Studies // Cited work
Emotion-regulation choice
Sheppes, G., Scheibe, S., Suri, G., & Gross, J. J. (2011). Emotion-regulation choice.
Level B Experiment doi:10.1177/0956797611418350
What this study supports
Supports the claim that participants relatively preferred reappraisal in low-intensity and distraction in high-intensity negative situations. It measures choice, not the long-term consequences of those choices.
- Who was studied
- Adult participants in three laboratory experiments using emotional pictures or unpredictable electric stimulation.
- Design
- Experiment
- Level of evidence
- Controlled studies: randomised or experimental designs, and syntheses of correlational work.
Claims that rest on it
Each claim states what the site asserts, at what strength, and with what caveat.
EmpiricalLevel AConfidence MODERATE
Strategy families differ in effect: in a meta-analysis of experiments, cognitive change had a small-to-medium effect, distraction was effective, concentrating on feelings was not, and suppressing emotional experience was ineffective; in laboratory choice studies people relatively preferred reappraisal at low and distraction at high negative intensity.
- Scope
- Short laboratory emotion inductions in mostly healthy adult samples.
- Caveat
- Effects vary with moderators and may not transfer to prolonged real-life stressors; distraction that is effective in the moment is not necessarily adaptive over time.
Last reviewed · Review due · strategy-effects-differ-by-family