One of the fastest growing areas within psychology is the field of emotion regulation. However, enthusiasm for this topic continues to outstrip conceptual clarity, and there remains considerable uncertainty as to what is even meant by “emotion regulation.” The goal of this review is to examine the current status and future prospects of this rapidly growing field. In the first section, I define emotion and emotion regulation and distinguish both from related constructs. In the second section, I use the process model of emotion regulation to selectively review evidence that different regulation strategies have different consequences. In the third section, I introduce the extended process model of emotion regulation; this model considers emotion regulation to be one type of valuation, and distinguishes three emotion regulation stages (identification, selection, implementation). In the final section, I consider five key growth points for the field of emotion regulation.

Emotion Regulation: Current Status and Future Prospects

/pdf/human-nature-and-the-social-order-3yqr9a7m4c.pdf

Human Nature and the Social Order.

Emotion regulation has been conceptualized as a process by which individuals modify their emotional experiences, expressions, and physiology and the situations eliciting such emotions in order to produce appropriate responses to the ever-changing demands posed by the environment. Thus, context plays a central role in emotion regulation. This is particularly relevant to the work on emotion regulation in psychopathology, because psychological disorders are characterized by rigid responses to the environment. However, this recognition of the importance of context has appeared primarily in the theoretical realm, with the empirical work lagging behind. In this review, the author proposes an approach to systematically evaluate the contextual factors shaping emotion regulation. Such an approach consists of specifying the components that characterize emotion regulation and then systematically evaluating deviations within each of these components and their underlying dimensions. Initial guidelines for how to combi...

The Future of Emotion Regulation Research: Capturing Context.

The field of emotion regulation has now come of age. However, enthusiasm for the topic continues to outstrip conceptual clarity. In this article, I review the state of the field. I do this by asking--and attempting to succinctly answer--10 fundamental questions concerning emotion regulation, ranging from what emotion regulation is, to why it matters, to how we can change it. I conclude by considering some of the challenges that confront this rapidly growing field.

Emotion regulation: Taking stock and moving forward.

The CuPS (Culture × Person × Situation) approach attempts to jointly consider culture and individual differences, without treating either as noise and without reducing one to the other. Culture is important because it helps define psychological situations and create meaningful clusters of behavior according to particular logics. Individual differences are important because individuals vary in the extent to which they endorse or reject a culture's ideals. Further, because different cultures are organized by different logics, individual differences mean something different in each. Central to these studies are concepts of honor-related violence and individual worth as being inalienable versus socially conferred. We illustrate our argument with 2 experiments involving participants from honor, face, and dignity cultures. The studies showed that the same "type" of person who was most helpful, honest, and likely to behave with integrity in one culture was the "type" of person least likely to do so in another culture. We discuss how CuPS can provide a rudimentary but integrated approach to understanding both within- and between-culture variation. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved). Language: en

https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2282&context=soss_research

Within- and between-culture variation: Individual differences and the cultural logics of honor, face, and dignity cultures.

The habitual use of expressive suppression as an emotion regulation strategy has been consistently linked to adverse outcomes in a number of domains, including psychological functioning. The present study aimed to uncover whether the suppression-health relationship is dependent on cultural context, given differing cultural norms surrounding the value of suppressing emotional displays. We hypothesized that the negative associations between suppression and psychological functioning seen in European Americans would not be seen among members of East Asian cultures, in which emotional restraint is relatively encouraged over emotional expression. To test this hypothesis, we asked 71 European American students and 100 Chinese students from Hong Kong to report on their use of expressive suppression, life satisfaction, and depressed mood. A moderation analysis revealed that expressive suppression was associated with adverse psychological functioning for European Americans, but not for Chinese participants. These findings highlight the importance of context in understanding the suppression-health relationship.

https://web.yonsei.ac.kr/younghoonkim/Emotion%20(2011,%20Emotion%20Suppression).pdf

Is expressive suppression always associated with poorer psychological functioning? A cross-cultural comparison between European Americans and Hong Kong Chinese.

There are two ways to know the self: from the inside and from the outside. In all cultures, people know themselves from both directions. People make judgments about themselves from what they “know” about themselves, and they absorb the judgments of other people so that the judgments become their own. The process is one of constant flow, but there is variation, from both person to person and culture to culture, in which direction takes precedence. In this article, we outline the way face cultures tend to give priority to knowing oneself from the outside, whereas dignity cultures tend to give priority to knowing the self from the inside and may resist allowing the self to be defined by others. We first distinguish between face cultures and dignity cultures, describing the cultural logics of each and how these lead to distinctive ways in which the self is defined and constructed. We discuss the differing roles of public (vs. private) information in the two cultures, noting the way that such public information becomes absorbed into the definition of face culture participants and the way that it can become something to struggle against among dignity culture participants—even when it might reflect positively on the participant. Finally, we describe three cross-cultural experiments in which the phenomena is examined and then close with a discussion of the different ways our selves are “knotted” up with the judgments of other people. Face and Dignity Cultures

https://web.yonsei.ac.kr/younghoonkim/jpsp (2010, culture).pdf

The jury and abjury of my peers: the self in face and dignity cultures.

People's judgments about their own moral status and well-being were made differently by those from a Dignity culture (Anglo-Americans) and by those from a Face culture (Asian Americans). Face culture participants were more influenced by information processed from a third-person (compared with first-person) perspective, with information about the self having a powerful effect only when seen through another's eyes. Thus, (a) Asian Americans felt the greatest need for moral cleansing when thinking about how others would judge their many (vs. few) transgressions, but this effect did not hold when others were not invoked, and (b) Asian Americans defined themselves as having a rich social network and worthwhile life when thinking about how others would evaluate their many (vs. few) friendships, but again, effects did not hold when others were not invoked. In contrast, Anglo-Americans responded to information about their transgressions or friendships, but effects were pronounced only when other people were not invoked.

Information, Perspective, and Judgments About the Self in Face and Dignity Cultures

/pdf/review-of-cultural-psychology-jcgak81f0e.pdf

Review of Cultural Psychology

The authors contend that although people in both Eastern and Western cultures are motivated to make favorable self-evaluations, the actual likelihood of expressing favorable self-evaluations in a concrete situation depends on (a) the dominant self-presentation norms in the culture, (b) how salient the norm is in the immediate situation, and (c) the availability of normatively permissible means to make favorable self-evaluations. The authors tested this proposal in three studies. Study 1 showed that given the strong influence of the modesty norm in Eastern cultures, Chinese are more comfortable making favorable self-evaluations when evaluation apprehension pressure in the immediate situation is reduced. Furthermore, Studies 2 and 3 showed that Asian Americans and Chinese are more comfortable making favorable self-evaluations when they can do it indirectly by denying possession of negative traits than when they have to do it directly by claiming possession of positive traits. In contrast, among European Americans, given the relative weak influence of the modesty norm in their culture, they are equally comfortable with making favorable self-evaluations in public and private situations through affirmation of positive selfaspects and repudiation of negative self-aspects.

/pdf/explaining-east-west-differences-in-the-likelihood-of-making-4qyg2yeemg.pdf

Explaining East-West Differences in the Likelihood of Making Favorable Self-Evaluations: The Role of Evaluation Apprehension and Directness of Expression

Young Hoon Kim

Papers

Is expressive suppression always associated with poorer psychological functioning? A cross-cultural comparison between European Americans and Hong Kong Chinese.

The jury and abjury of my peers: the self in face and dignity cultures.

Information, Perspective, and Judgments About the Self in Face and Dignity Cultures

Review of Cultural Psychology

Explaining East-West Differences in the Likelihood of Making Favorable Self-Evaluations: The Role of Evaluation Apprehension and Directness of Expression