Affective science最新文献

A key limitation of studying emotion regulation behavior is that there is currently no way to describe individual differences in use across a range of tactics, which could lead to investigations of intraindividual changes over time or interindividual differences as a function of personality, age, culture, or psychopathology diagnosis. We, therefore, introduce emotion regulation convoys. This research tool provides a snapshot of the hierarchy of emotion regulation tactics an individual favors across everyday life situations and how effective they are at regulating moods. We present data from a 3-month measurement burst study of emotion regulation behavior in everyday life in a sample (N = 236) of younger (18–39), middle-aged (40–59), and older adults (60–87), focusing on how individuals’ convoys may vary in how much they include tactics that involve upregulating-positivity, downregulating-negativity, upregulating-negativity, as well as acceptance, and how these may be differentially effective. Among the most frequently used tactics (top tactics), older adults used a lower proportion of negativity-downregulating tactics than younger adults (p < .001), and younger adults’ mood was more negatively affected by these tactics than middle-aged and older adults. Overall, using positivity-upregulating as a top tactic also predicted better mood post-regulation. Older adults’ emotion regulation convoys may be made up of more effective tactics; in general, they reported more positive mood post-regulation than the other age groups. Convoys help us see emotion regulation as a hierarchical configuration of potentially effective behaviors, allowing us to test for between-group differences and within-person changes more precisely.

One foundational distinction in affective science is between emotion reactivity and regulation. This conceptual distinction has long been assumed to be instantiated in spatially separable brain systems (a typical example: amygdala/insula for reactivity and frontoparietal areas for regulation). In this research, we begin by reviewing previous findings that support and contradict the neural separability hypothesis concerning emotional reactivity and regulation. Further, we conduct a direct test of this hypothesis with empirical data. In five studies involving healthy and clinical samples (total n = 336), we assessed neural responses using fMRI while participants were asked to either react naturally or regulate their emotions (using reappraisal) while viewing emotionally evocative stimuli. Across five studies, we failed to find support for the neural separability hypothesis. In univariate analyses, both presumptive “reactivity” and “regulation” brain regions demonstrated equal or greater activation for the reactivity contrast than for the regulation contrast. In multivariate pattern analyses (MVPA), classifiers decoded reactivity (vs. neutral) trials more accurately than regulation (vs. reactivity) trials using multivoxel data in both presumptive “reactivity” and “regulation” regions. These findings suggest that emotion reactivity and regulation—as measured via fMRI—may not be as spatially separable in the brain as previously assumed. Our secondary whole-brain analyses revealed largely consistent results. We discuss the two theoretical possibilities regarding the neural separability hypothesis and offer thoughts for future research.

Engaging in a wide range of pleasant activities may provide mental health benefits, particularly for those genetically predisposed to depression. This study examined associations between pleasant activity variety, mental health, and genetic vulnerability in two U.S. cohort studies (N = 2,088). Participants reported depressive symptoms, mental healthcare visits, and engagement in pleasant activities over the past month. Greater variety of pleasant activities was associated with fewer depressive symptoms in both study samples. Individuals engaging in more diverse pleasant activities also had fewer mental health visits. Individuals with a higher genetic risk for depression experienced a stronger negative association between variety of pleasant activities and depressive symptoms compared to those with a lower genetic risk. These results highlight the potential of diverse pleasant activities as a means to enhance well-being, particularly among individuals genetically susceptible to depression.

Optimism is typically conceptualized as a relatively static tendency regarding positive expectations about one’s future. However, recent studies suggest that optimism may meaningfully fluctuate within individuals over time. To date, little is known about the characteristics of such state optimism and potential cultural difference in state optimism. Accordingly, we developed a Japanese version of the State Optimism Measure (J-SOM) and examined its validity and the nature of intraindividual state optimism fluctuations; we also examined relationships between the J-SOM and other measures of mental health, including trait optimism. We conducted two online longitudinal surveys with different time intervals (weekly, n = 97; monthly, n = 99) targeting university students. Results were largely consistent between the two surveys. We confirmed high factor validity and internal consistency of the J-SOM. The J-SOM showed significant correlations in expected directions with other measures such as depressive mood and subjective happiness. In addition, intraindividual changes in the J-SOM were associated with changes in mood and quality of daily life. Importantly, these associations between intraindividual change in optimism and in other variables were minimal for trait optimism. We also found that state optimism, compared with trait optimism, tended to show larger intraindividual changes over 1, 2, 3, 4, and 8 weeks. In summary, this study developed a translated version of the SOM and validated it, and then showed, for the first time, that state optimism can fluctuate within individuals in daily life over a span of several weeks.

The growing literature on interpersonal emotion regulation has largely focused on the strategies people use to regulate. As such, researchers have little understanding of how often people regulate in the first place, what emotion regulation goals they have when they regulate, and how much effort they invest in regulation. To better characterize features of the regulation process, we conducted two studies using daily diary (N = 171) and experience sampling methods (N = 239), exploring interpersonal emotion regulation in the context of everyday social interactions. We found people regulated others’ emotions nearly twice a day, regulated their own emotions through others around once a day, and regulated both their own and others’ emotions in the same interaction roughly every other day. Furthermore, not only did people regulate others’ emotions more often than regulating their own emotions through others, but they also put in more effort to do so. The goals of regulation were primarily to make themselves or others feel better, most often through increasing positive emotions, rather than decreasing negative emotions. Together, these findings provide a foundational picture of the interpersonal emotion regulation landscape, and lay the groundwork for future exploration into this emerging subfield of affective science.

Over the past few decades, emotion regulation research has matured into a vibrant and rapidly growing field (in 2022 alone, more than 30 thousand papers were published on emotion regulation). Taking stock of our progress, we ask “What does the future hold?” In this manuscript, we offer a roadmap for the next generation of research on emotion regulation. We begin by painting a picture of the field’s journey so far. We then outline a forward-looking agenda for broadening our field of view along three key dimensions: (1) increasing our resolution to see how regulatory strategies are flexibly and dynamically translated into tactics; (2) widening our viewing angle to embrace interpersonal emotion regulation; and (3) extending the timescale of emotion regulation research to examine how regulatory efforts are fine-tuned across the regulatory cycle and in the context of a broader range of affective experiences. In doing so, we highlight empirical studies that exemplify these three areas of focus and discuss the opportunities that lie before us. We close by offering a set of concrete practical and methodological recommendations for how the field can accomplish the goals we have outlined.

Habitual expressive suppression (i.e., a tendency to inhibit the outward display of one's emotions; hereafter suppression) is often conceptualized as a maladaptive emotion regulation strategy. Yet, is this equally true for suppression of positive and of negative emotions? Across three studies and seven samples (total N > 1300 people) collected in two culturally distinct regions (i.e., Taiwan and the US), we examined the separability and distinct well-being effects of suppressing positive vs. negative emotions. Results consistently showed that (a) people suppressed their positive (vs. negative) emotions less, (b) the construct of suppression of positive (vs. negative) emotions was conceptually farther away from that of suppression of emotions in general, (c) suppression of positive and of negative emotions were only moderately correlated, and (d) only suppression of positive, but not negative, emotions, predicted lower well-being. An internal meta-analysis (k = 52 effect sizes) showed that these associations were robust to the inclusion of age, gender, and region as covariates. Future research may further probe the respective links between suppression of positive and of negative emotions and well-being across more cultural regions and across the life-span.

Modern affective science—the empirical study of emotional responding and affective experience—has been active for a half-century. The Future of Affective Science special issue considers the history of this field and proposes new directions for the decades ahead. Contributors represent diverse theoretical perspectives, methodological expertise, and domains of study, and the special issue includes both literature reviews and new empirical studies as illustrations. This introductory article synthesizes the contributions, articulating the broader context of the current status of our field and highlighting common themes across articles as well as gaps notable even in this special issue. Sections of the article address theoretical and conceptual issues, research methodology, the questions we ask, and translation of basic affective science to applied domains. We conclude that much has been learned from the first 50 years of affective science, and it is now time for new theories, new research questions, and innovative methods for the decades ahead.

A fundamental premise of affective and clinical science is that fluctuations in mood drive meaningful changes in cognition and behavior. These theories are often tested via laboratory mood induction procedures followed by performing an established task. Despite advances in understanding the temporal dynamics of emotions, it is still unclear whether it is the enduring mood that impacts subsequent task performance. Additionally, this design requires task switching, which may limit the impact of mood and affect task performance. We suggest that virtual reality (VR) offers a more powerful, immersive alternative to traditional mood induction methods and effectively addresses these limitations because it can be used to create mood contexts that occur simultaneously with task performance. VR creates an immersive, real-world experience while benefiting from a well-controlled laboratory setting (Diniz Bernardo et al., 2021). We first summarize the literature on mood induction methodologies, including evidence that VR creates a more immersive environment, leading to mood inductions that are greater in magnitude than other methods. We then report a novel empirical study on the feasibility of utilizing VR to create a mood context that occurs simultaneously with a gold-standard emotion regulation task. Our results indicate that VR was a powerful and enduring positive mood induction tool, resulting in immediate changes in mood and greater trial-by-trial positivity ratings during the concurrent task. Portions of this study were pre-registered on August 3, 2020, on the Clinical Trials website (project citation: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04496258).