Emotion regulation flexibility refers to the ability to adapt emotion regulation strategies to varying situational demands.
The DIAMONDS model, which assesses eight fundamental situational characteristics (Duty, Intellect, Adversity, Mating, Positivity, Negativity, Deception, and Sociality), provides a comprehensive framework for examining emotion regulation flexibility across diverse contexts.
This allows researchers to capture the nuanced interplay between situational factors and the effectiveness of different emotion regulation strategies in real-world settings.
Key Points:
Rationale
Previous research has classifiedER strategiesas either uniformly adaptive or maladaptive (Aldao et al., 2010; Joormann & Stanton, 2016). However, recent studies have demonstrated that the efficacy of specific ER strategies varies across situations and individuals (Sheppes et al., 2014; Troy et al., 2013).
While theoretical models and empirical research have highlighted the importance of ER flexibility in navigating diverse contexts (Aldao et al., 2015; Bonanno & Burton, 2013), there has been little research simultaneously examining its components in real-world, daily situations.
Moreover, culture, often overlooked in ER flexibility literature, plays a pivotal role in shaping how individuals perceive, interpret, and manage their emotions (Ford & Mauss, 2015).
Therefore, this study aimed to test the flexibility sequence model using a longitudinal EMA design with data from two distinct cultures, the United States and China, examining the potential robustness and consistency of findings independently in both cultures, as well as possible cross-cultural differences.
Method
The study employed a longitudinal EMA design to capture multiple components of ER flexibility and their associations with momentary affective outcomes in two independent samples from the United States (N= 158) and China (N = 144).
Participants completed baseline and exit surveys, as well as four daily EMA surveys for 21 days, reporting emotional situations, situation characteristics, ER use and change, and momentary distress.
Procedure
Participants completed an orientation meeting with trained research assistants before the 21-day EMA phase.
During the EMA phase, participants were prompted to complete surveys four times per day, assessing the most emotional situation in the past three hours, perceived situational characteristics, ER strategies, effectiveness of ER strategies, whether participants changed their initial ER strategies, and momentary psychological distress following the regulation attempt.
Sample
The US sample consisted of 158 adults (36 men, 116 women, and 6 nonbinary or nonconforming individuals) aged 18 to 72 years (M = 35.97, SD = 12.45). The Chinese sample consisted of 144 adults (55 men, 88 women, and 1 nonbinary or nonconforming individual) aged 18 to 55 years (M = 29.37, SD = 8.50).
Measures
Statistical Measures
Multilevel modeling (MLM) was used to examine the associations between momentary measures of flexibility components and affective outcomes. Predictors were person-centered at level 1 and grand-mean centered at level 2.
Results
Insight
This study provides valuable insights into the adaptiveness of ER flexibility components across two distinct cultures.
The findings suggest that differentiating situational characteristics (context sensitivity) and deploying a range of effective strategies (repertoire) in the moment is beneficial for reducing distress, regardless of cultural background.
However, the impact of feedback responsiveness appears to be more nuanced, with maintaining effective strategies being generally adaptive, but switching from ineffective strategies being particularly beneficial for depressed mood.
The study also highlights potential cultural differences in the emphasis on flexibility components, with context sensitivity being more impactful in the US and strategy switching being more advantageous in China.
Future research could explore the relationships between trait and state levels of flexibility components, as well as their impact on long-term mental health outcomes.
Strengths
Limitations
Clinical Implications
The study’s results have significant implications for understanding the role of ER flexibility in mental health across cultures.
The findings suggest that interventions targeting the development of context sensitivity and repertoire use in the moment could be beneficial for reducing distress, regardless of cultural background.
However, the nuanced impact of feedback responsiveness on specific affective outcomes suggests that a more tailored approach may be necessary when addressing depressed or anxious mood.
The potential cultural differences in the emphasis on flexibility components also highlight the importance of considering cultural factors when designing and implementing ER interventions.
Further research is needed to explore the long-term impact of ER flexibility on mental health outcomes and to develop culturally-sensitive interventions that promote adaptive ER.
References
Primary Reference
Chen, M. S., Bi, K., Han, X., Sun, P., & Bonanno, G. A. (2024). Emotion regulation flexibility and momentary affect in two cultures.Nature Mental Health,1-10.https://doi.org/10.1038/s44220-024-00215-3
Other References
Aldao, A., Nolen-Hoeksema, S., & Schweizer, S. (2010). Emotion-regulation strategies across psychopathology: A meta-analytic review.Clinical Psychology Review, 30(2), 217-237.
Aldao, A., Sheppes, G., & Gross, J. J. (2015). Emotion regulation flexibility. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 39(3), 263-278.
Bonanno, G. A., & Burton, C. L. (2013). Regulatory flexibility: An individual differences perspective on coping and emotion regulation.Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(6), 591-612.
Ford, B. Q., & Mauss, I. B. (2015). Culture and emotion regulation.Current Opinion in Psychology, 3, 1-5.
Joormann, J., & Stanton, C. H. (2016). Examining emotion regulation in depression: A review and future directions.Behaviour Research and Therapy, 86, 35-49.
Sheppes, G., Scheibe, S., Suri, G., Radu, P., Blechert, J., & Gross, J. J. (2014). Emotion regulation choice: A conceptual framework and supporting evidence.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(1), 163-181.
Keep Learning
Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc
BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education
Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.
Saul McLeod, PhD
BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester
Saul McLeod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.
