| Literature DB >> 24987387 |
Philipp C Opitz1, Ihno A Lee2, James J Gross2, Heather L Urry1.
Abstract
The Selection, Optimization, and Compensation with Emotion Regulation (SOC-ER) framework suggests that (1) emotion regulation (ER) strategies require resources and that (2) higher levels of relevant resources may increase ER success. In the current experiment, we tested the specific hypothesis that individual differences in one internal class of resources, namely cognitive ability, would contribute to greater success using cognitive reappraisal (CR), a form of ER in which one reinterprets the meaning of emotion-eliciting situations. To test this hypothesis, 60 participants (30 younger and 30 older adults) completed standardized neuropsychological tests that assess fluid and crystallized cognitive ability, as well as a CR task in which participants reinterpreted the meaning of sad pictures in order to alter (increase or decrease) their emotions. In a control condition, they viewed the pictures without trying to change how they felt. Throughout the task, we indexed subjective emotional experience (self-reported ratings of emotional intensity), expressive behavior (corrugator muscle activity), and autonomic physiology (heart rate and electrodermal activity) as measures of emotional responding. Multilevel models were constructed to explain within-subjects variation in emotional responding as a function of ER contrasts comparing increase or decrease conditions with the view control condition and between-subjects variation as a function of cognitive ability and/or age group (older, younger). As predicted, higher fluid cognitive ability-indexed by perceptual reasoning, processing speed, and working memory-was associated with greater success using reappraisal to alter emotional responding. Reappraisal success did not vary as a function of crystallized cognitive ability or age group. Collectively, our results provide support for a key tenet of the SOC-ER framework that higher levels of relevant resources may confer greater success at emotion regulation.Entities:
Keywords: SOC-ER; cognitive ability; cognitive reappraisal; emotion regulation; older adults; working memory
Year: 2014 PMID: 24987387 PMCID: PMC4060296 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00609
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Psychol ISSN: 1664-1078
Characteristics of the sample.
| Mean ( | 19.45 (1.18) | 61.90 (5.14) | |
| Total | 30 | 30 | |
| Men | 10 (33%) | 13 (43%) | χ2(1) = 0.648, |
| Women | 19 (67%) | 16 (57%) | |
| High school diploma | 11 (36%) | 1 (3%) | χ2(3) = 30.21, |
| Some college | 16 (53%) | 6 (20%) | |
| College diploma | 2 (6%) | 10 (33%) | |
| Graduate degree | 0 | 12 (40%) | |
| Never married | 29 (97%) | 3 (10%) | χ2(4) = 47.13, |
| Married | 0 | 12 (40%) | |
| Separated | 0 | 1 (3%) | |
| Divorced | 0 | 11 (36%) | |
| Widowed | 0 | 2 (6%) | |
Demographic data for two participants (one younger) were not collected, and are therefore not included (except in total N).
Figure 1Trial structure. Participants first saw a fixation cross for 1 s, followed by a picture for a total of 12 s. Three seconds after picture onset, participants heard the cognitive reappraisal (CR) instruction for that trial, if applicable (in this case, “decrease”). One second thereafter, a box directed them to look in an arousing or nonarousing area of the picture, if applicable (in this case, the box is directing gaze to an arousing area). After the 8-s regulatory period during which they followed the CR and gaze direction instructions, participants briefly saw a gray screen (1 s). This was followed by a 9-point intensity rating screen which was available for up to 4 s. After the rating screen, a gray screen with a black dot signaled a break between trials, which varied from 4 to 7 s. Photo of mourning family from Evstafiev (1992). Used with permission of the photographer.
Parameter estimates from preliminary analysis examining cognitive reappraisal and gaze direction effects on emotional responding.
| Self-reported intensity | 0.961 (0.279) |
| Corrugator activity | 0.508 (0.085) |
| Heart rate | 0.077 (0.1) |
| Skin conductance | 0.003 (0.001) |
| Decrease—view | −0.637 (0.171) |
| Increase—view | 0.997 (0.237) |
| No CR—view | −0.176 (0.063) |
| Arousing—not directed | 0.07 (0.04) |
| Non-arousing—not directed | −0.166 (0.069) |
| (Decrease—view) × (Arousing—not directed) | −0.112 (0.07) |
| (Increase—view) × (Arousing—not directed) | 0.051 (0.066) |
| (No CR—view) × (Arousing—not directed) | −0.021 (0.062) |
| (Decrease—view) × (Non-arousing—not directed) | 0.197 (0.079) |
| (Increase—view) × (Non-arousing—not directed) | −0.045 (0.061) |
| (No CR—view) × (Non-arousing—not directed) | −0.037 (0.06) |
CR, cognitive reappraisal. Pre-instruction activity was a positive, significant predictor of post-instruction activity for all three physiological measures; these estimates are not reported for the sake of brevity.
Slope was estimated as a random effect.
p < 0.001,
p < 0.05,
p < 0.10.
Parameter estimates from hypothesis tests examining cognitive ability or age group as predictors of cognitive reappraisal success.
| Indicators | Factor loadings | Factor loadings | ||||
| BD | 7.811 (2.305) | – | 10.607 (1.274) | |||
| CD | 11.039 (3.317) | – | 12.688 (2.22) | |||
| DS | 1.63 (0.899) | – | 2.31 (0.767) | |||
| Fluid cognitive ability | −0.367 (0.08) | 0.431 (0.128) | – | – | −0.423 (0.107) | 0.479 (0.152) |
| Crystallized cognitive ability (VC) | 0.007 (0.007) | −0.004 (0.01) | – | – | 0.006 (0.008) | −0.002 (0.011) |
| Age group (older = 1, younger = 0) | – | – | 0.207 (0.13) | −0.226 (0.18) | 0.102 (0.197) | −0.388 (0.239) |
| Ever married (yes = 1, 0 = no) | – | – | – | – | −0.558 (0.159) | 0.909 (0.217) |
| Education level (higher values = more educated) | – | – | – | – | −0.012 (0.079) | 0.062 (0.096) |
Within-subjects effects recapitulate effects reported in Table 2 and thus are not reported here. BD, Block Design; CD, Coding; DS, Digit Span.
p < 0.001,
p < 0.05,
p < 0.10.
Figure 2This figure depicts success using cognitive reappraisal to decrease (black bars) and increase (white bars) emotional responding as a function of age group in the Age Group Model (see Table . Note that larger negative parameter estimates signal greater success for decrease vs. view whereas larger positive parameter estimates signal greater success for increase vs. view. Success scores were modestly lower in magnitude for older adults (right) than younger adults (left) but neither age difference was statistically significant. Error bars reflect the 95% confidence interval around the estimate of the age difference in cognitive reappraisal (CR) success.
Estimates of emotional responding for each measure as a function of Cognitive Reappraisal (CR) instruction, gaze direction, and age group.
| Arousing | 1.267 (0.462) | 1.809 (0.517) | 2.047 (0.504) | 1.956 (0.598) | 1.736 (0.47) | 2.431 (0.636) | 2.984 (0.612) | 2.054 (0.453) |
| Not directed | 1.479 (0.539) | 2.247 (0.613) | 2.37 (0.594) | 2.362 (0.667) | 1.199 (0.479) | 1.8 (0.755) | 1.839 (0.542) | 1.603 (0.554) |
| Non-arousing | 1.11 (0.34) | 1.339 (0.334) | 2.018 (0.478) | 1.536 (0.37) | 1.188 (0.543) | 1.404 (0.558) | 1.245 (0.457) | 1.344 (0.486) |
| Arousing | 35.424 (3.181) | 35.467 (3.048) | 35.992 (3.139) | 35.636 (3.171) | 29.447 (3.494) | 29.534 (3.442) | 29.62 (3.443) | 29.471 (3.449) |
| Not directed | 33.499 (3.807) | 33.685 (3.886) | 33.728 (3.794) | 33.476 (3.847) | 32.764 (3.079) | 32.866 (3.026) | 32.908 (3.001) | 32.849 (3.021) |
| Non-arousing | 36.299 (2.659) | 36.512 (2.666) | 37.335 (2.576) | 36.46 (2.541) | 29.457 (3.497) | 29.482 (3.475) | 29.506 (3.469) | 29.485 (3.48) |
| Arousing | −0.015 (0.012) | −0.026 (0.018) | 0.002 (0.01) | −0.003 (0.012) | 0.004 (0.007) | 0.003 (0.006) | −0.003 (0.005) | 0 (0.003) |
| Not directed | −0.007 (0.011) | −0.015 (0.009) | 0.002 (0.015) | 0.007 (0.012) | 0.007 (0.003) | 0.007 (0.005) | 0.007 (0.003) | 0.004 (0.003) |
| Non-arousing | 0.018 (0.01) | −0.001 (0.007) | 0.019 (0.011) | 0.015 (0.01) | 0.001 (0.005) | −0.004 (0.004) | 0.003 (0.004) | −0.002 (0.004) |
| Arousing | 3.658 (0.204) | 4.293 (0.238) | 5.412 (0.243) | 3.967 (0.249) | 4.111 (0.28) | 4.6 (0.246) | 5.771 (0.296) | 4.753 (0.282) |
| Not directed | 3.481 (0.203) | 4.104 (0.271) | 5.491 (0.226) | 4.208 (0.236) | 4.359 (0.277) | 4.655 (0.274) | 5.701 (0.273) | 4.646 (0.249) |
| Non-arousing | 3.562 (0.206) | 3.728 (0.224) | 5.136 (0.261) | 3.745 (0.235) | 4.343 (0.244) | 4.371 (0.268) | 5.548 (0.3) | 4.523 (0.272) |
Estimates were determined via a series of two-level multilevel models, one for each age group, gaze direction, and CR instruction as described in text. Reported here is the intercept B(SE) from each model, which represents the mean value for the one CR instruction in each model that was not included as a predictor.