Abstract
We investigated how emotion regulation (ER) effectiveness—on both a self-reported rating as well as emotional expression (corrugator supercilii muscle activity) level—is affected by the characteristics of the situation (low vs. high negativity), the strategy used (reinterpretation, distraction, suppression, no regulation control condition) and individual dispositions (low vs. high baseline Heart Rate Variability) as well as their interaction. For this purpose, 54 adult women participated in a laboratory study. All the included factors significantly influenced both corrugator activity and appraisals of pictures’ negativity (in specific experimental conditions). For example, for high HRV participants, (1) distraction, suppression and reinterpretation significantly decreased corrugator activity compared to the control condition, and (2) distraction decreased appraised picture negativity for high negativity photos. For low HRV participants, distraction and suppression were most effective in decreasing corrugator responses, while suppression was more effective than reinterpretation in decreasing perceived picture negativity in the high negativity condition. Subjectively reported effort and success in applying ER strategies were also dependent on manipulated and dispositional factors. Overall, our results lend support to the flexible emotion regulation framework, showing that emotion regulation effectiveness relies on situational context as well as individual dispositions and their interaction.
Similar content being viewed by others
Introduction
Emotion regulation (ER) is critically important for psychological health, particularly when stress is high1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9. Emotion regulation (ER) deficits are associated with psychiatric symptoms3,10, whereas success in ER has many adaptive outcomes and correlates. These include better psychological health, increased well-being, better social functioning, more effective coping with stressful life events, and even better performance at school or in one’s job11,12,13. For this reason, research on the effectiveness of particular ER strategies has gathered significant attention from researchers, practitioners and the general public alike.
Process model of emotion regulation
In his process model of ER, which seems the most seminal and dominating approach to ER, Gross11,14 defines ER as a set of processes by which individuals influence which emotions they have, when they have them, and how they experience and express them. These processes lead to changes to the dynamics, duration, and speed of emotion occurrence as well as changes in behavioral, experiential and physiological reactions elicited by an emotion. ER can be aimed at reducing, strengthening, or maintaining the experience of either positive or negative emotions depending on the current goals of an individual.
In the model, Gross describes five groups of ER strategies, related to the dynamics of emotional process: situation selection, situation modification, attention deployment (with distraction as one of the strategies), cognitive change (with reappraisal as one of the strategies) and response modulation (with expressive suppression as one of the strategies). The first four levels are classified as „antecedent-focused”, because they can be employed before the emotion response tendencies become fully activated14, thus enabling the change of an emotion itself. The last group of strategies is called „response-focused” strategies, as they are used after the emotion response tendencies have been generated and can influence the reactions initiated by the emotion. The three mentioned strategies, each being an example of a different group of ER strategies: distraction, reappraisal and expressive suppression, were chosen to be included in our study.
Flexible emotion regulation
In recent years, it has been argued that the effectiveness of ER depends not only on the type of strategy applied but also on the interaction of the situation’s features and the individual characteristics of a person who regulates their emotions2,15,16,17,18. Although dynamic models have been proposed in which adaptive ER is based on dispositional as well as situational factors, most studies have relied on the assumption that specific ER strategies can be characterized as adaptive or maladaptive (irrespective of the context); this conviction has been referred to as the fallacy of uniform efficacy19.
In general, it is psychological flexibility that accounts for adaptive reactions20,21. In the domain of ER “[…] flexibility refers to the ability to implement ER strategies that are synchronized with contextual demands”2. In line with this proposition, better ER may result from using different strategies depending on contextual factors and individual characteristics, while psychological dysfunction may be characterized by deficits in flexibility19,22,23. Thus, research should focus on finding the best situation-strategy-fit patterns, showing which strategy may be most effective in a given situational context9,15,19,24,25. Research should also focus on the interaction of contextual and dispositional variables in predicting ER strategies' effectiveness.
Importance of situational and dispositional characteristics
Even though the flexible ER framework holds a lot of promise, only a limited amount of research has focused on the interplay between contextual and individual factors18. Yet, the lack of consistency in the effectiveness of coping strategies in different situations and for different emotion intensity levels suggests that strategies are sensitive to contextual factors26,27. Indeed, some studies explicitly demonstrated the contextual determinants of ER strategy effectiveness. For example, the controllability of stressors9, socioeconomic status28 or current goals25,29 were shown to influence ER success. Other studies demonstrated situational influences on the choice of ER strategies26: when the negativity of stimuli was low, cognitive demand was low, and when long-term goals were activated, participants preferred to choose reappraisal, whereas when the negativity of stimuli was high, cognitive demand was high, and when short-term goals were activated, participants preferred to choose distraction. However, in these studies, ER effectiveness was not measured and ER strategies were not manipulated. In a more recent study, the interaction of strategy and stimuli negativity predicted prefrontal brain region reactivity30.
The notion of incorporating individual differences into research on ER strategy effectiveness has also gained some attention. For example, the use and effectiveness of specific strategies were linked to attachment styles31, emotional intelligence32, dispositional sensitivity to emotional cues (especially prevalent in affective disorders)19,33, action orientation34 or cognitive control abilities35,36.
There is a growing consensus that flexible ER is crucial for the identification, prevention and treatment of affective disturbances that are present in many affective disorders2,5,19,21. Greater ER flexibility seems to be associated with better quality of life24 and functioning among individuals suffering from mental disorders37,38.
Despite initial evidence for the benefits of ER flexibility discussed above, we still lack knowledge about the circumstances under which a specific strategy is most effective. We lack studies that systematically include both contextual and individual factors, that test more (than two) ER strategies in the same study, and incorporate non-declarative (apart from self-report) measures (e.g., behavioral, physiological) to investigate complex interactions between these factors, which jointly predict ER effectiveness.
Present study
General aim
We designed a laboratory experiment that attempts to fill this gap in the ER research. We aimed to investigate how features of the emotional situation (low vs. high negativity), the strategy used (reinterpretation as a form of reappraisal, distraction, suppression, no regulation-control condition), and individual differences (heart rate variability) as well as their interaction influence ER effectiveness.
Heart rate variability
In our study, we investigated heart rate variability (HRV)—an interindividual psychophysiological factor that can contribute to ER effectiveness. It is argued that emotion regulation dysfunctions might be explained by autonomic nervous system (ANS) dysregulation whose functioning can be indexed by HRV. The Neurovisceral Integration Model39 assumes that lower variability between heartbeats is associated with emotion regulation difficulties and this baseline variability was proposed as an objective marker of interindividual emotional capacity40,41. Specifically, lower resting HRV was initially linked to lower emotional flexibility suggesting that individuals with lower HRV do not adequately modulate their emotional responses in relation to situational demands42. Further, a link between low baseline HRV and self-reported general emotion regulation difficulties43,44 as well as a positive relationship between baseline HRV and emotion regulation effectiveness40,45,46,47,48,49 have been observed. Higher HRV also predicts better cognitive flexibility—better attentional avoidance and cognitive switching—which may contribute to more effective ER50,51.
Electromyography
To avoid relying solely on self-report data to assess ER effectiveness, we incorporated electromyographical (EMG) measurements into the experiment. EMG measurements are widely used to investigate the behavioral level of emotional responsiveness—they provide us with information about the level of activity of particular facial muscles that are engaged in the emotional expression of certain emotions52,53. Specifically, corrugator supercilii facial muscle activity measured with EMG is sensitive to the effects of the regulation of emotion via reinterpretation and suppression54,55. We chose EMG measurement as this method has shown more consistent results across studies and proved to be a better indicator of ER effectiveness than more context-dependent autonomic responses56. Additionally, we measured self-reported success and effortfulness when employing each ER strategy/experimental instruction during the study.
We predicted that: (H1) we would obtain different patterns of the effectiveness of applied ER strategies for dealing with low and high negativity stimuli—ER will be more effective for low negativity; (H2) the effectiveness of using ER strategies will be influenced by the interaction between situational factors (the strength of negativity) and dispositional factors (heart rate variability); (H3) reinterpretation and distraction will be effective for the evaluation of the subjective experience (declared emotional picture appraisal), whereas suppression will be more effective for downregulating emotional expression (EMG response); (H4) higher HRV will be linked to higher ER effectiveness (both on a subjective level and expressive behavior level); (H5) All ER strategies will be appraised as requiring significantly more effort than no regulation in the control condition.
To the best of our knowledge, our study is the first experimental attempt to combine the investigation of the individual (HRV) and contextual factors (and interaction of both) to show their influence on the effectiveness of several different ER strategies (reinterpretation, distraction, suppression).
Method
Participants
A total of 69 adult female participants (aged between 18 and 61 years old: M = 31.12; SD = 11.45) took part in the study. During the time we had to conduct the experiment we managed to find that many volunteers who registered to participate. This number is not very different from other studies in the field. In a recent meta-analysis of the physiological consequences of using emotion regulation strategies, the analyzed studies included between 9 and 168 participants (n analyzed), with most of the studies having fewer than 50 participants56.
After removing participants with missing behavioral or psychophysiological data, 54 participants were included in the final analysis. They were recruited via the PESA system at Humboldt University. Following some other researchers57, we chose to include only women so as to avoid gender-related factors that might influence emotional responding58,59 including HRV60 and emotion regulation61,62. Based on their preferences, participants received either course credits or financial remuneration (10 euros) for participation in the study.
Procedure
After participants arrived at the lab, they were welcomed and given the written description of the study (“Information for participants”) as well as the participation agreement—all participants were asked to, first, read them carefully and then sign the consent form if they agreed to participate. Next, participants filled out self-reported measures that are not a part of the current analysis. In the next step, participants were prepared for the experiment, including EKG and EMG recordings.
Before proceeding with the experiment, participants were once again reminded that data acquired from them would stay anonymous and that they could withdraw at any time during the experiment. In case of withdrawal, participants were informed that they would still receive full payment for participation in the experiment. After the preparation stage was completed, the experimental procedure was run using the E-prime software (Psychology Software Tools, 2016)—the procedure can be divided into three phases, following similar procedures employed during previous studies on ER effectiveness63,64,65. These three phases were: (1) Baseline, (2) Training, and (3) Experiment.
The baseline phase was employed to level participants’ emotional experience as well as measure baseline HRV, which was used in our analysis. During this phase, participants watched 30 neutral pictures, each exposed for 10 s (the pictures were the same for each participant). Training phase: during the training phase participants received written instructions for 3 ER strategies: reinterpretation, suppression, and distraction. Following the presentation of each instruction, participants were shown three training pictures and they were asked to discuss in detail with the person conducting the experiment how they employed each of the instructions (e.g., they talked aloud about what reinterpretations of the negative stimuli they came up with when applying reinterpretation). When participants had additional questions, needed clarification, or encountered problems, an experimenter gave further instructions, including possible examples of strategy application. This training procedure was based on the available literature and has been applied in many prior studies26. Experimental phase: after completing the training, participants began the actual experimental phase. During this phase, participants watched 8 blocks of negative pictures (4 blocks of high negativity pictures and 4 blocks of low negativity pictures). Before each block they were instructed to use a specific emotion regulation strategy: reinterpretation, suppression, distraction, and no regulation control condition). Each of the strategies appeared twice (once for high- and once for low-negativity pictures). In each block, participants viewed a set of 10 negative pictures and 2 neutral pictures (neutral pictures were used to avoid the expectancy effect) in a randomized order. After each of the blocks, participants answered questions about the subjective appraisal of the valence of the pictures (used in our analyses as an indicator of ER effectiveness: perceived picture negativity): How negative were the pictures in the last series? Answer scale between 0 (Not negative at all) to 7 (Extremely negative). Participants were also asked additional questions about the subjective level of implementing each experimental instruction (used in analyses as subjective effectiveness): “How successful was the instructed strategy ([Name of the strategy]) in reducing your negative feelings?”, with an answer scale between 0 (Not at all) to 7 (Very much). Lastly, we also asked participants about the subjective effortfulness of applying each experimental instruction (used in analyses as subjective effortfulness): How effortful was following the instructions? Answer scale between 0 (Not effortful at all) to 7 (Extremely effortful). The questions were based on previous research on ER effectiveness64.
A single experimental trial consisted of a fixation point (appearing for 1 s), and 7-s picture exposure (similar to previous studies employing 6 to 8-s exposures, see for example: Bernat et. al., 2011 or McRae et al., 2014), which was then followed by a blank screen for 2 s. Pictures were displayed across the entire screen of a computer monitor. Figure 1 below shows a scheme of an experimental trial.
Experimental stimuli
Pictures from the International Affective Picture System (IAPS)66 were used to elicit affect. The set of pictures was used based on numerous previous studies on ER effectiveness26,57,65,67,68,69. IAPS pictures for high versus low negativity conditions were used based on their valence rating obtained during the validation of the set66. We chose pictures similar in arousal ratings but differing in valance. The chosen pictures were grouped into 8 sets, 4 sets for high negativity and 4 sets for low negativity (10 negative and 2 neutral pictures in each set). We made sure the sets were balanced for the content of the photos, for example, 1 war scene in each set, one picture of a child, etc. During the experimental phase, for every participant the sets were randomly paired with experimental instructions/strategies and presented to participants. The sequence of pictures in each set was random for each participant as well. IAPS numbers of all pictures used in the current experiment are listed in the supplementary materials (Tables S1–S3).
Experimental instructions
When giving participants instructions to follow in each experimental condition, we used instructions similar to those adopted in a wide range of previous research61,64. When using reinterpretation, participants were instructed to interpret the situations presented in the pictures so that they had a neutral meaning and caused as few emotions as possible. When using distraction, participants had to focus their attention on or think about something other than the content of the picture. For suppression, participants were instructed to focus on not showing what they felt or thought during the pictures’ presentation. They were instructed to adopt a neutral facial expression and make as few expressions as possible. In the no regulation control condition participants were instructed to just watch the content of the picture without attempting to control their emotions27,61,64. The full text of instructions for each experimental condition is available in the supplementary materials.
Lastly, after the experimental phase had been completed, 10 positive IAPS photos were presented (for 7 s each), to reduce the negative emotional state of participants possibly induced by the experimental photos and repair potential negative mood. At this stage the procedure ended, participants were thanked for taking part in the study, debriefed, and rewarded for participation.
Additionally, several questionnaire measures which are not part of the current analysis were also gathered during the study. For transparency reasons, more information on these measures, along with descriptive and correlation statistics, are presented in the supplementary material. The completed questionnaire measures included: Psychological Wellbeing (PWB) Scale70,71,72, The Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale (DERS)73,74, and Big-Five Factor Markers from the International Personality Item Pool (IPIP)75. During the study, electrodermal activity data were also gathered. Results of the analysis of this type of data are not a part of the current work—the analysis was part of a Bachelor’s thesis available online in full and in English here: [blinded link]. No other work was published using the dataset.
Ethics
The study procedures were carried out in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. The study protocol (including measures and procedure) was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Psychology, University of Warsaw. All participants were properly informed about the purpose and procedure of the study and signed an informed consent form before participation.
Signal acquisition and data pre-processing
EMG was measured with 4 mm EasyCap GmbH Ag/AgCl miniature surface electrodes filled with Signa gel (Parker Laboratories, Inc.) and a MindWare 8-Slot BioNex bioamplifier (MindWare Technologies, Ltd.). The skin was cleansed with lemon prep peeling and 70% alcohol, impedances were kept below 30 kΩ wherever possible. Raw EMG data were sampled r at 1000 Hz and a gain of 1000, with a 50 Hz notch filter on. The signals were band-pass filtered between 30 and 300 Hz, rectified, and smoothed. Artifacts (e.g., coughing, sneezing) were cleaned manually. Within-subject z-transformed difference scores (trial—baseline) were calculated for each trial to control for individuals' general expressiveness (their general level of facial activity). For the analyses, the signal from each muscle was averaged over each experimental block.
ECG was measured with foam electrodes (insert brand) and the amplifier mentioned above. The skin was cleansed with 70% alcohol. Electrodes were placed as a lead-II configuration, in which a ground electrode was placed at the left clavicle, a negative lead was placed at the right clavicle, and a positive lead was placed below the left rib cage. Recall that due to the ECG recording, a six-minute baseline video was presented, with the last 5 min used for baseline HRV. Raw ECG data were sampled at and a gain of 500, with a 50 Hz notch filter on. The signals were filtered with a low cutoff at 0.5 and a high cutoff at 45 (baseline/muscle noise filter). VLF band was 0.0030, 0.0400, LF band was 0.0400, 0.1200, and HF/RSA band was 0.1200, 0.4000. Window function was Hamming. Respiratory Sinus Arrhythmia (RSA) was calculated based on spectral analysis. Moreover, the root-mean square of successive differences (RMSSD) was calculated by the automatic peak detection algorithm in MindWare BioLab 3.076. Thus, scores were gathered with the help of algorithmic approaches in BioLab whenever possible and invalid data points due to artifacts (e.g., heavy movement) were integrated manually using the BioLab graphic interface denoted for this case. Respiration was tracked via a respiration belt to assist in this process.
General analysis plan
All analytical procedures were performed in the R statistical environment77. To investigate our hypotheses, a Bayesian linear mixed-effects models were estimated (with subject-level random intercepts) to determine if corrugator supercilii activity (Model 1), perceived picture negativity (Model 2), subjective effectiveness (Model 3) and subjective effortfulness (Model 4) in applying experimental instructions differed depending on the ER condition, stimulus negativity, and baseline HRV level. The design for each of the models was as follows: 2 (affect: low or high; within-subjects) × 4 (emotional regulation condition: reinterpretation, suppression, distraction, and control; within-subjects) × 2 (HRV group: low or high; between-subjects). The models were fitted using Markov Chain Monte Carlo simulation, as implemented in the rstanarm package78, with weakly informative priors (see Goodrich et al. [2020] and accompanying code for details). Four chains with 40,000 iterations (20,000 warm-up; thinning rate of 1) were used to estimate each model. The convergence of each model was assessed by inspecting the R̂ statistic and effective sample size (ESS)79,80 associated with each parameter, which were between 1 and 1.05 (R̂) and greater than 2000 (ESS) in all cases, indicating no convergence issues. Further downstream inference was performed using the emmeans package81. To obtain high and low HRV groups we have used a median split strategy (see more in Limitations and Future Directions section).
The analysis plan consisted of two phases. In phase 1, we investigated the differences in experienced stimuli negativity as evidenced by declarative and corrugator responses. To this end, separate models with the abovementioned specification were fitted to declarative and psychophysiological data. In phase 2 we investigated the differences in perceived effectiveness and effortfulness of the different emotion regulation strategies. Similar to phase 1, in phase 2 separate models were fitted to explain the effectiveness and effortfulness of appraisals. Estimated means as well as detailed results of statistical comparisons are provided below, as well as in the supplementary information (Tables S1–S3).
Prior to estimating the models, all numeric variables, i.e., effectiveness, effortfulness, and negativity rating responses, as well as the corrugator supercilii response, were rescaled to a range between 0 and 1. We used 95% Highest Density Credible Intervals (95% CI) to characterize estimate uncertainty and considered small to be the minimal interesting effect size. Accordingly, a contrast is considered significant if its respective 95% CI does not include zero (and nonsignificant if zero is included). In all post hoc comparisons, a multiplicity adjustment was applied using the multivariate t distribution with the same covariance structure as the estimates to determine the adjustment, as implemented in the emmeans package81. To maintain readability, detailed reports of the obtained results, i.e., model diagnostics, estimates, and contrasts for all pairwise comparisons for corrugator activity, as well as behavioral responses, are available in the supplementary materials or accompanying code.
Results
Firstly, we present descriptive statistics (Table 1) along with correlation indices (Table 2) for all continuous variables included in the current analysis. Of note, higher corrugator supercilii activity was related to higher appraisal of picture negativity and lower subjective effectiveness of following experimental instructions. Higher appraisal of picture negativity was also correlated with lower subjective effectiveness, as well as higher effortfulness in following experimental instructions. Moreover, subjective effectiveness had an inverse relation with the perceived effortfulness of following experimental instructions (see Table 2).
Corrugator supercilii activity
Illustrated in Fig. 2 is the corrugator supercilii activity (Panel A), recorded in response to low or high negativity stimuli for each emotion regulation condition, along with the corresponding contrasts between experimental conditions (Panel B), high versus weak emotional stimuli (Panel C) and high versus low baseline HRV groups (Panel D) depending on other factors.
Comparing emotion regulation conditions
As seen in Fig. 2 (panel B), low HRV participants showed lower corrugator supercilii responses to weak and strong negative stimuli in the distraction condition, compared to the control, as well as lower responses in suppression than in the control condition following exposure to highly negative stimulation. Corrugator supercilii response was also lower in distraction than suppression or reinterpretation for low negativity stimuli.
In high HRV participants, the corrugator response was lower in the distraction, reinterpretation, and suppression strategy, compared to the control condition, for both low and high negativity stimuli. Also, in response to high negativity stimuli, the response was lower for distraction and suppression rather than reinterpretation.
Low versus high negativity stimuli
Pairwise comparisons between low versus high negativity stimuli showed that low HRV participants responded more to highly negative stimuli in the control and distraction condition, whereas high HRV participants responded more in the reinterpretation condition (Fig. 2, Panel C).
Low versus high baseline HRV
Lastly, pairwise comparisons for low versus high baseline HRV groups showed that after viewing low negativity images, high HRV participants showed more corrugator activity in the distraction condition or when not regulating their responses (i.e., in the control condition) than the low HRV participants (Fig. 2, Panel D).
Perceived picture negativity
In the next step, we conducted a corresponding analysis for our second main dependent variable—subjective evaluation of stimuli negativity. Figure 3 illustrates median results for perceived picture negativity in response to low or high negativity stimuli (panels A) along with the corresponding pairwise comparisons: between emotion regulation conditions (Panel B), high versus low negativity stimuli (Panel C) and high versus low baseline HRV participant groups (Panel D).
Comparing emotion regulation conditions
As seen in Fig. 3 (panel B), low HRV participants rated the high negativity stimuli as more negative in the reinterpretation than in the suppression condition. By contrast, high HRV participants perceived the high negativity stimuli as less negative in the distraction condition compared to the no regulation control condition. No other between-condition comparisons were significant.
Low versus high negativity stimuli
High negativity stimuli were perceived as more negative regardless of the HRV group or emotional regulation condition (Fig. 3, panel C).
Low versus high baseline HRV
For both low and high negativity stimuli, there were no differences in reported negativity ratings between low and high baseline HRV participants (Fig. 3, panel D).
Additional analyses 1: subjective effectiveness of ER strategies
Participants’ assessments of their effectiveness in using the ER strategies as instructed are illustrated in Fig. 4.
Comparing emotion regulation conditions
Perceived effectiveness of the ER strategies varied with both baseline HRV and stimulus negativity (Fig. 4, panel B). Specifically, for high negativity stimuli, low HRV participants perceived themselves as more effective when using the suppression than distraction or reinterpretation strategy. Also for high intensity stimuli, high HRV participants considered themselves to be less effective in following instructions using the distraction or reinterpretation strategy compared to the control condition (no regulation).
Low versus high negativity stimuli
As shown in panel C of Fig. 4, low HRV participants considered themselves more effective in following ER instructions in response to low compared to high negativity stimuli when using the reinterpretation or distraction strategies, as well as in the control condition. For high HRV participants, this difference was significant only for the reinterpretation strategy.
Low versus high baseline HRV
High HRV participants perceived their effectiveness in following ER instructions in the control condition in response to high negativity stimuli as higher than low HRV participants. No other pairwise comparisons reached significance (Fig. 4, Panel D).
Additional analyses 2: perceived effort associated with employing emotion regulation strategies
Participants’ assessment of effort involved in emotion regulation depending on experimental condition, negativity, as well as low versus high baseline HRV, are depicted in Fig. 5.
Comparing emotion regulation conditions
Pairwise comparisons of the effortfulness across emotional regulation conditions indicated that low HRV participants found the reinterpretation and distraction strategy to be more effortful than the control for high negativity stimuli, as well as the suppression strategy for low negativity stimuli only (Fig. 5, Panel B).
High HRV participants found the distraction and reinterpretation strategy in response to high negativity stimuli to be more effortful than the control task (no regulation). They have also found the suppression strategy to be more effortful than distraction and reinterpretation for highly negative stimuli (Fig. 5, panel B).
Low versus high negativity stimuli
Both low and high HRV participants assessed distraction and reinterpretation as more effortful following stimuli higher in negativity (vs. low negativity stimuli; Fig. 5, panel C).
Low versus high baseline HRV
There were no significant pairwise differences in the effortfulness of emotion regulation strategies between high versus low baseline HRV groups (Fig. 5, Panel D).
Discussion
The main aim of the current study was to investigate if and how ER effectiveness on the level of (1) subjective report and (2) emotional expression is affected by the characteristics of a situation in which ER takes place (low vs. high emotional negativity), individual differences (low vs. high baseline HRV level) and the emotion regulation strategy (reinterpretation, suppression, distraction, and no regulation control condition). Subjective effectiveness and perceived effort of applying the experimental instructions were also investigated. The results suggest that there are, indeed, substantial differences in ER effectiveness depending on these factors. As such, the data provides partial support for the flexible ER framework. However, a subset of the results (e.g., mixed effects of comparisons between emotion regulation strategies for perceived picture negativity) are also somewhat contrary to our predictions, and merit further discussion in the context of the flexible emotion regulation literature.
Comparisons between emotion regulation conditions
Comparisons between emotion regulation strategies revealed that for high HRV participants, distraction, suppression and reinterpretation all significantly decreased corrugator activity compared to the control condition for both high and low stimulus negativity (partly confirming H4). That is, these participants showed an effective regulation of their emotional expression. Additionally, distraction and suppression were only more effective than reappraisal at downregulating emotional expression for highly negative photos. This suggests that although all the strategies were effective, distraction and suppression worked better to reduce expression. For low HRV participants distraction was most effective in decreasing corrugator responses in the low negativity condition, whereas distraction and suppression decreased emotional expression more than control condition for high negativity stimuli. This pattern of results suggests, firstly, that only high HRV participants were able to effectively use reinterpretation for downregulating emotional expressions. This is consistent with the notion that baseline HRV reflects general emotion regulation capacity40,41, as reinterpretation (as a form of reappraisal) is the most complex of the analyzed strategies and likely required the highest regulation abilities and resources17,27,82,83. In most cases, distraction and suppression led to a better reduction in emotional expression (while in H3 we hypothesized that only suppression would). Distraction offers a simple means to disengage from unpleasant stimuli whereas the stimulus has to be actively processed when using reinterpretation. Suppression, in turn, was the only strategy that directly targeted emotional expression and not an emotional experience, so it is not surprising that it significantly affected expression. This is also consistent with the literature indicating that suppression is especially effective in regulating behavioral aspects of emotion and can be more effective than reinterpretation at achieving this goal17,27.
Yet, even though all strategies could be shown to be effective to some degree, the pattern described above shows that the relative effectiveness depends on both baseline HRV and stimulus negativity (which confirms H2).
Thus, reinterpretation as a more complex strategy was most effective when used by participants who have a higher capacity to regulate their emotional responses (high baseline HRV)63,84. By contrast, low HRV participants were less able to use reinterpretation as effectively, suggesting that reinterpretation does not seem to be uniformly effective. This is in line with research pointing to contextual predictors of reappraisal (not stating which specific tactics or forms of reappraisal) success85, but contrary to claims suggesting general reappraisal benefits17,86 (H3 partly confirmed only for high HRV participants).
Further, when instructed to simply watch the emotional material and show their emotions naturally, high HRV participants were more emotionally expressive than low HRV participants (in the low negativity condition, similar difference was noted for high negativity condition, although it didn’t reach significance), but when instructed to influence their internal states with ER strategies, high HRV participants did this overall more effectively than low HRV ones (again, confirmation of H4). This suggests that in some circumstances high HRV participants could regulate their emotions more flexibly and had less trouble engaging and disengaging from emotion regulation. This is in line with previous research that showed the connection between HRV level and emotion regulation flexibility42,50,51. However, as noted, the differences between high and low HRV groups were not evident for suppression as this is a relatively simple ER strategy (as compared to different forms of reappraisal) and thus required fewer resources to implement effectively27,40,41,87. This notion is also at least partially supported by the self-reports on the effectiveness and effortfulness of the strategies reported below.
The effect of emotion regulation on the perceived negativity of the stimuli also varied with stimulus negativity and used emotion regulation strategy yet to a much lower degree. Across all experimental conditions, the difference in perceived negativity between high and low negativity stimuli remained significant. However, due to the way in which the question was asked, participants may have reported more on their appraisal of the nature of the stimulus (a cognitive task) and less on how negative the stimulus made them feel. Only the latter aspect should be amenable to emotion regulation.
Both stimulus negativity and baseline HRV affected the perceived effectiveness and effortfulness of emotion regulation in the expected ways. Regulating responses to highly intense stimuli (vs low intensity stimuli) was perceived to be more effortful in the reinterpretation and distraction conditions (partly confirming H5). It was also perceived as less effective, but less so for individuals with high baseline HRV.
Notably, for low and high HRV participants, reinterpretation was deemed especially hard to implement successfully when negativity was high. This is consistent with research indicating that when offered a choice of ER strategy for high negativity material, participants prefer other strategies over reappraisal, which is not the case for weakly stimulating material88.
Interestingly, in the high negativity condition, high HRV participants perceived their effectiveness in applying the experimental instruction for the no regulation control condition as higher than low HRV participants. Previously, we discussed that under those circumstances, high HRV participants in fact showed higher emotional expression than low HRV participants. This is consistent with the notion that the ability to express one’s emotion when one is instructed to simply watch the negatively stimulating material, can also be a signal of flexible emotion regulation, as not only effective engagement but also disengagement from self-regulation processes is a signal of regulatory flexibility19,42,51,89. Participants who in general should be more effective in regulating their emotion (higher in baseline HRV), had to put effort into not regulating when instructed to just watch the emotional material.
Implications for theory and practice
The present results have implications both for research and practice. Emotion regulation training should accommodate the fact that the effectiveness of ER strategies is not always the same. Instead, tools used to regulate emotion should be adopted on a case by case basis, accounting for changing circumstances and ER goals, and should also be dependent on the intraindividual characteristics of a person who controls their emotions. For future studies, researchers should focus more on dispositional and contextual factors in investigating the effectiveness of ER strategies15,18. Specifically, it may be the case (both for the training of ER skills, as well as research) that low HRV participants require more training for complex ER strategies.
Limitations and future directions
The current study had some limitations. As noted above, we did not directly ask participants about the level of felt emotions, but rather asked for the perceived valence of the stimuli. The results suggest that this question does not capture potential changes in the feeling state. Moreover, only women participated in this study—future studies should expand our findings to men. Moreover, we used a median split to create low and high HRV groups, and while we are aware that this approach has its disadvantages, it has also been suggested that the use of dichotomization in factorial designs, such as ours, is acceptable90.
Additionally, whenever possible, future studies should also incorporate more ecological ways of evoking and studying ER flexibility (for example, using ecological momentary assessment data)—this would allow information to be gathered on ER that occurs in daily life, not only in a laboratory setting.
To obtain a fuller picture of ER flexibility, subsequent studies should expand the current findings by (1) also including additional ER strategies such as acceptance91, as well as (2) using a wider range of dependent variables (including neurophysiological and neuroimaging methods, which were not a part of the current study) and (3) expanding the analysis to positive emotion.
Data availability
Dataset and accompanying code for the current paper is available in the Open Science Framework repository: https://osf.io/v8ngw/?view_only=94de4f9cc4504040bdd76acfb2285535.
References
Aldao, A., Nolen-Hoeksema, S. & Schweizer, S. Emotion-regulation strategies across psychopathology: A meta-analytic review. Clin. Psychol. Rev. 30, 217–237 (2010).
Aldao, A., Sheppes, G. & Gross, J. J. Emotion regulation flexibility. Cogn. Ther. Res. 39, 263–278 (2015).
DeSteno, D., Gross, J. J. & Kubzansky, L. Affective science and health: The importance of emotion and emotion regulation. Health Psychol. 32, 474–486 (2013).
Gross, J. J. & John, O. P. Individual differences in two emotion regulation processes: Implications for affect, relationships, and well-being. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 85, 348–362 (2003).
Koole, S. L., Schwager, S. & Rothermund, K. Resilience is more about being flexible than about staying positive. Behav. Brain Sci. 38, E109 (2015).
Luhmann, M., Hofmann, W., Eid, M. & Lucas, R. E. Subjective well-being and adaptation to life events: A meta-analysis. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 102, 592–615 (2012).
Schwager, S. & Rothermund, K. On the dynamics of implicit emotion regulation: Counter-regulation after remembering events of high but not of low emotional intensity. Cogn. Emot. 28, 971–992 (2014).
Troy, A. S., Wilhelm, F. H., Shallcross, A. J. & Mauss, I. B. Seeing the silver lining: Cognitive reappraisal ability moderates the relationship between stress and depressive symptoms. Emotion 10, 783–795 (2010).
Troy, A. S., Shallcross, A. J. & Mauss, I. B. A person-by-situation approach to emotion regulation: Cognitive reappraisal can either help or hurt. Depend. Context. Psychol. Sci. 24, 2505–2514 (2013).
Werner K, Gross JJ (2010) Emotion regulation and psychopathology: A conceptual framework. In Emotion regulation and psychopathology: A transdiagnostic approach to etiology and treatment, Kring AM, Sloan DM (Eds.) 13–37 (The Guilford Press, Newyork).
Gross, J. J. The extended process model of emotion regulation: Elaborations, applications, and future directions. Psychol. Inq. 26, 130–137 (2015).
Gross, J. J. Emotion regulation: Current status and future prospects. Psychol. Inq. 26, 1–26 (2015).
Salovey, P., Detweiler-Bedell, B. T., Detweiler-Bedell, J. B. & Mayer, D. (2010) Emotional intelligence. In Handbook of emotions Lewis M, Haviland-Jones JM & Feldman Barret L (Eds.) pp. 533–547 (Guilford Press, Newyork)
Gross, J. J. Emotion regulation: Affective, cognitive, and social consequences. Psychophysiology https://doi.org/10.1017/S0048577201393198 (2002).
Doré, B. P., Silvers, J. A. & Ochsner, K. N. Toward a personalized science of emotion regulation. Soc. Personal. Psychol. Compass 10, 171–187 (2016).
Kobylińska, D. & Kusev, P. Flexible emotion regulation: How situational demands and individual differences influence the effectiveness of regulatory strategies. Front. Psychol. 10, 72. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00072 (2019).
McRae, K. & Gross, J. J. Emotion regulation. Emotion 20, 1–11 (2020).
Sanchez-Lopez, A. How flexible are we in regulating our emotions? A discussion on current conceptual frameworks of emotion regulation flexibility, requirements for future research and potential practical implications. Span. J. Psychol. 24, E31 (2021).
Bonanno, G. A. & Burton, C. L. Regulatory flexibility: An individual differences perspective on coping and emotion regulation. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 8, 591–612 (2013).
Cheng, C., Lau, H. P. B. & Chan, M. P. S. Coping flexibility and psychological adjustment to stressful life changes: A meta-analytic review. Psychol. Bull. 140, 1582–1607 (2014).
Kashdan, T. B. & Rottenberg, J. Psychological flexibility as a fundamental aspect of health. Clin. Psychol. Rev. 30, 865–878 (2010).
Koch, S. B. J., Mars, R. B., Toni, I. & Roelofs, K. Emotional control, reappraised. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 95, 528–534 (2018).
Rottenberg, J., Gross, J. J. & Gotlib, I. H. Emotion context insensitivity in major depressive disorder. J. Abnorm. Psychol. 114, 627–639 (2005).
Haines, S. J. et al. The wisdom to know the difference: Strat egy-situation fit in emotion regulation in daily life is associated with well-being. Psychol. Sci. 27, 1651–1659 (2016).
Millgram, Y., Sheppes, G., Kalokerinos, E. K., Kuppens, P. & Tamir, M. Do the ends dictate the means in emotion regulation?. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 148, 80–96 (2019).
Sheppes, G. et al. Emotion regulation choice: A conceptual framework and supporting evidence. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 143, 163–181 (2014).
Webb, T. L., Miles, E. & Sheeran, P. Dealing with feeling: A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of strategies derived from the process model of emotion regulation. Psychol. Bull. 138, 775–808 (2012).
Troy, A. S., Ford, B. Q., McRae, K., Zarolia, P. & Mauss, I. B. Change the things you can: Emotion regulation is more beneficial for people from lower than from higher socioeconomic status. Emotion 17, 141–154 (2017).
Tamir, M. Why do people regulate their emotions? A taxonomy of motives in emotion regulation. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 20, 199–222 (2016).
Moodie, C. A. et al. The neural bases of cognitive emotion regulation: The roles of strategy and intensity. Cogn. Affect. Behav. Neurosci. 20, 387–407 (2020).
Handbook of Emotion Regulation. (Guilford Publications, 2008).
Peña-Sarrionandia, A., Mikolajczak, M. & Gross, J. J. Corrigendum: Integrating emotion regulation and emotional intelligence traditions: A meta-analysis. Front. Psychol. 10, 2610. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02610 (2019).
Chen, S. & Bonanno, G. A. Components of emotion regulation flexibility: linking latent profiles to depressive and anxious symptoms. Clin. Psychol. Sci. 9, 236–251 (2021).
Kobylińska, D. & Marchlewska, M. Orientacja na działanie a regulacja emocji. Psychol.-Etol.-Genet. 34, 25–42 (2016).
Pruessner, L., Barnow, S., Holt, D. V., Joormann, J. & Schulze, K. A cognitive control framework for understanding emotion regulation flexibility. Emotion 20, 21–29 (2020).
Sanchez-Lopez, A., De Raedt, R., van Put, J. & Koster, E. H. W. A novel process-based approach to improve resilience: Effects of computerized mouse-based (gaze)contingent attention training (MCAT)on reappraisal and rumination. Behav. Res. Ther. 118, 110–120 (2019).
Coifman, K. G. & Summers, C. B. Understanding emotion inflexibility in risk for affective disease: Integrating current research and finding a path forward. Front. Psychol. 20, 392. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00392 (2019).
Conroy, K. et al. Emotion regulation flexibility in generalized anxiety disorder. J. Psychopathol. Behav. Assess. 42, 93–100 (2020).
Thayer, J. F. & Lane, R. D. Claude Bernard and the heart-brain connection: Further elaboration of a model of neurovisceral integration. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 33, 81–88 (2009).
Appelhans, B. M. & Luecken, L. J. Heart rate variability as an index of regulated emotional responding. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 10, 229–240 (2006).
Thayer, J. F., Åhs, F., Fredrikson, M., Sollers, J. J. & Wager, T. D. A meta-analysis of heart rate variability and neuroimaging studies: Implications for heart rate variability as a marker of stress and health. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 36, 747–756 (2012).
Fujimura, T. & Okanoya, K. Heart rate variability predicts emotional flexibility in response to positive stimuli. Psychology 3, 578–582 (2012).
Visted, E. et al. The association between self-reported difficulties in emotion regulation and heart rate variability: The salient role of not accepting negative emotions. Front. Psychol. 8, 328 (2017).
Williams, D. W. P. et al. Resting heart rate variability predicts self-reported difficulties in emotion regulation: A focus on different facets of emotion regulation. Front. Psychol. 6, 261. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00261 (2015).
Camm, A. J. et al. Heart rate variability. Standards of measurement physiological interpretation, and clinical use. Eur. Heart J. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.eurheartj.a014868 (1996).
Christou-Champi, S., Farrow, T. F. D. & Webb, T. L. Automatic control of negative emotions: Evidence that structured practice increases the efficiency of emotion regulation. Cogn. Emot. 29, 319–331 (2015).
Kreibig, S. D., Wilhelm, F. H., Roth, W. T. & Gross, J. J. Cardiovascular, electrodermal, and respiratory response patterns to fear- and sadness-inducing films. Psychophysiology 44, 787–806 (2007).
Mauss, I. B., McCarter, L., Levenson, R. W., Wilhelm, F. H. & Gross, J. J. The tie that binds? Coherence among emotion experience, behavior, and physiology. Emotion 5, 175–190 (2005).
Mauss, I. B. & Robinson, M. D. Measures of emotion: A review. Cogn. Emot. 23, 209–237 (2009).
Colzato, L. S., Jongkees, B. J., de Wit, M., van der Molen, M. J. W. & Steenbergen, L. Variable heart rate and a flexible mind: Higher resting-state heart rate variability predicts better task-switching. Cogn. Affect. Behav. Neurosci. 18, 730–738 (2018).
Grol, M. & De Raedt, R. The link between resting heart rate variability and affective flexibility. Cogn. Affect. Behav. Neurosci. 20, 746–756 (2020).
Fridlund, A. J. & Cacioppo, J. T. Guidelines for human electromyographic research. Psychophysiology 23, 567–589 (1986).
Hess, U. et al. Reliability of surface facial electromyography. Psychophysiology 54, 12–23 (2017).
Ray, K. K. et al. Statins and all-cause mortality in high-risk primary prevention: A meta-analysis of 11 randomized controlled trials involving 65 229 participants. Arch. Intern. Med. 170, 1024–1031 (2010).
van Witvliet, C. O., de Young, N. J., Hofelich, A. J. & de Young, P. A. Compassionate reappraisal and emotion suppression as alternatives to offense-focused rumination: Implications for forgiveness and psychophysiological well-being. J. Posit. Psychol. 6, 286–299 (2011).
Zaehringer, J., Jennen-Steinmetz, C., Schmahl, C., Ende, G. & Paret, C. Psychophysiological effects of downregulating negative emotions: Insights from a meta-analysis of healthy adults. Front. Psychol. 11, 470 (2020).
Dan-Glauser, E. S. & Gross, J. J. The temporal dynamics of emotional acceptance: Experience, expression, and physiology. Biol. Psychol. 108, 1–12 (2015).
Bradley, M. M., Codispoti, M., Sabatinelli, D. & Lang, P. J. Emotion and motivation II: Sex differences in picture processing. Emotion 3, 300–319 (2001).
Wrase, J. et al. Gender differences in the processing of standardized emotional visual stimuli in humans: A functional magnetic resonance imaging study. Neurosci. Lett. 348, 41–45 (2003).
Koenig, J. & Thayer, J. F. Sex differences in healthy human heart rate variability: A meta-analysis. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 64, 288–310 (2016).
McRae, K., Ochsner, K. N., Mauss, I. B., Gabrieli, J. J. D. & Gross, J. J. Gender differences in emotion regulation: An fMRI study of cognitive reappraisal. Group Process. Intergroup Relat. 11, 143–162 (2008).
Rusting, C. L. Personality, mood, and cognitive processing of emotional information: Three conceptual frameworks. Psychol. Bull. 124, 165–196 (1998).
Denson, T. F., Grisham, J. R. & Moulds, M. L. Cognitive reappraisal increases heart rate variability in response to an anger provocation. Motiv. Emot. 35, 14–22 (2011).
McRae, K. et al. The neural bases of distraction and reappraisal. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 22, 248–262 (2010).
McRae, K., Ciesielski, B. & Gross, J. J. Unpacking cognitive reappraisal: Goals, tactics, and outcomes. Emotion 12, 250–255 (2012).
Lang, P. J., Bradley, M. & Cuthbert, B. International affective picture system (IAPS): Digitized photographs, instruction manual and affective ratings. Technical Report A-6. (2005).
Bernat, E. M., Cadwallader, M., Seo, D., Vizueta, N. & Patrick, C. J. Effects of instructed emotion regulation on valence, arousal, and attentional measures of affective processing. Dev. Neuropsychol. 36, 493–518 (2011).
Dan-Glauser, E. S. & Gross, J. J. The temporal dynamics of two response-focused forms of emotion regulation: Experiential, expressive, and autonomic consequences. Psychophysiology 48, 1309–1322 (2011).
Sheppes, G., Scheibe, S., Suri, G. & Gross, J. J. Emotion-regulation choice. Psychol. Sci. 22, 1391–1396 (2011).
Risch, A., Strohmayer, C. & Stangier, U. Psychologische Wohlbefindensskala-PWS (Unpubl, 2005).
Ryff, C. D. Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 57, 1069–1081 (1989).
Ryff, C. D. Psychological well-being revisited: Advances in the science and practice of Eudaimonia. Psychother. Psychosom. 83, 10–28 (2014).
Gratz, K. L. & Roemer, L. Multidimensional assessment of emotion regulation and dysregulation: Development, factor structure, and initial validation of the difficulties in emotion regulation scale. J. Psychopathol. Behav. Assess. 26, 41–54 (2004).
Neumann, A., van Lier, P. A. C., Gratz, K. L. & Koot, H. M. Multidimensional assessment of emotion regulation difficulties in adolescents using the difficulties in emotion regulation scale. Assessment 17, 138–149 (2010).
Goldberg, L. R. The development of markers for the Big-Five factor structure. Psychol. Assess. 4, 26–42 (1992).
Biolab 3.0. (MindWare Technologies, 2011).
R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing Preprint at (2019).
Goodrich, B., Gabry, J., Ali, I. & Brilleman, S. rstanarm: Bayesian applied regression modeling via Stan. R package.
Gelman, A. & Rubin, D. B. Inference from iterative simulation using multiple sequences. Stat. Sci. 7(457), 472 (1992).
Gelman, A. Bayesian data analysis (CRC Press, London, 2014).
Lenth, R. emmeans: Estimated Marginal Means, aka Least-Squares Means. (2022).
Waugh, C. E. et al. Emotion regulation changes the duration of the BOLD response to emotional stimuli. Soc. Cogn. Affect. Neurosci. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsw067 (2016).
Raio, C. M., Orederu, T. A., Palazzolo, L., Shurick, A. A. & Phelps, E. A. Cognitive emotion regulation fails the stress test. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 110, 151139–215144 (2013).
Groß, D. & Kohlmann, C. W. Predicting self-control capacity – Taking into account working memory capacity, motivation, and heart rate variability. Acta Psychol. (Amst.) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2020.103131 (2020).
Troy, A. S., Shallcross, A. J. & Mauss, I. B. Corrigendum to A person-by-situation approach to emotion regulation: Cognitive reappraisal can either help or hurt Depending on the Context. Psychol. Sci. 24, 2505–2514 (2013).
John, O. P. & Gross, J. J. Healthy and unhealthy emotion regulation: Personality processes, individual differences, and life span development. J. Pers. 72, 1301–1334 (2004).
Li, P., Zhu, C., Leng, Y. & Luo, W. Distraction and expressive suppression strategies in down-regulation of high- and low-intensity positive emotions. Int. J. Psychophysiol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2020.09.010 (2020).
Milyavsky, M. et al. To reappraise or not to reappraise? Emotion regulation choice and cognitive energetics. Emotion 19, 964–981 (2018).
Burton, C. L. & Bonanno, G. A. Regulatory flexibility and its role in adaptation to aversive events throughout the lifespan. Emotion, aging, and health 78(879), 963 (2016).
Iacobucci, D., Posavac, S. S., Kardes, F. R., Schneider, M. J. & Popovich, D. L. The median split: Robust, refined, and revived. J. Consum. Psychol. 25, 690–704 (2015).
Wojnarowska, A., Kobylinska, D. & Lewczuk, K. Acceptance as an emotion regulation strategy in experimental psychological research: What we know and how we can improve that knowledge. Front. Psychol. 11, 242. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00242 (2020).
Kurdi, B., Lozano, S. & Banaji, M. R. Introducing the open affective standardized image set (OASIS). Behav. Res. Methods 49, 457–470 (2017).
Funding
The preparation of this manuscript was supported by the Preludium Grant awarded to Karol Lewczuk by National Science Centre, Poland (number 2016/21/N/HS6/02678) and Opus grant awarded to Dorota Kobylińska by National Science Center, Poland (number 2019/33/B/HS6/00513).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Conception and Design: D.K., K.L., Acquisition of Data: D.K., K.L., C.B., T.K., U.H., Analysis and Interpretation of Data: K.L., P.M., D.K., M.W., Drafting the Article: D.K., K.L., M.W., P.M., C.B., T.K., U.H., Final Approval of the Completed Article: DK, KL, M.W., P.M., C.B., T.K., U.H.
Corresponding authors
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher's note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Kobylińska, D., Lewczuk, K., Wizła, M. et al. Effectiveness of emotion regulation strategies measured by self-report and EMG as a result of strategy used, negative emotion strength and participants’ baseline HRV. Sci Rep 13, 6226 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-33032-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-33032-2
- Springer Nature Limited
This article is cited by
-
Impaired Emotional Mimicry Responses Towards Objectified Women
Journal of Nonverbal Behavior (2024)