspective or understanding Change, especially the Cognitive Reappraisal of an emotion-eliciting event, but they may strategy. Do the seven items on Folkman and also pray to distract themselves, or to share Lazarus’s (1988) Positive Reappraisal coping their feelings with a greater power, or even scale measure cognitive reappraisal? They to muster the inner strength to modify the include “I was inspired to do something cre- situation. These uses of prayer and religion ative”; “I changed or grew as a person in a for affect regulation may well be distinct good way”; “I came out of the experience and show differential correlates and adjust- better than I went in”; “I found new faith”; ment outcomes. “I rediscovered what is important in life”; “I changed something about myself”; and “I These issues also apply to items on other prayed.” These items indeed describe a per- scales (see Folkman & Lazarus, 1985). For son who emphasizes positive experiences or example, “I jog or exercise,” scored on the behaviors in a stressful situation. However, Tension Reduction scale, may represent they do not directly assess the particular multiple specific regulation strategies, such as situation selection (e.g., avoiding the stressor), attentional deployment (e.g., dis-
330 PERSONALITY PROCESSES AND INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES tracting oneself), and even response mod- tual model continues to be a problem. The ulation (e.g., going off to jog in order to scales thus continue to define coping styles avoid expressing one’s emotion to another at rather different levels of abstraction, with person). These items could be more specific some scales (e.g., Turning to Religion) mea- regarding the specific regulatory processes suring very broad and complex constructs intended. and others (e.g., Denial) measuring much more specific processes. It is not clear how In summary, most items on the Ways of the various coping styles being measured Coping Questionnaire are worded broadly should be conceptually or causally related. and lack specificity regarding the regulatory And many of the scales remain conceptu- process involved. Many items suffer from ally heterogeneous; for example, the scale a confounding problem where regulation labeled Focus on and Venting of Emotions and extraneous outcomes (e.g., psychoso- involves both being aware of one’s distress cial consequences) are combined in the same and “letting it out.” item. At the scale level, the lack of a process model led to a reliance on exploratory factor Before using these scales, it is important analyses of these broad and complex items to examine the item content of the COPE to define the conceptual building blocks (i.e., scales to understand what they are mea- the particular coping styles). The resulting suring (e.g., John & Gross, 2007). Some concepts (as represented by the scales) are of them can be linked to the specific emo- heterogeneous and often combine conceptu- tion regulation strategies defined in Gross’s ally distinct regulatory processes. With such (1998) process model. For example, the complex and global concepts, the scales are COPE Active Coping and Planning scales hard to interpret and have been criticized include items that refer to regulatory pro- for lacking construct validity; discriminant cesses involving situation selection and situ- validity has been a particular problem, ation modification. Another example is the because intercorrelations between some of scale that Folkman and Lazarus (1988) had the scales tend to be very high, with some initially called Emphasizing the Positive and exceeding .70 (e.g., Parker et al., 1993). that Carver et al. (1989) relabeled Positive Reinterpretation and Growth (e.g., looking COPE Inventory for the silver lining in stressful situations; In an important contribution, Carver, trying to learn from difficult experiences). Scheier, and Weintraub (1989) substan- One would expect this coping style to be tially reworked the original Folkman and related to the specific emotion regulation Lazarus scales, using modern psychometric strategy of Cognitive Reappraisal. How- methods. They subdivided some of the most ever, this COPE scale also includes general heterogeneous scales, added new scales, and optimism and longer-term positive changes improved the overall conceptual coherence and adaptations individuals might make and internal consistency. The resulting Cop- later on, following the stressful experience. ing Orientations to Problems Experienced Indeed, the correlation of this COPE scale Scale (COPE) is a self-report questionnaire with Gross and John’s (2003) Cognitive that measures 14 coping styles with four Reappraisal scale tends to be moderate (e.g., items each. Even though the COPE scales Gross & John, 2003; Balzarotti, John, & are shorter, they are more reliable than the Gross, 2010), consistent with the broader earlier Ways of Coping scales. The COPE definition of the COPE scale. That is, the covers a broad array of diverse coping styles, inclusion of positive processes and long- such as Planning, Active Coping, Mental term outcomes that have little to do with Disengagement, Seeking Social Support— the immediate regulatory task at hand make Instrumental, Seeking Social Support— the scale complex and conceptually hetero- Emotional, Positive Reinterpretation and geneous. Growth, Turning to Religion, Focus on and Venting of Emotion, and Denial. This conceptual heterogeneity makes it difficult to establish whether and when a However, some of the problems of the particular coping style is effective or dys- Ways of Coping Questionnaire remain. The functional. For example, Carver et al. lack of a process, structural, or concep- (1989) had assumed that the Focus on and Venting of Emotions scale would be dys-
Search
Read the Text Version
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 41
- 42
- 43
- 44
- 45
- 46
- 47
- 48
- 49
- 50
- 51
- 52
- 53
- 54
- 55
- 56
- 57
- 58
- 59
- 60
- 61
- 62
- 63
- 64
- 65
- 66
- 67
- 68
- 69
- 70
- 71
- 72
- 73
- 74
- 75
- 76
- 77
- 78
- 79
- 80
- 81
- 82
- 83
- 84
- 85
- 86
- 87
- 88
- 89
- 90
- 91
- 92
- 93
- 94
- 95
- 96
- 97
- 98
- 99
- 100
- 101
- 102
- 103
- 104
- 105
- 106
- 107
- 108
- 109
- 110
- 111
- 112
- 113
- 114
- 115
- 116
- 117
- 118
- 119
- 120
- 121
- 122
- 123
- 124
- 125
- 126
- 127
- 128
- 129
- 130
- 131
- 132
- 133
- 134
- 135
- 136
- 137
- 138
- 139
- 140
- 141
- 142
- 143
- 144
- 145
- 146
- 147
- 148
- 149
- 150
- 151
- 152
- 153
- 154
- 155
- 156
- 157
- 158
- 159
- 160
- 161
- 162
- 163
- 164
- 165
- 166
- 167
- 168
- 169
- 170
- 171
- 172
- 173
- 174
- 175
- 176
- 177
- 178
- 179
- 180
- 181
- 182
- 183
- 184
- 185
- 186
- 187
- 188
- 189
- 190
- 191
- 192
- 193
- 194
- 195
- 196
- 197
- 198
- 199
- 200
- 201
- 202
- 203
- 204
- 205
- 206
- 207
- 208
- 209
- 210
- 211
- 212
- 213
- 214
- 215
- 216
- 217
- 218
- 219
- 220
- 221
- 222
- 223
- 224
- 225
- 226
- 227
- 228
- 229
- 230
- 231
- 232
- 233
- 234
- 235
- 236
- 237
- 238
- 239
- 240
- 241
- 242
- 243
- 244
- 245
- 246
- 247
- 248
- 249
- 250
- 251
- 252
- 253
- 254
- 255
- 256
- 257
- 258
- 259
- 260
- 261
- 262
- 263
- 264
- 265
- 266
- 267
- 268
- 269
- 270
- 271
- 272
- 273
- 274
- 275
- 276
- 277
- 278
- 279
- 280
- 281
- 282
- 283
- 284
- 285
- 286
- 287
- 288
- 289
- 290
- 291
- 292
- 293
- 294
- 295
- 296
- 297
- 298
- 299
- 300
- 301
- 302
- 303
- 304
- 305
- 306
- 307
- 308
- 309
- 310
- 311
- 312
- 313
- 314
- 315
- 316
- 317
- 318
- 319
- 320
- 321
- 322
- 323
- 324
- 325
- 326
- 327
- 328
- 329
- 330
- 331
- 332
- 333
- 334
- 335
- 336
- 337
- 338
- 339
- 340
- 341
- 342
- 343
- 344
- 345
- 346
- 347
- 348
- 349
- 350
- 351
- 352
- 353
- 354
- 355
- 356
- 357
- 358
- 359
- 360
- 361
- 362
- 363
- 364
- 365
- 366
- 367
- 368
- 369
- 370
- 371
- 372
- 373
- 374
- 375
- 376
- 377
- 378
- 379
- 380
- 381
- 382
- 383
- 384
- 385
- 386
- 387
- 388
- 389
- 390
- 391
- 392
- 393
- 394
- 395
- 396
- 397
- 398
- 399
- 400
- 401
- 402
- 403
- 404
- 405
- 406
- 407
- 408
- 409
- 410
- 411
- 412
- 413
- 414
- 415
- 416
- 417
- 418
- 419
- 420
- 421
- 422
- 423
- 424
- 425
- 426
- 427
- 428
- 429
- 430
- 431
- 432
- 433
- 434
- 435
- 436
- 437
- 438
- 439
- 440
- 441
- 442
- 443
- 444
- 445
- 446
- 447
- 448
- 449
- 450
- 451
- 452
- 453
- 454
- 455
- 456
- 457
- 458
- 459
- 460
- 461
- 462
- 463
- 464
- 465
- 466
- 467
- 468
- 469
- 470
- 471
- 472
- 473
- 474
- 475
- 476
- 477
- 478
- 479
- 480
- 481
- 482
- 483
- 484
- 485
- 486
- 487
- 488
- 489
- 490
- 491
- 492
- 493
- 494
- 495
- 496
- 497
- 498
- 499
- 500
- 501
- 502
- 503
- 504
- 505
- 506
- 507
- 508
- 509
- 510
- 511
- 512
- 513
- 514
- 515
- 516
- 517
- 518
- 519
- 520
- 521
- 522
- 523
- 524
- 525
- 526
- 527
- 528
- 529
- 530
- 531
- 532
- 533
- 534
- 535
- 536
- 537
- 538
- 539
- 540
- 541
- 542
- 543
- 544
- 545
- 546
- 547
- 548
- 549
- 550
- 551
- 552
- 553
- 554
- 555
- 556
- 557
- 558
- 559
- 560
- 561
- 562
- 563
- 564
- 565
- 566
- 567
- 568
- 569
- 570
- 571
- 572
- 573
- 574
- 575
- 576
- 577
- 578
- 579
- 580
- 581
- 582
- 583
- 584
- 585
- 586
- 587
- 588
- 589
- 590
- 591
- 592
- 593
- 594
- 595
- 596
- 597
- 598
- 599
- 600
- 601
- 602
- 603
- 604
- 605
- 606
- 607
- 608
- 609
- 610
- 611
- 612
- 613
- 614
- 615
- 616
- 617
- 618
- 619
- 620
- 621
- 622
- 623
- 624
- 625
- 626
- 627
- 628
- 629
- 630
- 631
- 632
- 633
- 634
- 635
- 636
- 637
- 638
- 639
- 640
- 641
- 642
- 643
- 644
- 645
- 646
- 647
- 648
- 649
- 650
- 651
- 652
- 653
- 654
- 655
- 656
- 657
- 658
- 659
- 660
- 661
- 662
- 663
- 664
- 665
- 666
- 667
- 668
- 669
- 670
- 671
- 672
- 673
- 674
- 675
- 676
- 677
- 678
- 679
- 680
- 681
- 682
- 683
- 684
- 685
- 686
- 687
- 688
- 689
- 1 - 50
- 51 - 100
- 101 - 150
- 151 - 200
- 201 - 250
- 251 - 300
- 301 - 350
- 351 - 400
- 401 - 450
- 451 - 500
- 501 - 550
- 551 - 600
- 601 - 650
- 651 - 689
Pages:
