experimental manipulation of emotion regulation self ... · experimental manipulation of emotion...
TRANSCRIPT
Running head: MANIPULATING EMOTION REGULATION SELF EFFICACY 1
Figures: 1
Experimental Manipulation of Emotion Regulation Self-Efficacy: Effects on Emotion Regulation Ability,
Perceived Effort in the Service of Regulation, and Affective Reactivity
Natasha Benfer, Joseph R. Bardeen, & Kate Clauss
Department of Psychology, Auburn University, United States
NOTICE: this is the author’s version of a work that was accepted for publication in
Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such
as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control
mechanisms may not be reflected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work
since it was submitted for publication. A definitive version was subsequently published in
Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science.
Author Note
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Natasha Benfer,
Department of Psychology, Auburn University, 226 Thach Hall, Auburn, AL 36849-5214.
Voice: 334-844- 6647, E-mail: [email protected]
MANIPULATING EMOTION REGULATION SELF-EFFICACY 2
Abstract
Deficits in emotion regulation self-efficacy (Tamir & Mauss, 2011) may be a risk factor
for psychological distress. The present study sought to test the hypothesis that participants who
were led to believe that emotion regulation self-efficacy was enhanced (expected success
condition: n = 34), versus those in a control condition (n = 36), would report relatively less
negative affective reactivity in response to a negative mood induction. Additionally, we
hypothesized that those in the expected success condition would perform better than those in the
control condition on an emotion regulation task. As predicted, those in the expected success
condition reported less negative affective reactivity compared to control participants, but no
difference was observed between groups on the emotion regulation task. Thus, a one-session
manipulation of emotion regulation self-efficacy appears to directly influence self-reported
affective reactivity, but not an individual’s emotion regulation ability.
Keywords: emotion regulation self-efficacy; emotion regulation; efficacy; experimental;
affect; reactivity.
MANIPULATING EMOTION REGUALTION SELF-EFFICACY 3
Experimental Manipulation of Emotion Regulation Self-Efficacy: Effects on Emotion Regulation
Ability, Perceived Effort in the Service of Regulation, and Affective Reactivity
According to Tamir & Mauss (2011), the social cognitive theory of emotion regulation
suggests that to successfully regulate a negative emotional experience one must (a) first believe
that he or she is capable of changing his or her current emotional state (i.e., emotion regulation
self-efficacy), (b) have established outcomes that he or she is trying to achieve (e.g., improved
mood), and (c) have established strategies or behaviors to implement in order to achieve the
desired goal. Although self-efficacy beliefs appear to be a precondition to successful regulation,
much of the existing research in this area has focused on emotion regulation goals and strategies,
while paying relatively little attention to emotion regulation self-efficacy. Moreover, few studies
have explicitly examined how emotion regulation self-efficacy is associated with emotion
regulation ability (Bandura, Caprara, Barbaranelli, Gerbino, & Pastorelli, 2003; Caprara et al.,
2008). Given the increasing focus on emotion regulation in the etiology of psychopathology (see
Aldao, Nolen-Hoeksema, & Schweizer, 2010 for a review), it is important to understand how
emotion regulation self-efficacy and emotion regulation ability are related, and how these
constructs relate to psychological well-being.
Measures that ask participants to evaluate their ability to alter their emotional experience
(e.g., “When I’m upset, I believe there is nothing I can do to make myself feel better”;
Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale—Strategies [DERS-Strategies] subscale, Gratz &
Roemer, 2004) assess emotion regulation self-efficacy (e.g., DERS-Strategies, Gratz & Roemer,
2004; Negative Mood Regulation Scale, Catanzaro & Mearns, 1990). Although self-report
measures of emotion regulation can be differentiated from measures of emotion regulation self-
efficacy by the degree to which the evaluation of perceived success is removed from item
MANIPULATING EMOTION REGUALTION SELF-EFFICACY 4
content (e.g., “When I feel negative emotions, I make sure not to express them”; Gross & John,
2003), other assessment methods (e.g., behavioral tasks [Gratz, Rosenthal, Tull, Lejuez, &
Gunderson, 2006]; neuroimaging [Goldin, McRae, Ramel, & Gross, 2008; Ochsner & Gross,
2008]) may be especially useful in differentiating between perceived and actual ability.
Cross-sectional study designs are the primary approach used to examine the relationship
between emotion regulation self-efficacy and psychological outcomes. In these cross-sectional
studies, emotion regulation self-efficacy has been shown to be uniquely associated, above and
beyond the effects of other established risk factors, with a variety of maladaptive outcomes (e.g.,
perceived stress [Mehrotra & Tripathi, 2012], posttraumatic stress disorder diagnostic status,
[DiMauro, Renshaw, & Kashdan, 2016], depressive symptoms [Catanzaro et al., 2014],
borderline personality disorder symptoms [Salsman & Linehan, 2012]; binge eating symptoms
[Whiteside et al., 2007]), such that lower levels of self-efficacy are associated with greater
psychological distress. Additionally, emotion regulation self-efficacy has been shown to interact
with established risk factors (e.g., experiential avoidance, anxiety sensitivity) to predict
maladaptive psychological outcomes (e.g., depression, anxiety, stress), such that those with
lower emotion regulation self-efficacy confer higher risk for maladaptive psychological
outcomes (Fergus, Bardeen, & Orcutt, 2013; Kashdan, Zvolensky, & McLeish, 2008).
Some longitudinal evidence supports the proposition from Tamir and Mauss (2011) that
emotion regulation self-efficacy precedes regulatory behavior and psychological outcomes. For
example, Mearns (1991) found that lower emotion regulation self-efficacy prospectively
predicted greater depressive symptoms following a distressing event (i.e., termination of a
romantic relationship), as well as attempts to regulate event-related distress. In another study,
Kassel, Bornovalova, and Mehta (2007) found that lower emotion regulation self-efficacy
MANIPULATING EMOTION REGUALTION SELF-EFFICACY 5
predicted greater anxiety and depression symptom change among undergraduate students over
the course of eight weeks, even after controlling for general distress and regulatory styles (i.e.,
participants were categorized based on the strategies that they most frequently employed to
alleviate their emotional distress [e.g., avoidant, problem-focused, social support seeking]).
Similar associations have been identified over the span of one and two years (Bandura et al.,
2003; Davis, Andresen, Trosko, Massman, & Lovejoy, 2005). Taken together, these findings
suggest that emotion regulation self-efficacy may play a causal role in the development of
psychological distress.
Although preliminary prospective evidence regarding the association between emotion
regulation self-efficacy and psychological outcomes is promising, the majority of research on
emotion regulation self-efficacy is cross-sectional and fails to consider how specifically emotion
regulation self-efficacy alters psychological outcomes. As Bigman, Mauss, Gross, and Tamir
(2016) point out, there are three possibilities: (a) individuals who are psychologically healthy
tend to report more positive emotions overall, including their expectancies about emotion
regulation, (b) individuals who are better at regulating their emotions come to expect themselves
to be more successful; thus, more experiences with successful emotion regulation ability leads to
increased emotion regulation self-efficacy, or (c) an individual’s expectancy of his or her ability
to regulate emotions influences the degree to which they effectively do so.
In the only known study to attempt to experimentally manipulate emotion regulation self-
efficacy, Bigman et al. (2016) investigated these possibilities. Specifically, Bigman et al. (2016)
manipulated emotion regulation self-efficacy in a sample of 41 undergraduates by convincing
participants in the expected success condition that a placebo pill would enhance emotional
control. Bigman et al. (2016) employed a manipulation check in which participants were asked to
MANIPULATING EMOTION REGUALTION SELF-EFFICACY 6
list side effects of the pill they had taken. Participants who failed to identify the side effects of
the pill were not included in the final sample. Compared to participants in the control group (n =
19), participants in the expected success condition (n = 22) reported less negative affective
change after viewing an emotionally evocative film clip. Although the expected success and
control conditions did not differ in self-reported attempts to regulate emotions, the expected
success group reported more success at regulating emotions. It stands to reason that the
manipulation had one of the following effects on participants in the expected success condition:
(a) participants were led to believe that they would have some enhanced emotional ability, and
thus, reported emotional reactivity that was consistent with this expectation, or (b) the lack of
between-group differences in self-reported attempts to regulate emotions was not reflective of
what was actually happening; individuals in the expected success condition put forth more effort
than the control participants to regulate their emotions. This may seem counterintuitive, but some
evidence suggests that emotion regulation sometimes occurs outside of conscious awareness (see
Gross, 2015). As noted by Bigman et al. (2016), it will be necessary to use an objective measure
of emotion regulation to determine whether manipulating emotion regulation self-efficacy
actually results in differences in emotion regulation ability.
An objective assessment of emotion regulation ability (e.g., pursuit of goal-relevant
behavior while experiencing emotional distress) was used in the present study to determine
whether enhancing emotion regulation self-efficacy leads to actual increases in regulatory ability
rather than simply affecting self-reports of distress. We utilized the procedure outlined by
Bigman et al. (2016) with several modifications, including use of a validated measure of affect,
assessment of baseline emotion regulation self-efficacy to account for any between-group
differences before the manipulation occurred, and use of a previously validated negative mood
MANIPULATING EMOTION REGUALTION SELF-EFFICACY 7
manipulation procedure (Bardeen, 2015; Bardeen & Orcutt, 2011; Pretz, Totz, & Kaufman,
2010). Most importantly, the computerized Mirror Tracing Persistence (MTPT-C) task was used
as a measure of emotion regulation ability, while simultaneously inducing emotional distress
(Gratz et al., 2006). The addition of a measure of emotion regulation ability helps to address a
significant gap in the literature. That is, it is clear that relatively lower levels of emotion
regulation self-efficacy are associated with emotional distress and maladaptive psychological
outcomes (e.g., Catanzaro et al., 2014; DiMauro et al., 2016; Mehrotra & Tripathi, 2012;
Whiteside et al., 2007), but it is not clear how emotion regulation self-efficacy is related to these
outcomes (i.e., possibly through increased emotion regulation ability).
Consistent with Bigman et al. (2016), we hypothesized that the expected success
condition would report less negative affective reactivity compared to the control condition after
the distress inducing task (i.e., MTPT-C; Hypothesis 1), participants in the expected success
condition would rate their emotion regulation success higher than participants in the control
condition (Hypothesis 2), and there would not be group differences in reported regulation efforts
(Hypothesis 3). Consistent with the social cognitive theory of emotion regulation (Tamir &
Mauss, 2011), we hypothesized that individuals in the expected success condition would exhibit
enhanced emotion regulation ability, as measured by the behavioral task, compared to control
participants (Hypothesis 4). Moreover, performance on the behavioral task was expected to
partially explain the association between the manipulation and self-reported negative affective
reactivity (Hypothesis 5).
Methods
Participants
MANIPULATING EMOTION REGUALTION SELF-EFFICACY 8
Participants were recruited from a southeastern university via an online recruitment
system. To be eligible, participants were required to be between the ages of 18-64 and have no
self-reported vision or motor problems that would affect task completion (e.g., able to view and
respond via computer mouse to images on a screen). Six participants were removed from the
sample because: one participant did not complete the manipulation, three participants in the
expected success condition did not pass the manipulation check (described below), and two
participants correctly identified the pill as a placebo when probed for suspicion. Additionally,
three outliers were removed for having undue influence on the primary analytic models
(identified via a two-pronged multivariate approach; Aguinis & Joo, 2015).
The final sample (N = 70) was largely female (n = 54; 77.1%) with an average age of
18.8 (SD = 0.96, range: 18-22). In regard to race, 87.1% of the sample self-identified as White,
7.1% as Black, and 5.7% as Asian. Additionally, 4.3% of the sample identified their ethnicity as
Hispanic. Forty-seven percent of this university student sample reported an annual household
income between $40,000 and $124,999, 39% reported an annual income of $125,000 or greater,
and 14% reported an annual income of $39,999 of less. Half of the sample (n = 35) reported
being employed at least part-time.
Self-report measures
Positive and Negative Affect Schedule-Negative Affect subscale. The Negative Affect
(NA) Subscale of the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (the PANAS; Watson, Clark, &
Tellegen, 1988) served as the measure of self-reported negative affect in the present study. Items
are scored on a 1 (very slightly or not at all) to 5 (extremely) scale. The PANAS-NA subscale is
sensitive to within-session mood inductions, such as the one presented in the current study
(Rusting & Larsen, 1997; Schneider, Gur, Gur, & Muenz, 1994). The PANAS-NA subscale has
MANIPULATING EMOTION REGUALTION SELF-EFFICACY 9
demonstrated adequate internal consistency (Koff & Lucas, 2011; Odou & Brinker, 2015;
Watson et al., 1988) and strong criterion-related validity (Crawford & Henry, 2004). In the
present sample, internal consistency of the PANAS-NA subscale was acceptable at all three time
points (α ranging from .79 - .85).
Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale-Strategies subscale. The Difficulties in
Emotion Regulation Scale-Strategies subscale (DERS-Strategies; Gratz & Roemer, 2004)
consists of eight items that assess perceived ability to successfully regulate negative emotions
(e.g., “When I’m upset, I believe that there is nothing I can do to make myself feel better”).
Items are rated on a scale from 1 (almost never) to 5 (almost always), with higher scores
indicating lower emotion regulation self-efficacy. The DERS-Strategies subscale has exhibited
adequate psychometric properties, including internal consistency and construct validity (Coffey,
Hartman, & Fredrickson, 2010; Gratz & Roemer, 2004). Internal consistency of the DERS-
Strategies subscale was adequate in the present sample (α = .91).
Laboratory tasks
Negative mood induction. Forty negatively valenced emotional stimuli (e.g., man with
gun, bloody hand, plane crash) from the International Affective Picture System (IAPS; Lang,
Bradley, & Cuthbert, 2005) were used to induce negative affect (negative valence and high
arousal: M = 2.17 and 6.52, respectively; Bardeen, 2015). These images were originally rated on
9-point rating scales to provide norm-references for valence and arousal (Lang et al., 2005).
Image sets with similar valence and arousal have been used to induce negative affect, as
measured by the PANAS (Pretz et al., 2010). In line with the mood induction procedure from
Pretz et al. (2010), negative images were shown for five seconds each, with a 1.5s pause between
images. To ensure that participants looked at the images, participants were told that they would
MANIPULATING EMOTION REGUALTION SELF-EFFICACY 10
later be tasked with recognizing some images from this portion of the study. This also served to
enhance the narrative that the purpose of the study was to examine the effects of a new
medication on memory.
Emotion regulation task. The Mirror Tracing Persistence Task (MTPT-C; Strong et al.,
2003) was used to assess participants’ ability to regulate emotions. The MTPT-C has been used
as a behavioral measure of emotion regulation in previous research (Bornovalova et al., 2008).
Evidence of construct validity has been provided by research showing that scores on the MTPT-
C are associated with other measures of emotion regulation (Daughters et al., 2005; Lejuez,
Kahler, & Brown, 2003), as well as emotion regulation-related constructs (e.g., dysphoria,
borderline personality symptoms; Bornovalova et al., 2008; Ellis, Fischer, & Beevers, 2010).
For the MTPT-C, participants use the computer mouse to trace a red dot as it travels
along the lines of a shape (e.g., star). However, the dot moves in the reverse direction of the
mouse, making the task difficult and inducing negative affect. A deviation from the line of the
shape, or a pause of more than two seconds, results in a loud explosion sound, and the red dot
returns to the starting position. Participants complete two “levels” that end after 60 seconds.
Participants have up to seven minutes to trace the third shape, but they are not told about the time
limit. Participants receive instructions that they can end the third level at any point by pressing
the “QUIT” button. Emotion regulation (i.e., the ability to pursue goal relevant behavior while
experiencing emotional distress) is measured by the latency to quit the task, with longer time to
quit being indicative of better emotion regulation ability. The task is titrated for difficulty, such
that all participants experience a similar level of difficulty, despite differences in skill.
Procedure
MANIPULATING EMOTION REGUALTION SELF-EFFICACY 11
Study procedures were approved by the local Institutional Review Board prior to data
collection. Participants completed informed consent before being randomly assigned to one of
two conditions: the expected success (n = 34) or control (n = 36) condition. Participants were
told that the purpose of the study was to examine the effects of a safe drug, Anahance, on
memory. Participants completed baseline (Time 1 [T1]) measures of affect (the PANAS) and
emotion regulation self-efficacy (DERS-Strategies). Next, participants completed the negative
affect induction procedure (Bardeen, 2015; Pretz et al., 2010). Participants were told to pay
attention to the images on the screen (i.e., IAPS images; Lang et al., 2005), as they would later
be asked to remember some of the images.
After the negative affect induction procedure, participants completed a second
assessment of affect (Time 2 [T2]) followed by placebo drug administration. Participants were
told that dry mouth is a known side effect of Anahance. Additionally, participants in the
expected success condition were told that enhanced emotional control is another known side
effect of the drug. As a manipulation check, all participants were asked to describe potential side
effects (i.e., “Please list any and all side effects of the pill, as were just described to you”). Next,
participants performed the emotion regulation task (MTPT-C), followed by another measure of
affect (Time 3 [T3]). To increase motivation, participants were told that they would receive $5 if
their performance on the MTPT-C was above average (Lejuez et al., 2003). Regardless of
performance, all participants received $5 as compensation for their participation. After
completing the MTPT-C, participants were asked how well they thought they were able to
regulate their emotions during the task (i.e., “To what extent were you successful at minimizing
your emotional reactions during the task?”) and how hard they tried to adhere to the task despite
frustration (i.e., “To what extent were you trying to persist in the task despite frustration?”). Both
MANIPULATING EMOTION REGUALTION SELF-EFFICACY 12
questions were rated on a 7-point scale (not at all to extremely). To maintain the cover story,
participants viewed a series of ten negatively valenced IAPS images (Lang et al., 2005) and were
asked to identify which images had previously been shown. Finally, participants were probed for
suspicion (e.g., “What was this study about?”) and provided with a limited debriefing to maintain
fidelity of the manipulation for future participants. Once data collection was completed, an in-
depth debriefing letter was sent to participants via e-mail.
Data analytic plan
Preliminary analyses. Demographic variables (e.g., age, sex, race/ethnicity) were
examined. Means, standard deviations, and bivariate correlations were calculated in order to
better understand the association between descriptive statistics and variables of interest.
Examination of bivariate correlations aided in the identification of potential covariates. Identified
covariates (i.e., age and sex, see Results) were entered into all subsequent analyses. A series of
ANCOVAs were conducted to examine baseline differences between participants in the expected
success and control conditions in regard to baseline negative affect, emotion regulation self-
efficacy, and baseline affective reactivity from T1 to T2. Baseline affective reactivity was
calculated as the standardized residual score produced by regressing T2 NA on T1 NA.
Standardized residual change scores are described as a “base-free” measure of change that is
superior to simple difference scores (Cronbach & Furby, 1970; Gratz, Bardeen, Levy, Dixon-
Gordon, & Tull, 2015; Tucker, Damarin, & Messick, 1966).
Primary analyses. An ANCOVA was conducted to assess the hypothesis (Hypothesis 1)
that those in the expected success condition would report less negative affective reactivity
following administration of the placebo pill and completion of the distressing task (i.e., the
MTPT-C). Condition served as the independent variable in the model and the residual change
MANIPULATING EMOTION REGUALTION SELF-EFFICACY 13
score in NA from T1 to T3 (i.e., baseline affective reactivity) served as the dependent variable.
To test the hypothesis that those in the expected success condition would report enhanced
emotion regulation abilities, compared to those in the control condition (Hypothesis 2), an
ANCOVA was conducted in which self-reported emotion regulation ability during the MTPT-C
served as the dependent variable and condition served as the independent variable. Similarly, to
test Hypothesis 3, an ANCOVA was conducted in which self-reported emotion regulation
attempt served as the dependent variable and condition served as the independent variable.
Emotion regulation self-efficacy (i.e., DERS-Strategies) was included as a covariate in both
models. To test the hypothesis that those in the expected success condition would perform better
on the emotion regulation task (Hypothesis 4), an ANCOVA was conducted in which latency to
quit (in seconds) on the MTPT-C served as the dependent variable and condition served as the
independent variable. Finally, a mediation analysis was conducted using the PROCESS plug-in
for SPSS (Hayes, 2012) to test the hypothesis that latency to quit the MTPT-C would mediate the
association between condition and post-manipulation affective reactivity (Hypothesis 5). As seen
in Figure 1, latency to quit on the MTPT-C (in seconds) was entered into the model as the
mediating variable (M) between condition (X) and residual change score from NA T1 to T3 as
the dependent variable (Y). Bootstrapped samples (5000 samples) were estimated as outlined by
Hayes (2009).
Results
Preliminary analyses
Age was significantly associated with emotion regulation self-efficacy (i.e., DERS-
Strategies; r = .31, p = .008) and negative affect at T2 (T2 NA; r = .32, p = .005). Specifically,
older participants reported less emotion regulation self-efficacy and greater T2 NA. Additionally,
MANIPULATING EMOTION REGUALTION SELF-EFFICACY 14
the associations between sex and T1 NA and sex (r = -.23, p =.056) and minimizing distress
during the task (r = -.23, p = .055) both approached significance. The association between sex
and T3 NA (r = -.37, p = .001) was statistically significant. Specifically, males reported higher
NA at T1 and T3, and greater attempts to minimize their distress during the MTPT-C. As such,
sex and age were included as covariates in all subsequent analyses. As expected, there were no
differences between groups in baseline negative affect (T1 NA; F[1,66] = .09, p = .768), emotion
regulation self-efficacy (DERS-Strategies; F[1,669] = .37, p = .544), or baseline affective
reactivity from T1 NA to T2 NA (F[1,66] = .63, p = .432).
Primary analyses
Hypothesis 1. Results of an ANCOVA were significant (F[1,66] = 4.78, p = .032, ηp² =
.03), such that those in the expected success condition reported less negative reactivity compared
to participants in the control condition. The mean T1 PANAS-NA subscale score for those in the
expected success condition was 14.35 (SD = 5.48) and 13.16 (SD = 2.97) for those in the control
condition. The mean T3 PANAS-NA subscale score for those in the expected success condition
was 15.15 (SD = 3.95) and 15.97 (SD = 4.64) for those in the control condition.
Hypotheses 2 and 3. After controlling for covariates (i.e., baseline emotion regulation
self-efficacy, sex, and age), there was not a significant difference in self-reported success at
regulating emotions during the MTPT-C between those in the expected success (M = 3.35, SD =
1.65) and control (M = 3.56, SD = 1.52) conditions (F[1, 65] = .11, p = .741, ηp² = .00). In
addition, there were no significant differences between the expected success (M = 3.41, SD =
1.76) and control conditions (M = 3.50, SD = 1.84) in self-reported efforts to persist in the task
despite distress, controlling for baseline emotion regulation self-efficacy, age, and sex (F[1, 65]
= .11, p = .742, ηp² = .00).
MANIPULATING EMOTION REGUALTION SELF-EFFICACY 15
Hypothesis 4. The primary outcome of interest was latency to quit (in seconds) from the
MTPT-C. There was considerable variability in participants’ persistence on the task across
groups (range: 1.53 - 420.00s; M = 126.51 [SD = 109.24], Mdn = 96.79). There was not a
significant difference between the expected success (M = 124.10, SD = 107.10) and control
conditions (M = 128.80, SD = 112.73) in latency to quit the task (F[1, 66] = .003, p = .960 ηp² =
.00).
Hypothesis 5. Results of the mediation analysis indicated that the effects of condition on
latency to quit the MTPT-C (path a; b = 0.39, p = .99), and latency to quit the MTPT-C on post-
manipulation affective reactivity (path b; b = 0.00, p = .79) were not significant. The total effect
of condition on post-manipulation affective reactivity was marginally significant (b = -0.42, p =
.057), and the strength of the association remained after accounting for the mediator (b = -0.37, p
= .083). Finally, the indirect effect was not significant (b = 0.0001, 95% CI = -.058, .069). Taken
together, results indicate there was a relationship between condition and post-manipulation
affective reactivity that was not explained by performance on the MTPT-C.
Discussion
In the current study, the temporal relations between emotion regulation self-efficacy,
negative affect, and emotion regulation ability were examined via an experimental paradigm.
Consistent with results from Bigman et al. (2016), those in the expected success condition (i.e.,
enhanced emotion regulation self-efficacy) reported significantly less negative affect reactivity
compared to those in the control condition. However, enhanced emotion regulation self-efficacy
does not appear to have influenced emotion regulation ability, as measured via an objective
behavioral task. Furthermore, it does not appear that the relationship between emotion regulation
self-efficacy and negative affective reactivity is explained by emotion regulation ability.
MANIPULATING EMOTION REGUALTION SELF-EFFICACY 16
Additionally, participants across conditions did not differ in self-reported attempts to regulate
emotions during the distressing task, suggesting that those who expected to have enhanced
emotional control did not actively attempt to regulate their internal states more than those in the
control condition. Thus, based on both behavioral and self-report data from this study, it does not
appear that enhanced emotion regulation self-efficacy altered emotion regulation effort or ability.
The current study is the only study, to our knowledge, that has directly assessed whether emotion
regulation self-efficacy influences emotion regulation ability.
One explanation of the causal associations between variables of interest is that emotion
regulation self-efficacy directly influences psychological outcomes, which is consistent with the
present findings that a one-session manipulation of emotion regulation self-efficacy was
sufficient to change participants’ self-reported negative affective reactivity. This is also
consistent with previous experimental and longitudinal research (Bandura et al., 2003; Bigman et
al., 2016; Davis et al., 2005). It is possible that emotion regulation self-efficacy precedes
subjective psychological experience and associated maladaptive behaviors in the temporal
relations among these constructs.
Another possibility is that those with better emotion regulation ability are more likely to
expect themselves to be better at regulating their emotions (i.e., have higher emotion regulation
self-efficacy as a function of actual ability). Thus, actual ability would predict emotion
regulation self-efficacy and related psychological outcomes. While the experimental nature of
the current study suggests that emotion regulation self-efficacy precedes self-reported negative
affective reactivity in this temporal chain, it does not allow us to determine whether emotion
regulation ability precedes emotion regulation self-efficacy.
MANIPULATING EMOTION REGUALTION SELF-EFFICACY 17
Alternatively, it is possible that emotion regulation self-efficacy first acts on short-term
affective experience, much like a placebo effect, as was observed in the current study. That is,
manipulation of the belief that one is better able to manage emotional states leads to less negative
affective reactivity. Although study findings provide an important step toward better
understanding the temporal relations among these constructs, the current study is unable to speak
to the stability of this effect. It seems plausible that enhancing emotion regulation self-efficacy
can lead to reduced self-reported negative affective reactivity in the short-term, which in turn,
may result in the enhancement of objective emotion regulation abilities over time (e.g., through
vicarious learning). For example, an individual with social anxiety who believes herself able to
alleviate the emotional distress she experiences in social situations (high self-efficacy) may feel
less anxious, compared to someone with low expectancies about her ability to engage in
successful social interactions, in a social context. Subsequently, she may evaluate that she was
not anxious in the social situation and is more likely to engage in behaviors (e.g., attending social
functions and interacting with others) that enhance her regulatory behaviors and reduce her
symptoms of social anxiety over time, therefore confirming her beliefs that she is able to manage
her anxiety in social contexts. Longitudinal research that follows changes in individuals’ levels
of emotion regulation self-efficacy, emotion regulation ability, and psychological outcomes (e.g.,
affective reactivity, general psychological distress) is needed to elucidate if and how the
reciprocal relationship between emotion regulation self-efficacy and emotion regulation ability
affects long-term psychological outcomes.
Treatments that focus on emotion regulation skill building, such as dialectical behavioral
therapy (DBT; Linehan, 1987) have been shown to result in increased emotion regulation self-
efficacy (Keuthen et al., 2010). However, it is unclear whether it is skill acquisition, or
MANIPULATING EMOTION REGUALTION SELF-EFFICACY 18
individuals’ expectations about their emotion regulation abilities after training (i.e., emotion
regulation self-efficacy), that is the active component of the treatment. Results from this study
suggest that enhancing individuals’ beliefs about their ability to successfully regulate their
emotions may improve psychological well-being. This is consistent with previous research that
demonstrated DBT is particularly helpful for individuals struggling with low emotion regulation
self-efficacy (Keuthen et al., 2010). Future research should assess how emotion regulation self-
efficacy, emotion regulation ability, and psychological outcomes change throughout the course
of DBT and other treatments in which emotion regulation skill acquisition is central. It may be
that changes in emotion regulation self-efficacy precede skill acquisition and decreased
psychological distress.
Study limitations must be acknowledged. The present sample consisted solely of
undergraduate students, a majority of whom where female and White. Some evidence suggests
that there may be differences in emotion regulation and emotion regulation self-efficacy in males
and females as well as racial and ethnic differences (Bardeen & Stevens, 2015; Nolen-
Hoeksema, 2012; Nolen-Hoeksema & Aldao, 2011). Due to a limited number of males (n = 16)
and individuals who identified their race/ethnicity as other than White and non-Hispanic (n = 9)
in the current sample, the effects of sex and race/ethnicity could not be examined. Thus, future
studies should aim to recruit a more diverse sample in order to generalize findings and examine
potential ethnoracial and sex effects. Additionally, the current sample was limited in that it was
not a clinical sample. Emotion regulation is often examined in the context of psychopathology
(Aldao et al., 2010; Sheppes, Suri, & Gross, 2015; Werner & Gross, 2010), and therefore, it will
be important to replicate study findings in a clinical sample. Additionally, it may be important to
examine the degree to which emotion regulation self-efficacy is influenced by beliefs about the
MANIPULATING EMOTION REGUALTION SELF-EFFICACY 19
malleability of emotions in general in future research (i.e., implicit theories of emotion; Tamir &
Mauss, 2011), as some evidence suggests a fixed (versus malleable) view of emotions is
associated with a variety of maladaptive outcomes (Tamir, John, Srivastava, & Gross, 2007).
Although a one-session manipulation of emotion regulation self-efficacy may not have
been sufficient to induce behavioral change, it was sufficient to alter self-reported negative
affective reactivity. The experimental design in this study allows for isolation of emotion
regulation self-efficacy as an important causal predictor of self-reported affective reactivity.
Extrapolating from the current findings, it appears that emotion regulation self-efficacy may be
important in understanding the pathogenesis of psychopathology. However, the current study is
limited in its ability to assess whether manipulation of emotion regulation self-efficacy
influences emotion regulation ability over time, with repeated practice utilizing emotion
regulation skills. Examining the relations between emotion regulation self-efficacy, emotion
regulation ability, and psychological outcomes over time is warranted.
An additional explanation for study findings is that participants may not have clearly
understood the relationship between enhanced emotional control and success in the task, as they
were not explicitly told that inhibiting distress would help them persist longer at the MTPT-C.
Tamir and Bigman (2018) postulate that expectations about emotions influence behavior through
emotion states, but only when the link between emotion and behavior is explicitly linked.
Explicit instructions to minimize negative emotions during the MTPT-C may have resulted in
larger effects and a between-groups difference on our behavioral measure of emotion regulation
ability. Furthermore, although consistent with other procedures using similar tasks (Lejuez et al.,
2003), the potential reward of $5 may have been insufficient to motivate participants to persist
despite experiencing emotional distress, making it a less relevant goal.
MANIPULATING EMOTION REGUALTION SELF-EFFICACY 20
It is important to consider that the design of the study did not allow use to fully assess
how well the participants in the expected success condition internalized the emotion regulation
side effect. Although only participants who noted the appropriate side effects were included, it
does not necessarily follow that they believed themselves to be better at regulating emotions as a
result of consuming the pill. Assessment of perceived emotion regulation self-efficacy as a result
of the manipulation should be assessed in future research. Finally, the MTPT-C is sometimes
used to assess constructs that are strongly related to emotion regulation (e.g., distress tolerance;
Daughters et al., 2008, McHugh et al., 2011). Use of other objective assessments of emotion
regulation ability (e.g., Paced Auditory Serial Addition Task, Lejuez et al., 2003) would improve
generalizability of findings from this study. While the use of the MTPT-C is part of the novelty
of the current design, the incorporation of ecological assessments of emotion regulation and
affect (e.g., ecological momentary assessments) would bolster external validity of the results of
the present study. This is especially important given that emotion regulation is a polysemous
construct. At the present time, it would be impossible to use a measure of emotion regulation that
satisfies the many definitions of emotion regulation that are widely used in the extant literature.
Thus, incorporating several measures of emotion regulation into future studies is recommended
in order to ensure that study findings are robust across measures of emotion regulation.
This study was the first to examine objectively assessed emotion regulation ability as a
mediator of the relationship between emotion regulation self-efficacy and affective reactivity
using an experimental paradigm. Results indicated that a one-session manipulation of emotion
regulation self-efficacy influenced self-reported affective reactivity, but not emotion regulation
ability. Additionally, emotion regulation ability did not mediate the relationship between
emotion regulation self-efficacy and affective reactivity. Therefore, results from this study
MANIPULATING EMOTION REGUALTION SELF-EFFICACY 21
support existing literature highlighting the importance of social cognitive factors in
psychopathology (Tamir & Bigman, 2018; Tamir & Mauss, 2011), as well as existing literature
that suggests emotion regulation self-efficacy predicts psychological well-being.
MANIPULATING EMOTION REGUALTION SELF-EFFICACY 22
References
Aguinis, H., & Joo, H. (2015). Debunking myths and urban legends about how to identify
influential outliers. In: C. E. Lance & R. J. Vandenberg (Eds.), More statistical and
methodological myths and urban legends (pp. 207-223). New York: Taylor & Francis.
Aldao, A., Nolen-Hoeksema, S., & Schweizer, S. (2010). Emotion-regulation strategies across
psychopathology: A meta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 30, 217-237.
Bandura, A., Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Gerbino, M., & Pastorelli, C. (2003). Role of
affective self‐regulatory efficacy in diverse spheres of psychosocial functioning. Child
Development, 74, 769-782.
Bardeen, J. R. (2015). Short-term pain for long-term gain: The role of experiential avoidance in
the relation between anxiety sensitivity and emotional distress. Journal of Anxiety
Disorders, 30, 113-119.
Bardeen, J. R., & Orcutt, H. K. (2011). Attentional control as a moderator of the relationship
between posttraumatic stress symptoms and attentional threat bias. Journal of Anxiety
Disorders, 25, 1008-1018.
Bardeen, J. R., & Stevens, E. N. (2015). Sex differences in the indirect effects of cognitive
processes on anxiety through emotion regulation difficulties. Personality and Individual
Differences, 81, 180-187.
Bigman, Y. E., Mauss, I. B., Gross, J. J., & Tamir, M. (2016). Yes I can: Expected success
promotes actual success in emotion regulation. Cognition and Emotion, 30, 1380-1387.
Bornovalova, M. A., Gratz, K. L., Daughters, S. B., Nick, B., Delany-Brumsey, A., Lynch, T. R.,
MANIPULATING EMOTION REGUALTION SELF-EFFICACY 23
…, & Lejuez, C. W. (2008). A multimodal assessment of the relationship between
emotion dysregulation and borderline personality disorder among inner-city substance
users in residential treatment. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 42, 717-726.
Caprara, G. V., Fida, R., Vecchione, M., Del Bove, G., Vecchio, G. M., Barbaranelli, C., &
Bandura, A. (2008). Longitudinal analysis of the role of perceived self-efficacy for self-
regulated learning in academic continuance and achievement. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 100, 525.
Catanzaro, S. J., Backenstrass, M., Miller, S. A., Mearns, J., Pfeiffer, N., & Brendalen, S. (2014).
Prediction of symptoms of emotional distress by mood regulation expectancies and
affective traits. International Journal of Psychology, 49, 471-479.
Catanzaro, S. J., & Mearns, J. (1990). Measuring generalized expectancies for negative mood
regulation: Initial scale development and implications. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 54, 546-563.
Coffey, K. A., Hartman, M., & Fredrickson, B. L. (2010). Deconstructing mindfulness and
constructing mental health: Understanding mindfulness and its mechanisms of
action. Mindfulness, 1, 235-253.
Crawford, J. R., & Henry, J. D. (2004). The Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS):
Construct validity, measurement properties and normative data in a large non‐clinical
sample. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 43, 245-265.
Cronbach, L. J., & Furby, L. (1970). How we should measure “change”: Or should we?
Psychological Bulletin, 74, 68-80.
MANIPULATING EMOTION REGUALTION SELF-EFFICACY 24
Daughters, S. B., Lejuez, C. W., Bornovalova, M. A., Kahler, C. W., Strong, D. R., & Brown, R.
A. (2005). Distress tolerance as a predictor of early treatment dropout in a residential
substance abuse treatment facility. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 114, 729-734.
Davis, R. N., Andresen, E. N., Trosko, M., Massman, P. J., & Lovejoy, M. C. (2005). Negative
mood regulation (NMR) expectancies: A test of incremental validity. Personality and
Individual Differences, 39, 263-270.
DiMauro, J., Renshaw, K. D., & Kashdan, T. B. (2016). Beliefs in negative mood regulation and
daily negative affect in PTSD. Personality and Individual Differences, 95, 34-36.
Ellis, A. J., Fischer, K. M., & Beevers, C. G. (2010). Is dysphoria about being red and blue?
Potentiation of anger and reduced distress tolerance among dysphoric individuals.
Cognition & Emotion, 24, 596-608.
Fergus, T. A., Bardeen, J. R., & Orcutt, H. K. (2013). Experiential avoidance and negative
emotional experiences: The moderating role of expectancies about emotion regulation
strategies. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 37, 352-362.
Goldin, P. R., McRae, K., Ramel, W., & Gross, J. J. (2008). The neural bases of emotion
regulation: Reappraisal and suppression of negative emotion. Biological Psychiatry, 63,
577-586.
Gratz, K. L., Bardeen, J. R., Levy, R., Dixon-Gordon, K. L., & Tull, M. T. (2015). Mechanisms
of change in an emotion regulation group therapy for deliberate self-harm among women
with borderline personality disorder. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 65, 29-35.
Gratz, K. L., & Roemer, L. (2004). Multidimensional assessment of emotion regulation and
dysregulation: Development, factor structure, and initial validation of the Difficulties in
MANIPULATING EMOTION REGUALTION SELF-EFFICACY 25
Emotion Regulation Scale. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 26,
41-54.
Gratz, K. L., Rosenthal, M. Z., Tull, M. T., Lejuez, C. W., & Gunderson, J. G. (2006). An
experimental investigation of emotion dysregulation in borderline personality
disorder. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 115, 850-855.
Gross, J. J. (2015). Emotion regulation: Current status and future prospects. Psychological
Inquiry, 26, 1-26.
Gross, J. J., & John, O. P. (2003). Individual differences in two emotion regulation processes:
Implications for affect, relationships, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 85, 348–362.
Hayes, A. F. (2009). Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical mediation analysis in the new
millennium. Communication Monographs, 76, 408-420.
Hayes, A. F. (2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation,
moderation, and conditional process modeling [White paper]. Retrieved from
⟨http://www.afhayes.com/public/process2012.pdf⟩.
Kashdan, T. B., Zvolensky, M. J., & McLeish, A. C. (2008). Anxiety sensitivity and affect
regulatory strategies: Individual and interactive risk factors for anxiety-related symptoms.
Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 22, 429-440.
Kassel, J. D., Bornovalova, M., & Mehta, N. (2007). Generalized expectancies for negative
mood regulation predict change in anxiety and depression among college students.
Behaviour Research and Therapy, 45, 939-950.
MANIPULATING EMOTION REGUALTION SELF-EFFICACY 26
Keuthen, N. J., Rothbaum, B. O., Welch, S. S., Taylor, C., Falkenstein, M., Heekin, M., ... &
Jenike, M. A. (2010). Pilot trial of dialectical behavior therapy‐enhanced habit reversal
for trichotillomania. Depression and Anxiety, 27, 953-959.
Koff, E., & Lucas, M. (2011). Mood moderates the relationship between impulsiveness and
delay discounting. Personality and Individual Differences, 50, 1018-1022.
Lang, P. J., Bradley, M. M., & Cuthbert, B. N. (2005). International affective picture system
(IAPS): Affective ratings of picture and instruction manual (Technical report A-6).
Gainesville, FL: University of Florida.
Lejuez, C. W., Kahler, C. W., & Brown, R. A. (2003). A modified computer version of the Paced
Auditory Serial Addition Task (PASAT) as a laboratory-based stressor. The Behavior
Therapist, 26, 290-293.
Linehan, M. (1987). Dialectical behavior therapy for borderline personality disorder: Theory and
method. Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic, 51, 261-276.
McHugh, R. K., Daughters, S. B., Lejuez, C. W., Murray, H. W., Hearon, B. A., Gorka, S. M., &
Otto, M. W. (2011). Shared variance among self-report and behavioral measures of
distress intolerance. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 35, 266-275.
Mearns, J. (1991). Coping with a breakup: Negative mood regulation expectancies and
depression following the end of a romantic relationship. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 60, 327-344.
Mehrotra, S., & Tripathi, R. (2012). Affect intensity and negative mood regulation (NMR)
expectancies: A preliminary Indian study. Asian Journal of Psychiatry, 5(2), 137-143.
Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (2012). Emotion regulation and psychopathology: The role of gender.
Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 8, 161-187.
MANIPULATING EMOTION REGUALTION SELF-EFFICACY 27
Nolen-Hoeksema, S., & Aldao, A. (2011). Gender and age differences in emotion regulation
strategies and their relationship to depressive symptoms. Personality and Individual
Differences, 51, 704-708.
Odou, N., & Brinker, J. (2015). Self-compassion, a better alternative to rumination than
distraction as a response to negative mood. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 10, 447-
457.
Ochsner, K. N., & Gross, J. J. (2008). Cognitive emotion regulation: Insights from social
cognitive and affective neuroscience. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17,
153-158.
Pretz, J. E., Totz, K. S., & Kaufman, S. B. (2010). The effects of mood, cognitive style, and
cognitive ability on implicit learning. Learning and Individual Differences, 35, 215-219.
Rusting, C. L., & Larsen, R. J. (1997). Extraversion, neuroticism, and susceptibility to positive
and negative affect: A test of two theoretical models. Personality and Individual
Differences, 22, 607-612.
Salsman, N. L., & Linehan, M. M. (2012). An investigation of the relationships among negative
affect, difficulties in emotion regulation, and features of borderline personality
disorder. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 34, 260-267.
Schneider, F., Gur, R. C., Gur, R. E., & Muenz, L. R. (1994). Standardized mood induction with
happy and sad facial expressions. Psychiatry Research, 51, 19-31.
Sheppes, G., Suri, G., & Gross, J. J. (2015). Emotion regulation and psychopathology. Annual
Review of Clinical Psychology, 11, 379-405.
Strong, D. R., Lejuez, C. W., Daughters, S., Marinello, M., Kahler, C. W., & Brown, R. A.
(2003). The computerized mirror tracing task, version 1. Unpublished manual.
MANIPULATING EMOTION REGUALTION SELF-EFFICACY 28
Tamir, M., & Bigman, Y. E. (2018). Expectations influence how emotions shape behavior.
Emotion, 8, 15-25.
Tamir, M., John, O. P., Srivastava, S., & Gross, J. J. (2007). Implicit theories of emotion:
Affective and social outcomes across a major life transition. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 92, 731-744.
Tamir, M., & Mauss, I. B. (2011). Social cognitive factors in emotion regulation: Implications
for well-being. In I. Nyklicek, A. Vingerhoets, M. Zeelenberg, & J. Donellet (Eds.),
Emotion regulation and well-being (pp. 31-47) Berlin, Germany: Springer.
Tucker, L. R., Damarin, F., & Messick, S. (1966). A base-free measure of change.
Psychometrika, 31, 457–473.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures
of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 54, 1063-1070.
Werner, K., & Gross, J. J. (2010). Emotion regulation and psychopathology: A conceptual
framework. In A. M. Kring & D. M. Sloan (Eds.), Emotion regulation and
psychopathology: A transdiagnostic approach to etiology and treatment (pp. 13-37). New
York: Guilford Press
Whiteside, U., Chen, E., Neighbors, C., Hunter, D., Lo, T., & Larimer, M. (2007). Difficulties
regulating emotions: Do binge eaters have fewer strategies to modulate and tolerate
negative affect? Eating Behaviors, 8, 162-169.
MANIPULATING EMOTION REGUALTION SELF-EFFICACY 29
Figure 1. Proposed mediation model.
Condition (expected success
vs. control) c(c’)
Latency to quit on MTPT-C
Affective Reactivity (T1 NA
to T3 NA)