HHS Public Access

Author manuscript
J Soc Clin Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 October 16.
Author Manuscript

Published in final edited form as:

J Soc Clin Psychol. 2018 April ; 37(4): 231–251. doi:10.1521/jscp.2018.37.4.231.

Flexible, yet firm: A model of healthy emotion regulation

Matthew W. Southwarda, Erin M. Altenburgera, Sara A. Mossa, David R. Cregga, and
Jennifer S. Cheavensa
aDepartment of Psychology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA

Abstract
Author Manuscript

We propose a model of healthy intentional emotion regulation that includes (1) a large repertoire
of (2) adaptive strategies that (3) one persists with despite initial negative feedback. One hundred
forty-four undergraduates (average age = 19.20 years; 68% female, 79% Caucasian) completed a
novel performance task indicating what they would think or do to feel better in response to eleven
stressful vignettes. After their initial response, participants indicated four more times how they
would respond if their previous strategy was not working. Raters categorized each response as an
emotion regulation strategy and coded the adaptiveness of each strategy. Participants self-reported
Neuroticism, Extraversion, Conscientiousness, Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) symptoms,
and depressive symptoms. We regressed each personality dimension and psychopathology
symptom on our model of healthy emotion regulation. Neuroticism was negatively associated with
adaptiveness and persistence. Extraversion was positively associated with adaptiveness.
Conscientiousness was positively associated with repertoire, adaptiveness, and persistence, while
Author Manuscript

BPD symptoms were negatively associated with all three variables. Depressive symptoms were
negatively associated with persistence. These preliminary findings suggest that people with larger
repertoires of more adaptive emotion regulation strategies who persist with these strategies despite
initial negative feedback report less personality pathology and psychological distress.

Keywords
emotion regulation; depression; personality; persistence; flexibility

Emotion regulation, defined as the process of altering the onset, intensity, and/or duration of
emotions (Gross & Thompson, 2007), can be accomplished in many ways. For instance, to
reduce anxiety at a party, a person could start a conversation with someone new, drink
Author Manuscript

alcohol to reduce her inhibitions, or leave. There is evidence that emotion regulation
flexibility, defined as the tendency to match generally effective strategies to the appropriate
emotional context, is beneficial for reducing negative emotions (e.g., Bonanno & Burton,
2013; Cheng, 2001). However, researchers have rarely provided empirical tests of how
aspects of emotion regulation flexibility function together simultaneously (but see
Southward & Cheavens, 2017, for an example) in relation to psychological health.

Corresponding author: Matthew W. Southward, 181 Psychology Building, 1835 Neil Ave. Columbus, OH 43210, Phone:
614-292-9775, southward.6@osu.edu.
Conflicts of interest: none.
 Southward et al. Page 2

We propose that the emotion regulation profile that characterizes psychological health is
Author Manuscript

analogous to an expert craftsperson and her toolbox. A useful toolbox includes a variety of
tools (i.e., a large repertoire of emotion regulation strategies) of high quality (i.e., more
adaptive than not). Once the craftsperson selects a tool, she gives it time to work despite
difficulties (i.e., persist in the use of strategies).

This profile complements current models of emotion regulation. It takes an individual

differences perspective (Bonanno & Burton, 2013) by identifying patterns in how people
tend to regulate emotions within and between situations. It also provides a common metric
(i.e., adaptiveness) by which to compare strategies and which may have direct links to
psychological health (Aldao, Nolen-Hoeksema, & Schweizer, 2010). This profile further
explicitly compares switching and persisting with strategies in response to repeated negative
feedback, a response pattern that may be particularly relevant for the development of
psychopathology (Daskalakis, Bagot, Parker, Vinkers, & de Kloet, 2013). Finally, this
Author Manuscript

profile can serve as a framework in which researchers can incorporate other aspects of
emotion regulation (e.g., strategy-goal congruence, strategy-situation fit).

Emotion Regulation Repertoire

People with larger emotion regulation repertoires (i.e., the number of unique strategies one
uses to change emotional responses) should have better psychological health because they
have more regulatory resources (Cheng, Lau, & Chan, 2014). Larger emotion regulation
repertoires have been associated with fewer symptoms of depression (Herman-Stahl,
Stemmler, & Petersen, 1995), as well as lower momentary negative affect and greater
momentary positive affect (Heiy & Cheavens, 2014).

Smaller repertoires have been associated with higher levels of Borderline Personality
Author Manuscript

Disorder (BPD) features. Emotion dysregulation is central to BPD (Linehan, 1993), making
it an important construct to assess when determining healthy emotion regulation profiles.
Across three samples, people with smaller emotion regulation repertoires reported more
BPD features, over and above negative affect (Chapman, Leung, & Lynch, 2008; Glenn &
Klonsky, 2009; Salsman & Linehan, 2012).

Adaptiveness: Context Dependent or Strategy-Specific?

The adaptiveness of emotion regulation strategies may depend on situational contexts
(Webb, Miles, & Sheeran, 2012). Someone with healthy psychological functioning may
choose strategies based on properties of specific situations (e.g., distraction in uncontrollable
situations and problem-solving in controllable situations). Alternatively, emotion regulation
Author Manuscript

strategies may be generally adaptive or maladaptive (Gross & John, 2003). Cognitive
reappraisal and acceptance, for instance, are considered adaptive across most contexts, while
strategies such as emotional suppression and rumination are often considered maladaptive
(Aldao, Nolen-Hoeksema, & Schweizer, 2010). Although people who tend to use many
adaptive strategies and few maladaptive strategies report fewer symptoms of depression
(Herman-Stahl et al., 1995), a balanced profile of putatively adaptive and maladaptive
emotion regulation strategies has also been associated with greater adjustment, including

J Soc Clin Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 October 16.
 Southward et al. Page 3

lower levels of anxiety and depression (Cheng et al., 2014). It is unclear from these
Author Manuscript

conflicting findings whether relying on more adaptive strategies or a balanced use of

putatively adaptive and maladaptive strategies is associated with greater psychological
health.

Strategy Persistence not within situation

When working toward a valued goal, it is often adaptive to persist in the face of obstacles
(Carver & Scheier, 2001). Because the goal of emotion regulation is to change emotions, it
may be more adaptive to continue using a strategy, despite feedback that the emotion is not
immediately changing, rather than quickly switching strategies.

Few researchers have directly investigated how switching strategies within situations is
related to psychological functioning. Aldao and Nolen-Hoeksema (2013) had participants
Author Manuscript

watch disgust-eliciting film clips and report their levels of disgust. After watching each clip,
participants rated the extent to which they used six emotion regulation strategies during the
clips. Participants who used multiple strategies reported greater disgust and they reported
using their strategies to a lesser extent than those who used only a single strategy, suggesting
that using fewer strategies to a greater extent may reduce disgust. Alternatively, greater
disgust may have prompted participants to use more strategies.

There are often many options for changing emotions (e.g., Heiy & Cheavens, 2014). Thus,
switching strategies when given feedback that the current strategy is not working may be
more adaptive. Greater frequency of switching from reappraisal to distraction was associated
with greater life satisfaction among people more sensitive to internal physiological feedback
but less life satisfaction among those less sensitive to internal feedback (Birk & Bonanno,
2016). Switching strategies may be related to adaptive outcomes if motivated by accurate
Author Manuscript

internal feedback, but switching strategies without giving each strategy time to work may be
associated with maladaptive outcomes.

Despite these mixed findings, researchers in several domains have reported beneficial effects
of persistence. Perseverance of effort is strongly associated with academic performance
(Credé, Tynan, & Harms, 2017), while deliberate, persistent practice accounts for significant
variance in educational outcomes, sports performance, musical achievement, and skill at
games (Macnamara, Hambrick, & Oswald, 2014). These findings provide converging
evidence that persisting with strategies in response to difficulties may be part of a healthy
emotion regulation profile.

Current Study
Author Manuscript

We tested the relative associations of repertoire size, strategy adaptiveness, and strategy
persistence with personality dimensions and symptoms of psychopathology in response to
hypothetical stressful scenarios and negative environmental feedback1. We chose to assess
personality dimensions and symptoms of psychopathology for several reasons. First, two

1We examined environmental feedback rather than internal feedback in order to increase the internal validity of the design so that all
participants were exposed to standardized feedback and to complement Birk and Bonanno’s (2016) findings.

J Soc Clin Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 October 16.
 Southward et al. Page 4

particular personality dimensions, Neuroticism and Extraversion, represent the tendency for
Author Manuscript

people to experience negative emotions and positive emotions, respectively (Costa &
McCrae, 1992). Because we were interested in how people regulate emotions at an
individual difference level, these were particularly appropriate measures. Similarly, because
symptoms of psychopathology, including depression and BPD, may be characterized as
breakdowns in emotion regulation (Joormann & Gotlib, 2010; Linehan, 1993), we included
these measures as well. Finally, we assessed Conscientiousness because it represents
essential aspects of psychological health beyond emotional responding, including impulse
control, goal-directedness, and the ability to plan (Costa & McCrae, 1992). We hypothesized
that larger emotion regulation repertoires, more adaptive strategies, and greater strategy
persistence would collectively be associated with lower Neuroticism, higher Extraversion
and Conscientiousness, and fewer symptoms of BPD and depression.
Author Manuscript

Materials and Methods

Participants
Undergraduates at a large Midwestern university were recruited via an introductory
psychology course. Participants (N = 144; Mage = 19.20, SD = 1.23; 68% female, 79%
Caucasian) were awarded partial course credit. The sample size was determined by a power
analysis, assuming α = .05, power = .80, and small-to-medium multiple regression effect
sizes. Participants under 18 years old were excluded. Of note, 43.8% of the sample (n = 63)
scored at or above the recommended cutoff of 20 on the CES-D indicating mild to moderate
depression symptoms (Vilagut, Forero, Barbaglia, & Alonso, 2016). Study procedures were
IRB-approved, and all participants provided informed consent.

Materials
Author Manuscript

Emotion regulation—We created eleven vignettes describing stressors college students

may face (Table 1)2. These vignettes were created based on discussions among three study
authors (M.W.S, E.M.A, J.S.C.) to elicit a breadth of negatively-valenced emotions (e.g.,
anxiety, anger, guilt, loneliness, sadness, surprise) in a variety of inter- and intra-personal
scenarios involving stressors of relatively shorter and longer duration. After the scenarios
were generated, we discussed them with undergraduate research assistants to get feedback
on scenarios. The undergraduate research assistants agreed that the scenarios were reflective
of stressors faced by undergraduate students. After reading each vignette, presented in a
random order, participants provided a free response to the question, “What would you think
or do first to feel better?” After responding to all vignettes, the vignettes were presented
again, along with participants’ initial response. To assess persistence, participants were
prompted, “If that strategy is not working, what would you think or do to feel better? (You
Author Manuscript

may continue thinking or doing the same thing)” and were asked to provide a second free
response. This prompt was repeated three more times for each vignette. Participants thus
generated five responses to each vignette (i.e., 55 responses total per participant).

2Nelis, Quoidbach, Hansenne, and Mikolajczak (2011) showed that multiple choice responses to vignettes describing hypothetical
stressful situations demonstrated good internal consistency as well as good convergent and discriminant validity with measures of
emotion, emotion regulation, and personality among a relatively large (N = 481) sample of Belgian university students.

J Soc Clin Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 October 16.
 Southward et al. Page 5

Four undergraduate raters (3 female, 1 male) trained by study authors (E.M.A. and M.W.S.)
Author Manuscript

coded each response as one of 30 categories, based primarily on a previous study of a wide
range of emotion regulation strategies (i.e., Heiy & Cheavens, 2014; Table 2). Ten categories
not assessed by Heiy and Cheavens (2014) were generated by the study authors before
coding but after reviewing a subset of participant responses to ensure adequate conceptual
coverage (i.e., express emotions, information gathering, isolation, leave the situation,
nothing - wait to feel better, prayer, reflection, relationship antagonism, relationship
maintenance/repair, and therapy/counseling). Raters coded each participant’s set of five
responses in order, but sets were randomized by participant and vignette. Individual
responses with agreement 50% or less (n = 835; 10.5%) were resolved by M.W.S. Raters
also coded each response as adaptive (i.e., likely to be effective/helpful in general; scored 1)
or maladaptive (i.e., unlikely to be effective/helpful in general; scored 0). To train raters to
apply these definitions, we generated sample responses and raters coded these responses.
Author Manuscript

These codings were reviewed and discussed by study authors with raters during weekly
reliability meetings that continued throughout the coding process. Group consensus was
achieved between study authors and coders for ratings of strategy category and strategy
adaptiveness. To determine adaptiveness, coders were instructed to consider the content of
the response and the context of the vignette, applying the definitions of adaptive and
maladaptive strategies above. We averaged each rater’s adaptiveness ratings across all
responses for each participant.

We constructed three indices of emotion regulation. First, we calculated each participant’s

repertoire by counting the number of unique strategies used across all vignettes. Second, we
calculated each participant’s overall adaptiveness by averaging the adaptiveness ratings of
all their responses. Finally, we calculated persistence by averaging the number of times each
participant changed strategies per vignette. A strategy change was defined as any time a
Author Manuscript

given strategy category differed from the category immediately preceding it within each set
of five responses. The number of changes could range from zero (did not change at all) to
four (changed every time). We averaged these ratings across all vignettes for each participant
and multiplied this result by −1 to interpret it as persistence.

We evaluated the convergent validity of these indices of emotion regulation by comparing

them to the Generalized Expectancy for Negative Mood Regulation Scale (NMR; Catanzaro
& Mearns, 1990). The NMR provides participants with descriptions of potential responses to
negative emotions; participants rate the degree to which each response is true for them, and
higher scores indicate a greater belief in one’s ability to alleviate negative moods. Similarly,
we asked participants to describe how they would respond to stressful scenarios eliciting
negative emotions. We regressed participants’ NMR scores on our three indices of a healthy
Author Manuscript

emotion regulation profile because we believe these three indices function collectively. As
expected, repertoire, β = .20, SE = .11, p = .07, 95% CI [.00, .43], adaptiveness, β = .35, SE
= .09, p < .01, 95% CI [.20, .54], and persistence, β = .29, SE = .12, p = .02, 95% CI [.06, .
52] were all positively associated with NMR scores.

J Soc Clin Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 October 16.
 Southward et al. Page 6

Symptoms of psychopathology and personality dimensions

Author Manuscript

Center for Epidemiologic Studies - Depression scale (CES-D; Radloff, 1977): The CES-
D is a 20-item scale designed to assess symptoms of depression over the past week.
Respondents indicate the frequency of each symptom, resulting in a total score. Internal
consistency in the current sample was excellent (α = .91).

Inventory of Interpersonal Problems – Borderline Personality Disorder scale (IIP-

BPD; Lejuez, Daughters, Nowak, Lynch, Rosenthal, & Kosson, 2003): The IIP-BPD is
an 18-item scale designed to assess BPD features in unselected samples. A total score is
calculated by averaging the IIP-Aggression and IIP-Interpersonal Sensitivity subscales,
which correlate stronger with BPD-relevant constructs than the IIP total score in college
samples (Lejuez et al.). Internal consistency in the current sample was good (α = .88).
Author Manuscript

NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI; Costa & McCrae, 1992): The NEO-FFI is a 60-
item scale designed to assess Big Five personality traits. The Neuroticism subscale measures
the tendency to experience negative affect. The Extraversion subscale assesses the tendency
to be sociable, active, and experience positive affect. The Conscientiousness subscale
measures the tendency to be orderly, goal-driven, and dependable. Internal consistency in the
current sample was good (α = .84–.86).

Procedure
Participants completed all measures online. After responding to the vignettes, participants
completed self-report measures in a random order.

Analytic Method
Author Manuscript

We modeled these data as multiple linear regressions to estimate the simultaneous

associations of each aspect of emotion regulation, accounting for the others. We regressed
personality and psychopathology variables on aspects of emotion regulation. Our main
hypotheses regarding emotion regulation and personality dimensions concerned associations
with Neuroticism, Extraversion, and Conscientiousness because these dimensions are most
strongly associated with symptoms of clinical disorders (Kotov, Gamez, Schmidt, & Watson,
2010). Regression models should not be interpreted causally or as temporally sequenced
because these data are cross-sectional.

As an exploratory analysis, we examined whether the associations between emotion

regulation and personality and psychopathology varied as a function of each aspect of
emotion regulation by testing all two- and three-way interactions among aspects of emotion
regulation.
Author Manuscript

Results
Preliminary Analyses
We first examined the psychometric properties of our vignette ratings. When categorizing
any given response as one of 30 strategies, raters demonstrated acceptable reliability
(Krippendorff’s alpha = .67). When averaging raters’ codings of adaptiveness across all of

J Soc Clin Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 October 16.
 Southward et al. Page 7

each participant’s responses, raters demonstrated excellent reliability (intraclass correlation

Author Manuscript

coefficient = .92). Age was not significantly correlated with adaptiveness, r = –.16, p = .05,
95% CI [–.39, .07], repertoire size, r = .05, p = .54, 95% CI [–.10, .21], or strategy
persistence, r < .001, p = 1.00, 95% CI [–.14, .15]. Similarly, there were no significant
differences between Caucasian and minority participants on measures of adaptiveness,
t(38.54) = 1.93, p = .06, 95% CI [.00, .14], repertoire size, t(142) = .81, p = .42, 95% CI [–.
65, 1.54], or strategy persistence, t(142) = –.77, p = .44, 95% CI [–.44, .20]. Female
participants (M = .81, SD = .12) reported significantly more adaptive strategies than male
participants (M = .74, SD = .18), t(67) = 2.49, p = .02, 95% CI [.01, .13]. However, there
were no differences in repertoire size, t(142) = .44, p = .66, 95% CI [–.74, 1.17], or strategy
persistence, t(70.43) = –1.48, p = .14, 95% CI [.54, –.08] between female and male
participants.

We then examined correlations among our measures of interest (Table 3). Larger repertoires
Author Manuscript

were associated with less persistence, r = –.57, p < .01, 95% CI [–.66, –.44] but were
unrelated to adaptiveness, r = –.17, p = .04, 95% CI [–.37, .04], while adaptiveness and
persistence were also unrelated, r < .005, p = .97, 95% CI [–.17, .17]. Repertoire size was
not associated with personality or symptoms of psychopathology, ps > .30. Adaptiveness
was negatively associated with IIP-BPD, r = –.19, p = .02, 95% CI [–.35, –.01], and
positively associated with Extraversion, r = .34, p < .01, 95% CI [.19, .48], and
Conscientiousness, r = .29, p < .01, 95% CI [.08, .49]. Persistence was negatively associated
with IIP-BPD, r = –.18, p = .03, 95% CI [–.35, –.02], and Neuroticism, r = –.23, p < .01,
95% CI [–.39, –.06].

Primary Analyses
We then tested associations between emotion regulation, personality dimensions, and
Author Manuscript

psychopathology symptoms with multiple linear regressions entering repertoire,

adaptiveness, and persistence as simultaneous independent predictors of Neuroticism,
Extraversion, Conscientiousness, BPD features, and symptoms of depression, respectively
(Table 4). Variables were standardized (M = 0, SD = 1) to ease interpretation.

Neuroticism was negatively associated with adaptiveness and persistence. Extraversion was
associated with adaptiveness only. Conscientiousness was positively associated with
repertoire size, adaptiveness, and persistence, while BPD symptoms were negatively
associated with all three emotion regulation indices. Depressive symptoms were only
negatively associated with persistence3.
Author Manuscript

3When including age, gender, and ethnicity (dichotomized) as moderators of all associations, both age, β = .32, SE = .10, p < .01,
95% CI [.12, .51] and ethnicity, β = –.60, SE = .26, p = .02, 95% CI [–1.11, –.08] moderated the association between repertoire size
and depressive symptoms. Repertoire size was negatively associated with depressive symptoms among participants under 18.29 years
old, β = –.30, SE = .12, p = .02, 95% CI [–.54, –.05], but positively associated with depressive symptoms among those older than
19.98 years, β = .34, SE = .14, p = .02, 95% CI [.06, .61]. Repertoire size was negatively associated with depressive symptoms among
participants who identified as minorities, β = –.66, SE = .23, p = .01, 95% CI [–1.12, –.20] but unrelated to depressive symptoms
among participants who identified as Caucasian, β = –.06, SE = .11, p = .58, 95% CI [–.29, .16]. Gender moderated the association
between adaptiveness and depressive symptoms, β = .51, SE = .17, p < .01, 95% CI [.17, .84]. Adaptiveness was negatively associated
with depressive symptoms among women, β = –.45, SE = .12, p < .01, 95% CI [–.68, –.21] but unrelated to CES-D scores among
men, β = .06, SE = .12, p = .61, 95% CI [–.18, .30]. Because we did not have a priori hypotheses regarding these associations and
because examining these associations produced 3 significant findings out of 45 tests, these results should be interpreted with extreme
caution.

J Soc Clin Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 October 16.
 Southward et al. Page 8

To test our exploratory hypothesis, we re-ran our models including all two- and three-way
Author Manuscript

interactions. The product terms of all two-way, ps > .25, and three-way, ps > .12, interactions
were not significant.

Discussion
We proposed that a psychologically healthy emotion regulation profile would balance
flexibility and consistency of strategy use – specifically, better psychological functioning
would be associated with larger repertoires of adaptive strategies used persistently. We use
the metaphor of a craftsperson with a well-equipped toolbox. Someone who responds well to
the contingencies of her craft likely has a variety of tools (i.e., a large repertoire). These
tools are in good working order (i.e., adaptive strategies). Additionally, once a tool is
selected, she gives it time to work before abandoning it (i.e., persistence).
Author Manuscript

We found preliminary support for our hypotheses across five regression models. Repertoire
size was negatively associated with BPD features and positively associated with
Conscientiousness, in line with our hypotheses. However, repertoire was not related to
Neuroticism, Extraversion, or symptoms of depression, contrary to our hypotheses. Further,
repertoire size was not as consistently or strongly associated with personality dimensions or
psychopathology symptoms as adaptiveness or strategy persistence. This pattern of results is
consistent with Cheng et al.’s (2014) meta-analysis in which repertoire size was positively
associated with adaptive outcomes, but less strongly than other emotion regulation flexibility
definitions. These findings suggest that simply generating a variety of strategies may not be
the most influential aspect of emotion regulation.

In line with our hypotheses, more adaptive emotion regulation strategies were associated
with more adaptive personality dimensions and lower levels of BPD features. This is
Author Manuscript

consistent with previous research suggesting that putatively adaptive emotion regulation
strategies are associated with lower Neuroticism, higher Extraversion, and
Conscientiousness (Gross & John, 2003), and lower levels of psychopathology (Aldao et al.,
2010). Although in the expected direction, adaptiveness was not significantly related to
symptoms of depression, contrary to our hypotheses. Given that depression symptoms were
most highly correlated with Neuroticism, it may be inferred that depression symptoms
would relate similarly to adaptiveness. Because the size of the association between
adaptiveness and depression symptoms was almost identical to that between adaptiveness
and Neuroticism, we believe the lack of a statistically significant association between
adaptiveness and depression symptoms may be most likely attributable to the more variable
state-based nature of our measure of depression symptoms compared to the trait-based
measure of Neuroticism.
Author Manuscript

Finally, more persistent strategy use was associated with lower Neuroticism, higher
Conscientiousness, and lower levels of psychopathology, in line with our hypotheses. These
findings are consistent with previous work indicating Conscientiousness and Neuroticism
are associated with self-reported persistence (Abuhassàn & Bates, 2015). These associations
suggest that frequent changes in strategy use may indicate erratic, “flailing” efforts to
regulate emotions with effective strategies (Conklin, Bradley, & Westen, 2006). Although in

J Soc Clin Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 October 16.
 Southward et al. Page 9

the expected direction, more persistent strategy use was not significantly related to
Author Manuscript

Extraversion. Given that these vignettes described a variety of social and non-social
scenarios, it may be that those higher in Extraversion who tend to be more social were less
persistent in response to negative feedback during non-social scenarios but more persistent
in response to negative feedback during social scenarios.

Alternatively, participants who persisted longer with certain strategies may have used more
adaptive strategies. However, no two-way or three-way interaction we examined was
significant. These findings make this explanation less likely, but future researchers should
examine this explanation using more evocative, real-world feedback or a larger sample.

Although Birk and Bonanno (2016) found that switching strategies indicated healthy
psychological functioning, our study is distinct in several ways. First, participants in our
study responded to explicit negative feedback (e.g., “If that strategy is not working, what
Author Manuscript

would you think or do to feel better?”), not self-generated feedback. Switching strategies
may only indicate healthy psychological functioning when switching in response to internal,
physiological cues. Additionally, we did not assign participants to use emotion regulation
strategies as Birk and Bonanno did. Instead, participants self-generated strategies they would
naturally use, enhancing the external validity of our findings.

This study expands our understanding of emotion regulation by providing the first
demonstration that greater variability in strategy use across situations but greater persistence
of strategy use within situations may be most indicative of psychological health. Further,
each aspect of emotion regulation may be independently related to psychological health.
This suggests that, for instance, people who tend to persist with strategies in a given
situation, assuming similar levels of adaptiveness, may demonstrate greater psychological
Author Manuscript

health than those who switch strategies more often. Someone who tends to quickly give up
on talking to new people at a party and leave may exhibit worse psychological functioning
than someone who tends to persist with their strategy of choice.

Our findings must be considered in light of this study’s limitations. Coders were instructed
to rate strategy adaptiveness in general (i.e., without considering the specific scenario in
which the strategy was used). While this method yielded results consistent with meta-
analytic findings (Aldao et al., 2010; Webb et al., 2012), it precludes us from examining
strategy-situation fit. Future researchers should rate the fit of strategies and situations and
compare the associations to those reported here.

Because we constructed hypothetical scenarios, we do not know how participants would

actually respond in these situations. However, because participants self-generated a range of
Author Manuscript

putatively maladaptive strategies, these results were not likely biased by social desirability.
Hypothetical scenarios are a valid measure of emotion regulation (Nelis et al., 2011) and
they allowed us to standardize stressors across participants. Requesting free responses to
hypothetical scenarios enhances the external validity of our findings compared to previous
studies utilizing vignettes because participants were not limited in their choice of emotion
regulation strategies. Future researchers should extend these research methods by testing
patterns of emotion regulation in longitudinal and more ecologically valid designs.

J Soc Clin Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 October 16.
 Southward et al. Page 10

Because we prompted participants to provide an emotion regulation strategy five times for
Author Manuscript

each scenario, participants may have felt encouraged to switch strategies more frequently or
generate a wider variety of strategies. This interpretation appears less likely because
reporting a wider variety of strategies across situations and switching strategies more often
within a given situation were associated with outcomes in opposing ways.

Collectively, these findings suggest the size of one’s emotion regulation repertoire across
situations, the adaptiveness of one’s strategies, and the persistence with which they are
applied in a given situation are important aspects of healthy emotion regulation. By
assessing emotion regulation with a performance task and independent ratings of the
strategies used rather than self-reported strategy effectiveness, we did not define emotion
regulation a priori as adaptive or maladaptive. Instead, our findings suggest that persisting
with a variety of generally adaptive strategies drawn from a relatively large repertoire may
constitute a psychologically healthy emotion regulation profile.
Author Manuscript

Acknowledgments
This work was made possible through the efforts of coders Cian Dabrowski, Joseph Hyland, Julia Wiedemann, and
Allison Wittenberg.

Funding

This work was partially supported by The Ohio State University Center for Clinical and Translational Science under
Grant #TL1TR001069. The funding source had no involvement in the conduct or preparation of the research.

References
Abuhassàn A, Bates TC. Grit: Distinguishing effortful persistence from conscientiousness. Journal of
Individual Differences. 2015; 36:205–214. DOI: 10.1027/1614-0001/a000175
Author Manuscript

Aldao A, Nolen-Hoeksema S. One versus many: Capturing the use of multiple emotion regulation
strategies in response to an emotion-eliciting stimulus. Cognition and Emotion. 2013; 27:753–760.
DOI: 10.1080/02699931.2012.739998 [PubMed: 23130665]
Aldao A, Nolen-Hoeksema S, Schweizer S. Emotion-regulation strategies across psychopathology: A
meta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology Review. 2010; 30:217–237. DOI: 10.1016/j.cpr.
2009.11.004 [PubMed: 20015584]
Birk JL, Bonanno GA. When to throw the switch: The adaptiveness of modifying emotion regulation
strategies based on affective and physiological feedback. Emotion. 2016; 16:657–670. DOI:
10.1037/emo0000157 [PubMed: 26900993]
Bonanno GA, Burton CL. Regulatory flexibility: An individual differences perspective on coping and
emotion regulation. Perspectives on Psychological Science. 2013; 8:591–612. DOI:
10.1177/1745691613504116 [PubMed: 26173226]
Carver CS, Scheier MF. On the self-regulation of behavior. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press;
2001.
Author Manuscript

Catanzaro SJ, Mearns J. Measuring generalized expectancies for negative mood regulation: Initial
scale development and implications. Journal of Personality Assessment. 1990; 54:546–563. DOI:
10.1207/s15327752jpa5403&4_11 [PubMed: 2348341]
Chapman AL, Leung DW, Lynch TR. Impulsivity and emotion dysregulation in borderline personality
disorder. Journal of Personality Disorders. 2008; 22:148–164. DOI: 10.1521/pedi.2008.22.2.148
[PubMed: 18419235]
Cheng C. Assessing coping flexibility in real-life and laboratory settings: A multimethod approach.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2001; 80:814–833. DOI:
10.1037/0022-3514.80.5.814 [PubMed: 11374752]

J Soc Clin Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 October 16.
 Southward et al. Page 11

Cheng C, Lau HPB, Chan MPS. Coping flexibility and psychological adjustment to stressful life
changes: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin. 2014; 140:1582–1607. DOI: 10.1037/
Author Manuscript

a0037913 [PubMed: 25222637]

Conklin CZ, Bradley R, Westen D. Affect regulation in borderline personality disorder. Journal of
Nervous and Mental Disease. 2006; 194:69–77. DOI: 10.1097/01.nmd.0000198138.41709.4f
[PubMed: 16477183]
Costa PT, Macrae RR. Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five Factor
Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources;
1992.
Credé M, Tynan MC, Harms PD. Much ado about grit: A meta-analytic synthesis of the grit literature.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2017; 133:492–511. DOI: 10.1037/pspp0000102
Daskalakis NP, Bagot RC, Parker KJ, Vinkers CH, de Kloet ER. The three-hit concept of vulnerability
and resilience: Towards understanding adaptation to early-life adversity outcomes.
Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2013; 38:1858–1873. DOI: 10.1016/j.psyneuen.2013.06.008
[PubMed: 23838101]
Glenn CR, Klonsky ED. Emotion dysregulation as a core feature of borderline personality disorder.
Author Manuscript

Journal of Personality Disorders. 2009; 23:20–28. DOI: 10.1521/pedi.2009.23.1.20 [PubMed:

19267659]
Gross JJ, Thompson RA. Emotion regulation: Conceptual foundations. In: Gross JJ, editorHandbook
of Emotion Regulation. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 2007. 3–24.
Gross JJ, John OP. Individual differences in two emotion regulation processes: Implications for affect,
relationships, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2003; 85:348–362.
DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.85.2.348 [PubMed: 12916575]
Heiy JE, Cheavens JS. Back to basics: A naturalistic assessment of the experience and regulation of
emotion. Emotion. 2014; 14:878–891. DOI: 10.1037/a0037231 [PubMed: 24999913]
Herman-Stahl MA, Stemmler M, Petersen AC. Approach and avoidant coping: Implications for
adolescent mental health. Journal of Youth and Adolescence. 1995; 24:649–665. DOI: 10.1007/
BF01536949
Joormann J, Gotlib IH. Emotion regulation in depression: Relation to cognitive inhibition. Cognition
and Emotion. 2010; 24:281–298. DOI: 10.1080/02699930903407948 [PubMed: 20300538]
Author Manuscript

Kotov R, Gamez W, Schmidt F, Watson D. Linking “big” personality traits to anxiety, depressive, and
substance use disorders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin. 2010; 136:768–821. DOI:
10.1037/a0020327 [PubMed: 20804236]
Lejuez CW, Daughters SB, Nowak JA, Lynch T, Rosenthal MZ, Kosson D. Examining the inventory of
interpersonal problems as a tool for conducting analogue studies of mechanisms underlying
borderline personality disorder. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry. 2003;
34:313–324. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbtep.2003.11.002 [PubMed: 14972676]
Linehan MM. Cognitive-behavioral treatment of borderline personality disorder. New York: Guilford
Press; 1993.
Macnamara BN, Hambrick DZ, Oswald FL. Deliberate practice and performance in music, games,
sports, education, and professions: A meta-analysis. Psychological Science. 2014; 25:1608–1618.
DOI: 10.1177/0956797614535810 [PubMed: 24986855]
Nelis D, Quoidbach J, Hansenne M, Mikolajczak M. Measuring individual differences in emotion
regulation: The Emotion Regulation Profile-Revised (ERP-R). Psychologica Belgica. 2011; 51:49–
91. DOI: 10.5334/pb-51-1-49
Author Manuscript

Radloff LS. The CES-D Scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the general population.
Applied Psychological Measurement. 1977; 1:385–401. DOI: 10.1177/014662167700100306
Salsman NL, Linehan MM. An investigation of the relationships among negative affect, difficulties in
emotion regulation, and features of borderline personality disorder. Journal of Psychopathology
and Behavioral Assessment. 2012; 34:260–267. DOI: 10.1007/s10862-012-9275-8
Southward MW, Cheavens JS. Assessing the relation between flexibility in emotional expression and
symptoms of anxiety and depression: The roles of context sensitivity and feedback sensitivity.
Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology. 2017; 36:142–157. DOI: 10.1521/jscp.2017.36.2.142
[PubMed: 28490833]

J Soc Clin Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 October 16.
 Southward et al. Page 12

Vilagut G, Forero CG, Barbaglia G, Alonso J. Screening for depression in the general population with
the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression (CES-D): A systematic review with meta-
Author Manuscript

analysis. PLoS One. 2016; 11:e0155431.doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0155431 [PubMed: 27182821]

Webb TL, Miles E, Sheeran P. Dealing with feeling: A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of strategies
derived from the process model of emotion regulation. Psychological Bulletin. 2012; 138:775–808.
DOI: 10.1037/a0027600 [PubMed: 22582737]
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

J Soc Clin Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 October 16.
 Southward et al. Page 13

Table 1

Full text of stressful scenarios.

Author Manuscript

Text Presented

1. You and your romantic partner just had a terrible fight. You’ve been together for a long time and you really like each other. You’ve argued
before but this was serious. It ended with your partner yelling, “You’re so selfish! I wish I never met you!” and slamming the door. You hear
them get into the car and drive off.
2. You just got back your second midterm in an important class in your major. You were initially excited about this class because you’ve been
dreaming of pursuing this major since high school. You did okay by your standards on the first midterm: not great but not terrible either.
However, you just checked your grade for the second midterm and you failed.
3. Since starting at [college], you’ve been hanging out with a small group of friends from your dorm and your classes. Even though you haven’t
known them that long, you feel like you’re really getting along well. Yesterday, one of them let it slip that they planned a get-together and didn’t
invite you.
4. You recently met someone who you think is attractive. You went out on a date together and you had a lot of fun. Since then, you’ve been
texting back and forth a lot. You both planned on meeting up at a party this coming weekend. However, when you see them at the party, they’re
kissing someone else.
5. You’re living with your best friend who you’ve known for a long time. Your schedules just don’t match, though. Your friend stays up until
2:00 each night and regularly sleeps through several rounds of snoozing the alarm in the morning. This means you’ve been getting less sleep and
you’ve felt more and more exhausted as the semester has gone on. Tonight, even though you tried to go to bed early because it is the night
Author Manuscript

before a test, you can’t sleep at all because your roommate is (loudly) pulling an all-nighter. It’s now midnight.
6. Several months ago you applied for a loan to pay for college. You just received confirmation that you were approved for the loan and that you
would receive it no later than next Monday. However, the last day to pay your college’s first semester fees is Friday. If you can’t pay the fees by
then you won’t be able to take the last classes you need to graduate.
7. Money has always been tight for you and your family so you decided to get a job. Your friends have gotten very well-paying jobs (for still
being in school) and wonder why it’s taking you so long to find one. You submitted resumes for two positions: one paying minimum wage
which will just barely cover your bills and one paying twice as much in a field you’re majoring in. You just found out you were hired part-time
at the minimum wage job but not the higher-paying one.
8. You were very ambitious at the start of this semester. You enrolled in 18 credit hours of classes, rushed a fraternity/sorority, joined two other
student organizations, and started a job working on the weekends. Now, in the middle of the semester, you’re noticing your grades slipping and
you’re finding it hard to keep up with the commitments of your organizations and job. You can’t stop worrying about falling behind and you’re
feeling overwhelmed.
9. It’s the middle of November. Finals are coming up fast, and you have plans to take a vacation over break. You’ve felt feverish, headaches and
body aches all over, and generally run down. The doctor said you have mono and you distinctly remember sharing a drink with one of your
friends who was starting to show similar symptoms over the weekend.
10. You’re desperately trying to get in shape for a Florida vacation you and your friends have planned. You’ve been dieting painstakingly and
you just finished a stressful week of tests at school. Your best friend is having a birthday party tonight at your favorite restaurant and they are
Author Manuscript

serving your favorite dessert. You really want to enjoy the party but you are also committed to your diet.
11. It’s a few days after your latest midterm and you receive an e-mail from your professor. In it, he says that your test answers exactly matched
those of another student sitting near you. Your professor says he is taking this very seriously and is sending this information to the Committee
on Academic Misconduct, who will decide your fate.
Author Manuscript

J Soc Clin Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 October 16.
 Southward et al. Page 14

Table 2

Descriptions, frequencies, and average adaptiveness ratings of emotion regulation strategies.

Author Manuscript

Frequency of Use Adaptiveness

Emotion Regulation Strategy n (%) M (SE)

Therapy/counseling 23 (0.3) .99 (.01)

Seeing a therapist/counselor

Planning 139 (1.8) .99 (< .01)

Thinking or talking with someone about how to proceed

Information gathering or sharing 972 (12.3) .98 (< .01)

Asking questions; seeking out facts; clarifying issues

Relationship maintenance/repair 466 (5.9) .98 (< .01)

Talking to someone about relationship difficulties
Author Manuscript

Social support 819 (10.3) .97 (< .01)

Contacting a familiar other to discuss a situation, meet an obligation, or get advice

Positive reappraisal 53 (0.7) .95 (.01)

Thinking about the situation in a more positive light

Putting into perspective 111 (1.4) .95 (.01)

Thinking about how the situation is not as bad as it seemed

Reflection 158 (2.0) .95 (.01)

Thinking about factors that may have caused a situation; not focusing on what you did wrong

Problem-solving (persistence) 765 (9.7) .95 (< .01)

Any strategy used to change the primary source of negative emotion
Author Manuscript

Prayer 18 (0.2) .94 (.03)

Praying for a resolution or guidance about the situation

Positive refocusing 60 (0.8) .94 (.02)

Thinking of/discussing a more positive topic

Problem-solving (alternatives) 1533 (19.4) .92 (< .01)

Any strategy focused on identifying/implementing an alternative to the source of negative emotion

Acceptance 371 (4.7) .84 (.01)

Recognizing/acknowledging the facts of a situation or one’s role in it

Sleep 259 (3.3) .72 (.02)

Author Manuscript

Napping, going to bed, etc.

Exercise 102 (1.3) .65 (.03)

Physical activity performed as a workout

Behavioral activation 97 (1.2) .64 (.03)

J Soc Clin Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 October 16.
 Southward et al. Page 15

Frequency of Use Adaptiveness

Emotion Regulation Strategy n (%) M (SE)
Engaging in activities to stay busy
Author Manuscript

Isolation 66 (0.8) .54 (.04)

Taking time to be alone (no indication of brooding)

Suppression 149 (1.9) .49 (.03)

Ignoring thoughts or feelings; concealing an expression; trying to not think about something

Entertainment or fun activity 205 (2.6) .46 (.02)

Watching movies, listening to music, etc.

Express emotions 233 (2.9) .41 (.02)

Crying, yelling, laughing; telling someone you feel sad, angry, etc.

Leave the situation 392 (5.0) .41 (.01)

Author Manuscript

Removing yourself from a situation; admitting the goal of the situation is unachievable

Nothing; wait to feel better 284 (3.6) .37 (.02)

No specific action; e.g., waiting to feel less sad

Eating or drinking 118 (1.5) .33 (.04)

Eating food; drinking non-alcoholic beverages

Blame others 40 (0.5) .19 (.04)

Accusing someone else of causing a situation

Relationship antagonism 155 (2.0) .17 (.02)

Getting back at someone or making them angry

Catastrophizing 17 (0.2) .15 (.05)

Author Manuscript

Worrying about/focusing on the worst case outcome

Self-blame 9 (0.1) .11 (.08)

Thinking that you are at fault

Brooding 12 (0.2) .06 (.06)

Thinking over and over about how bad a situation is

Substance use 49 (0.6) .06 (.02)

Drinking alcohol, smoking, etc.

Cutting, scratching, or burning myself 1 (< 0.1) .00 (N/A)

Any self-harming behavior

*
Author Manuscript

Note. Two categories coders rated but which we do not consider emotion regulation strategies are “I don’t know” (n = 160, 2.0%), defined as “any
variant of ‘I don’t know’” and “Non-specific goal” (n = 78, 1.0%), defined as “any response that is an end-state such as ‘I’d be happy’”. Because
our conclusions did not change if they were included or not, both were included in all regression models.

J Soc Clin Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 October 16.
 Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript

Table 3

Means, standard deviations, and correlations among variables of interest (N = 143, except where noted)

Measure M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Repertoire † 13.82 2.69

Southward et al.

2. Adaptiveness† 0.79 0.15 −.17*

3. Persistence† −2.59 0.79 −.57** .00

4. Neuroticism 35.69 7.62 .08 −.15 −.23**

5. Extraversion 41.13 6.69 −.07 .35** .08 −.48**
6. Conscientiousness 43.54 6.67 .06 .29** .07 −.34** .39**

7. IIP-BPD‡ 1.20 0.63 −.03 −.19* −.18* .49** −.33** −.41**

8. CES-D 19.71 10.31 −.01 −.15 −.15 .58** −.46** −.33** .47**

Note.
*
p < .05.
**
p < .01.
†
n = 144.
‡
n = 142.

CES-D = Center for Epidemiologic Studies – Depression scale. IIP-BPD = Inventory of Interpersonal Problems – Borderline Personality Disorder subscale.

J Soc Clin Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 October 16.
Page 16
 Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript

Table 4

Linear regression models of the associations among emotion regulation, personality dimensions, and symptoms of psychopathology.

Neuroticism Extraversion

Predictor β SE p 95% CI β SE p 95% CI

Southward et al.

Intercept .00 .08 .99 [–.16, .16] .00 .08 .98 [–.16, .16]
Repertoire –.12 .10 .24 [–.31, .08] .05 .09 .54 [–.13, .23]
Adaptiveness –.17 .07 .01 [–.30, –.04] .36 .08 < .01 [.19, .50]
Persistence –.30 .10 < .01 [–.49, –.10] .11 .09 .22 [–.07, .29]
Adjusted R2 = .07 Adjusted R2 = .11
F(3, 139) = 4.31, p < .01 F(3, 139) = 6.80, p < .01
Conscientiousness IIP-BPD

Predictor β SE p 95% CI β SE p 95% CI

Intercept .00 .08 .99 [–.15, .16] .00 .08 .98 [–.16, .16]
Repertoire .24 .10 .02 [.02, .41] –.25 .09 .01 [–.43, –.06]
Adaptiveness .33 .10 < .01 [.11, .50] –.24 .07 < .01 [–.38, –.09]
Persistence .21 .09 .02 [.03, .36] –.33 .10 < .01 [–.51, –.13]
Adjusted R2 = .11 Adjusted R2 = .09
F(3, 139) = 6.65, p < .01 F(3, 138) = 5.82, p < .01
CES-D

Predictor β SE p 95% CI

Intercept .00 .08 .99 [–.16, .15]

Repertoire –.19 .11 .09 [–.40, .02]

J Soc Clin Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 October 16.
Adaptiveness –.19 .12 .15 [–.45, .03]
Persistence –.25 .10 .01 [–.44, –.07]
Adjusted R2 = .05
F(3, 139) = 3.37, p = .02

Note. Regression analyses conducted with 10,000 95% percentile bootstrap resamples. IIP-BPD = Inventory of Interpersonal Problems - Borderline Personality Disorder subscale; CES-D = Center for
Epidemiologic Studies - Depression scale.
Page 17