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.