Emotion regulation: Current status and future prospects

Sources

• Gross, J. J. (1998). The emerging field of emotion regulation: An integrative review. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.2.3.271

  Level D Review

  Supports definitions and the five-point process model used across the library. A conceptual framework, not a test of which strategies work.

• Gross, J. J. (2015). Emotion regulation: Current status and future prospects. doi:10.1080/1047840X.2014.940781

  Level D Review

  Supports the conceptual claims that the process model groups strategies by the point at which they act and that the extended process model adds identification, selection and implementation stages. It selects evidence to illustrate the model rather than testing it.

Sources

• Gross, J. J. (1998). The emerging field of emotion regulation: An integrative review. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.2.3.271

  Level D Review

  Supports definitions and the five-point process model used across the library. A conceptual framework, not a test of which strategies work.

• Gross, J. J. (2015). Emotion regulation: Current status and future prospects. doi:10.1080/1047840X.2014.940781

  Level D Review

  Supports the conceptual claims that the process model groups strategies by the point at which they act and that the extended process model adds identification, selection and implementation stages. It selects evidence to illustrate the model rather than testing it.

• Webb, T. L., Miles, E., & Sheeran, P. (2012). Dealing with feeling: A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of strategies derived from the process model of emotion regulation. doi:10.1037/a0027600

  Level A Meta-analysis

  Supports the claims that cognitive change had a small-to-medium effect, distraction was effective, concentration on feelings was not, and suppressing the experience of emotion was ineffective. Effects come from short laboratory inductions and vary with moderators.

Sources

• Webb, T. L., Miles, E., & Sheeran, P. (2012). Dealing with feeling: A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of strategies derived from the process model of emotion regulation. doi:10.1037/a0027600

  Level A Meta-analysis

  Supports the claims that cognitive change had a small-to-medium effect, distraction was effective, concentration on feelings was not, and suppressing the experience of emotion was ineffective. Effects come from short laboratory inductions and vary with moderators.

• Uusberg, A., Ford, B., Uusberg, H., & Gross, J. J. (2023). Reappraising reappraisal: An expanded view. doi:10.1080/02699931.2023.2208340

  Level D Theory

  Supports the conceptual claim that reappraisal is a family of tactics (reconstrual and repurposing, object- and meta-level, decommitment and commitment). It proposes a map; it does not test the tactics' effectiveness.

• Gross, J. J. (2015). Emotion regulation: Current status and future prospects. doi:10.1080/1047840X.2014.940781

  Level D Review

  Supports the conceptual claims that the process model groups strategies by the point at which they act and that the extended process model adds identification, selection and implementation stages. It selects evidence to illustrate the model rather than testing it.