Dealing with feeling: A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of strategies derived from the process model of emotion regulation

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.

• Gross, J. J., & John, O. P. (2003). Individual differences in two emotion regulation processes: Implications for affect, relationships, and well-being. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.85.2.348

  Level D Cross-sectional study

  Supports the claim that habitual reappraisal is associated with more positive and less negative emotion and better well-being than habitual suppression. Correlational data cannot show that the strategy causes these outcomes.

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.

• Sheppes, G., Scheibe, S., Suri, G., & Gross, J. J. (2011). Emotion-regulation choice. doi:10.1177/0956797611418350

  Level B Experiment

  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.

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.