COGNITION AND EMOTION 2006, 20 (8), 1248 1260
Strategies actually employed during response-focused emotion regulation research: Affective and physiological consequences Heath A. Demaree, Jennifer L. Robinson, and Jie Pu Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA
John J. B. Allen University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA
Addressing internal validity concerns in emotion regulation research, the present experiment was primarily designed to determine whether research participants are compliant when asked to use a response-focused strategy during emotional film viewing or whether these individuals incorporate the use of antecedent strategies. The influence of antecedent vs. response-focused strategy use on self-reported affect, physiological, and behavioural data were additionally investigated. A total of 82 healthy undergraduate participants were asked to use one of two responsefocused emotion regulation techniques *suppression or exaggeration *while watching a 2 minute positive or negative movie. Following the movie, participants self-reported their affective response to the film, described how they tried to suppress or exaggerate their reaction (i.e., strategies used to regulate their response), and estimated the percentage of time they used each strategy. Representing ‘‘antecedent’’ and ‘‘response-focused’’ techniques, the strategies reported by participants were coded as ‘‘cognitive’’ or ‘‘muscular’’ in nature. Relative to exaggerators, participants in the suppression condition were significantly more likely to self-report using an antecedent (cognitive) strategy for at least some portion of the film (65% vs. 38%). During the suppression condition, greater use of antecedent strategies did not influence sympathetic reactivity to either movie but did result in significantly less self-reported negative affect to the negative movie.
Over the past 40 years, and with increasing intensity over the last decade, researchers have studied the affective and physiological effects of various emotion regulation strategies. Termed the ‘‘Process Model of Emotion Regulation’’, James Gross provided a description of the various strategies Correspondence should be addressed to Heath A. Demaree, Department of Psychology, Case Western Reserve University, Mather Memorial Building, Room 109, 11220 Bellflower Road, Cleveland, OH 44106-7123, USA. E-mail:
[email protected] The authors thank Denise Cook and Melissa Kerwood for their assistance on this project. # 2006 Psychology Press, an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business www.psypress.com/cogemotion DOI: 10.1080/02699930500405303
RESPONSE-FOCUSED EMOTION REGULATION
1249
which participants may employ to modulate their affective experiences (Gross, 1998b,c, 1999, 2001). Gross separated these strategies into ‘‘antecedent’’ and ‘‘response-focused’’ categories, with the former being employed prior to the enactment of emotion response tendencies (i.e., affective, behavioural, and physiological change) whereas the latter are aimed at modulating emotional output. Antecedent strategies, which are primarily cognitive in nature, range from the earliest deployed strategy of situation selection (e.g., not attending a funeral) to the later-deployed strategy of cognitive reappraisal (e.g., at the funeral, rather than feeling loss, focusing on the deceased no longer experiencing pain). Response-focused strategies, by contrast, are muscular in nature and include suppression and exaggeration, techniques employed when individuals confront an emotional stimulus and subsequently attempt to down- or up-reg-ulate their facial expressions, respectively. Creating interest in the relative merits of different strategies, antecedent (i.e., reappraisal) and response-focused (i.e., suppression, exaggeration) strategies have been found to have distinct affective and physiological consequences.
Antecedent vs. response-focused strategies: Affective consequences Depending on the valence of the stimulus, antecedent and response-focused strategies have been found to differentially influence self-reported affect. In terms of response-focused strategies, expressive suppression and exaggeration decreases and increases self-reported positive affect to positive stimuli but does not influence affective experience to negative stimuli. For example, among 180 female undergraduates, those asked to suppress their facial response reported the same intensity of negative affect relative to those asked to watch the film naturally (Gross & Levenson, 1997). To a positive affective stimulus, however, emotional suppression has been found to decrease selfreported positive affect (Gross & Levenson, 1997; Stepper & Strack, 1993; Stack, Martin, & Stepper, 1988). Likewise, expressive exaggeration has been found to increase self-reported positive affect to a humorous film but have no affective influence to a negative film (Demaree, Schmeichel, Robinson, & Everhart, 2004a). Reappraisal, conversely, decreases affective responding to both negative and positive stimuli (e.g., Gross, 1998a; Gross & Levenson, 1993, 1997; Stack et al., 1988).
Antecedent vs. response-focused strategies: Physiological consequences Response-focused strategies cause increased sympathetic arousal whereas reappraisal does not. For example, Gross (1998a) asked 120 undergraduate participants to watch a disgusting film either naturally, while reappraising
1250
DEMAREE ET AL.
the stimulus, or while suppressing their facial response. As measured by finger temperature, finger pulse amplitude, and skin conductance level, persons asked to suppress their facial response experienced significantly greater sympathetic activation relative to those in the other conditions. Similar findings have been found with positive stimuli (e.g., Gross & Levenson, 1997) and as a result of expressive exaggeration (Demaree et al., 2004a; Demaree, Schmeichel, Robinson, Pu, Everhart, & Berntson, 2006; Lanzetta, Cartwright-Smith, & Kleck, 1976; Vaughan & Lanzetta, 1981). For example, Demaree and colleagues (2006) extended prior research by demonstrating that both suppression and exaggeration induce increased cardiac sympathetic control as indicated by pre-ejection period (PEP), the most sensitive noninvasive measure of sympathetic activity at the myocardium (Berntson et al., 1994; Cacioppo et al., 1994).
Methodological concerns One methodological concern regarding the present literature is whether participants are actually following the regulatory instructions as intended by the experimenter. Instructions to reappraise are often similar to those used by Gross (1998a), who asked participants to ‘‘try to think about what you are seeing in such a way that you don’t feel anything at all’’. Likewise, instructions to suppress or exaggerate are similar to those used by Demaree and colleagues (2006), who asked participants to ‘‘show no emotional response, that is, if someone were watching you, they shouldn’t have any idea how you were feeling’’ or ‘‘exaggerate your facial reaction to the clip so that if somebody viewed a videotape of you watching the clip, they would know exactly what you were feeling’’. But do individuals given response-focused (muscular) instructions follow the request without incorporating antecedent (cognitive) strategies? If not completely, then prior research has been influenced in two significant ways. First, the effect size of antecedent vs. response-focused strategies on sympathetic activation has likely been underestimated because the two groups behaved more similarly than originally anticipated (e.g., suppressors were also using reappraisal techniques). Second, self-reported affective response resulting from responsefocused facial modulation to emotional stimuli may actually be due to the use of reappraisal strategies. The present research therefore had two goals. First, by using a postexperiment questionnaire, individuals asked to suppress or exaggerate their facial response to a negative or positive film reported how they actually attempted to regulate their response. Second, the impact of any use of antecedent (cognitive) strategies on affective or physiological responses was evaluated, which would have implications for emotion regulation research.
RESPONSE-FOCUSED EMOTION REGULATION
1251
To measure sympathetic reactivity, two measures of sympathetic arousal *PEP and number of electrodermal responses (EDRs) *were quantified for the 2 minutes preceding the film and during the 2 minute film presentation. Sympathetic reactivity was quantified because it is reliably induced by the use of response-focused (but not antecedent) strategies (e.g., Demaree et al., 2004a; Demaree et al., 2006; Gross, 1998a; Gross & Levenson, 1993, 1997). Following the movie, participants reported their affective experience, the strategies used to modulate their facial reaction, and the estimated percentage of time using each strategy. It was hypothesised that the increased use of cognitive strategies would predict: (1) decreased affective response to the films during down-regulation; (2) increased affective response to the films during up-regulation; and (3) less sympathetic activation during emotion modulation to both films.
METHOD Participants and design Participants were 82 Case Western Reserve University (CWRU) undergraduates who took part in exchange for credit in their introductory psychology course. Participants were told they would be asked to watch an emotion-eliciting film clip while either suppressing or exaggerating their facial responses. The experimenter also explained that participants: (a) would be attached to electrodes so that physiological responses could be recorded; (b) would have their faces videotaped as they watched the clip; and (c) would be asked other questions, after the film, about their experiences during the experiment. This research was approved by the CWRU Institutional Review Board and all participants signed an informed consent form prior to research initiation. Emotion-eliciting stimuli. Participants were randomly assigned to view one of two 2 minute film clips. The first, designed to elicit feelings of disgust, was a clip showing scenes from an animal slaughterhouse. The other film, designed to elicit feelings of amusement, included scenes of a comedian’s monologue. These negative and positive films reliably elicit discrete feelings of disgust and amusement, respectively (Schmeichel, Demaree, Robinson, & Pu, in press). Emotion regulation instructions. In order to minimise baseline physiological differences (see Demaree et al., 2004a), participants were not informed which emotion regulation condition they would use until just prior to
1252
DEMAREE ET AL.
film presentation. Thus, participants were provided with the following instructions: In the first portion of this experiment, you are asked to relax in your chair for ten minutes and become acclimated to your surroundings. After this acclimation period, you will see instructions on the monitor to ‘‘Please sit still and relax’’. This will last for about 2 minutes. The monitor will then provide specific instructions regarding how you should view the video clip. Specifically, you will be asked to either view the film and suppress your emotional reaction or view the film and exaggerate your emotional reaction. If you receive the instruction to ‘‘suppress’’, I would like you to focus on showing no emotional response. That is, if someone were watching you, I wouldn’t want them to have any idea how you were feeling. If you receive the instruction to ‘‘exaggerate’’, I want you to facially show the emotion you are feeling to the utmost. That is, a bystander should know exactly the emotion you are feeling. Any questions?
Physiological recording procedures. Participants were tested individually in a quiet (45.009/0.32 dB) and comfortably lit (about 1300 lux) room. Skin conductance data were collected via the use of Biopac (Santa Barbara, CA) TSD203 transducers filled with Biopac Skin Conductance Electrode Paste placed at the nondominant middle and fourth fingers. Data were amplified using Biopac’s GSR100C amplifier using a gain of 10 mS and a low-pass filter of 10 Hz. Mindware’s (Westerville, OH) EDA 2.1 computer program identified all EDRs as defined as a .05 mS increase in skin conductance. To calculate PEP, tachogram (ECG) data were collected at the standard thoracic sites (right clavicle and precordial site V6) via disposable Biopac EL503 Ag-AgCl snap electrodes and digitised at 500 samples per second onto a Dell Optiplex GX200 computer. Prior to digitisation, data were amplified by Biopac ECG100C amplifiers set for a gain of 1000 and using low- and high-pass filters of 35 Hz and 0.05 Hz, respectively. Thoracic impedance (Zo) data were collected using the four spot impedance electrode array recommended by Biopac, a commonly used configuration (e.g., Berntson, Lozano, Chen, & Cacioppo, 2004). Specifically, the upper voltage electrodes were placed laterally at the base of the neck whereas the lower voltage electrodes were placed laterally at the xiphisternal junction. Because dual electrodes were used, the upper-and lower-current electrodes were placed 41mm above and below the voltage electrodes, respectively. The use of spot electrodes have been validated for the measurement of time intervals derived from impedance cardiography, such as PEP (Sherwood, Royal, Hutcheson, & Turner, 1992). Signals were transduced using Biopac EL500 dual electrodes and amplified by Biopac EBI100C amplifiers set for a gain of 20 and using a low-pass filter of 100 Hz. In order to increase inter- and within-scorer reliability, and because some Q points were impossible to
RESPONSE-FOCUSED EMOTION REGULATION
1253
detect, PEP was calculated as the difference between Ronset and B. B was defined as the maximum slope of dz/dt. Impedance data were analysed using the Mindware IMP 2.16 biosignal processing system, and accuracy was ensured via visual inspection of the R and B points identified by this software. Shortened PEP reflects increased beta-adrenergic activation at the heart and increased myocardial contractility (e.g., Stemmler, 2003) Participants were given 10 minutes to become physiologically stable and to acclimatise to their surroundings. Physiological recording then commenced and the monitor read ‘‘Please sit still and relax’’ for 2 minutes (Time 1), which was followed by a 10-second slide instructing the participant to ‘‘suppress’’ or ‘‘exaggerate’’ their emotional response. The 2 minute movie (positive or negative) was then presented (Time 2). The physiological record was embedded with a digital trigger at the beginning of Times 1 and 2, allowing for the analysis of data for the two 2 minute segments of interest. ‘‘Reactivity’’ data were derived by subtracting pre-movie data from during-movie data (i.e., Time 2 *Time 1; Quigley, Barrett, & Weinstein, 2002). Self-report measure of affect. When the video clip ended, participants completed the Self-Assessment Manikin (SAM; Bradley & Lang, 1994) which asked for emotional reactions to the film clip scaled from 1 to 5 (negative to positive). Postexperiment questionnaire. Using paper and pencil, participants were asked to describe any and all strategies they used to modulate their facial responses to the film. If more than one strategy was provided, they were asked to indicate the estimated percentage of time they used each strategy (required to add to 100%).
RESULTS Sample characteristics Data from the 82 participants (45 men and 37 women; age M /19.85, SD / 4.97) who self-reported no history of psychiatric or cardiovascular illness are reported in the analyses below. Twenty (4 Asian [A], 1 black/AfricanAmerican [AA], 14 white/Caucasian [W], 1 ‘‘other’’ [O]), 20 (3 A, 16 W, 1 O), 21 (4 A, 2 AA, 14 W, 1 O), and 21 (3 A, 5 AA, 12 W, 1 O) participants were randomly assigned to the negative-suppress, positive-suppress, negativeexaggerate, and positive-exaggerate groups, respectively. No group differences were found with regard to gender, x2(3) /3.13, p /.05, age, F(3, 78) / 1.01, p /.05, or baseline physiology, EDRs: F(3, 78) /1.97, p/.05; PEP: F(3, 78) /1.28, p/.05.
1254
DEMAREE ET AL.
Manipulation checks. Participants were videotaped during film presentation and two raters unaware of experimental condition later coded participants’ facial valence over the full 2 minute period (1 / negative emotion; 4 /neutral; 7/positive emotion). Raters did not use any particular coding protocol (e.g., the Facial Action Coding System). Rather, as described previously (Demaree, Robinson, Everhart, & Schmeichel, 2004b; Demaree, Pu, Robinson, Schmeichel, & Everhart, in press; Demaree et al., 2004a, 2006), they were simply asked to rate facial valence in an ecologically valid manner. Rater agreement was excellent (overall a /.982; a to the negative film /.967; a to the positive film /.959), and ratings were averaged across coders. Facial ratings were submitted to two-way ANOVA with the independent variables of Movie (2: Positive or Negative) and Regulate (2: Suppress or Exaggerate). A main effect of Movie was revealed, F(l, 78) /111.36, p B/.001, as was an interaction effect of Movie /Regulate, F(l, 78) /46.53, p B/.001. The main effect of Regulate was nonsignificant, F(l, 78) B/1. The Least Significant Difference (LSD) statistic revealed that participants watching the positive film (M/5.21, SD /1.01) facially expressed more positive affect than those watching the negative film (M /3.27, SD/1.03). Moreover, underlying the interaction effect, participants in each of the four groups significantly differed from one another in terms of facial valence: Positive-Exaggerate (M / 5.83, SD /0.89) /Positive-Suppress (M / 4.55, SD /0.67) /Negative-Suppress (M / 3.88, SD /0.51) /Negative-Exaggerate (M /2.69, SD/1.08). These results suggest that: (a) the films were effective in eliciting facial emotion configurations; and (b) the instructions effectively induced up- and downregulation. Modulation strategies actually employed. Strategies used by participants, as self-reported in the postexperiment questionnaire, were coded by two independent raters as either antecedent/cognitive (e.g., ‘‘I tried to think of the clip as educational; not emotionally stimulating’’ [suppress], ‘‘I tried to envision everything as if it were the most gruesome thing I had ever seen’’ [exaggerate]) or response-focused/muscular (e.g., ‘‘I tried not to laugh by tightening my facial muscles [suppress], ’’I used mainly my mouth and eyebrows to try to show what I was feeling in a way that was more pronounced than usual" [exaggerate]) techniques. Interrater agreement was 100%. Across all participants, the mean number of antecedent and responsefocused responses were 0.51 (0.50) and 0.87 (0.54), respectively. Participants were then categorised as either: (1) having used only muscular strategies; or (2) using cognitive strategies during at least some portion of the film. Data were submitted to a chi-square analysis with an independent factor of Condition (4: Negative-Suppress, Negative-Exaggerate, Positive-Suppress, Positive-Exaggerate). A trend was revealed between Conditions, x2(3) /6.72, p B/.10, with 60% (12/20), 33.3% (7/21), 70% (14/20), and 42.9% (9/21) of
RESPONSE-FOCUSED EMOTION REGULATION
1255
participants in the negative-suppress, negative-exaggerate, positive-suppress, and positive-exaggerate conditions reporting any use of a cognitive strategy, respectively. Data were resubmitted to two additional chi-square analyses with independent factors of Movie and Regulate. The analysis involving Movie was nonsignificant, x2(1) /0.78, p /.05, suggesting that participants were no more likely to use antecedent strategies to negative or positive stimuli. The influence of Regulate was significant, x2(1) /5.94, p B/.05, with cognitive strategies being more frequently utilised during down-regulation (26/40, 65%) relative to up-regulation (16/42, 38.1%). Data regarding the percentage of time participants used antecedent strategies (PctAnt) were non-normally distributed, Kolmogorov-Smirnov (82) /0.293, p B/.001, and thus nonparametric analyses were again performed. Three separate analyses were performed with independent variables of Condition (4), Movie (2), and Regulate (2), using the dependent variable of PctAnt. Consistent with the chi-square analyses above, PctAnt was greater when participants were asked to suppress (M / 44.25%, SD /42.48) relative to exaggerate (M / 27.74%, SD /39.48), Mann-Whitney U / 625.50, pB/.05. No significant differences between Negative-Suppress (M /40.25%, SD /42.56), Negative-Exaggerate (M /20.24%, SD/33.18), Positive-Suppress (M /48.25%, SD/43.11), and Positive-Exaggerate (M / 35.24%, SD /44.45) conditions were observed, x2(3) /5.98, p /.05, nor did Movie influence PctAnt, Mann-Whitney U /723.00, p /.05. Influence of cognitive strategy use on affective self-report. Because suppression and exaggeration are expected to have opposite influences on self-reported affect to positive stimuli, analyses must be performed using data from each Regulation condition independently. Because fewer participants employed cognitive strategies during exaggeration, thus leading to power issues, analyses were performed using suppression-related data only. To test the possibility that the use of reappraisal strategies influenced selfreported affect among participants receiving instructions to suppress their facial reaction, a two-block linear regression using the dependent variable of SAM valence was performed on the suppression data only. Block 1 included PctAnt and Movie as predictor variables and Block 2 included the interaction term (PctAnt /Movie). Two blocks were used to determine whether the interaction term predicted a significant amount of additional variance after controlling for main effects. In Block 1, Movie significantly predicted self-reported affect, t(37) /15.16, p B/.001, (b /.92), with the positive movie inducing significantly greater positive affective experience relative to the negative movie. PctAnt did not significantly predict selfreported affect during suppression, t(37) /1.1 1, p /.05, (b /.07). In Block 2, the PctAnt /Movie interaction term significantly predicted self-reported affect, t(36) / /2.05, p B/.05, (b/ /.41).
1256
DEMAREE ET AL.
To determine whether PctAnt was particularly influential on self-reported affect to the negative film, the positive film, or both, two additional regressions were performed. For the dependent variable, these regressions used SAM valence data collected during the negative and positive film, respectively. Both regressions used PctAnt as the sole predictor variable. Figure 1 shows PctAnt predicted self-reported affect in response to the negative film, t(18) /2.05, p /.05, (b /.44) but not to the positive film, t(18) / /0.70, p /.05, (b / /.16). These results suggest that use of reappraisal attenuated affective responses to the negative film. Influence of cognitive strategy use on sympathetic activation. Because suppression and exaggeration are both expected to induce greater sympathetic activation relative to reappraisal, data from both suppression and exaggeration conditions were included in the regression analyses. To test the possibility that the use of reappraisal strategies decreases sympathetic activation among persons asked to use response-focused modulation techniques, two separate one-block linear regressions using the independent variable of PctAnt and the dependent variables of DEDR (Time 2 EDRs * Time 1 EDRs) and DPEP (Time 2 PEP *Time 1 PEP) were performed. Surprisingly, PctAnt predicted neither DEDR, t(80) /0.50, p/.05, (b /.06), nor DPEP, t(80) / /039, p /.05. See Table 1 for EDR and PEP data broken down by Movie, Regulate, and antecedent/ response-focused strategy use.
Figure 1. During down-regulation, reappraisal decreased self-reported affective response to the negative film only.
RESPONSE-FOCUSED EMOTION REGULATION
1257
DISCUSSION The major purposes of this investigation were to determine whether antecedent (cognitive) strategies were used by participants who received standard response-focused emotion modulation instructions and, if so, whether these practices influenced self-reported affect and sympathetic activation. Perhaps the greatest surprise was the high rate of antecedent strategy use following standard response-focused modulation instructions. Half of the sample reported using some cognitive strategies during the experiment, with significantly more individuals reporting their use during instructions to down-regulate. It is proposed that cognitive strategies (e.g., reappraisal) are more likely used during down-regulation because of the abundance of affective material that is either less emotional in nature or of opposite valence to the actual stimulus. That is, it is far easier to think of something positive or less negative than an animal slaughterhouse than it is to imagine a more robust negative stimulus. Alternatively, it is possible that the response-focused sup pression of an already initiated emotional response TABLE 1 Electrodermal response (EDR) and pre-ejection period (PEP) data for movie, regulate, and antecedent/response-focused strategy use EDRs reactivity
PEP reactivity (ms)
N
Mean
(SD)
Mean
(SD)
82 40 42 42 40
8.74 9.48 8.05 9.38 8.08
(7.98) (8.00) (7.99) (8.65) (7.25)
/4.93 /3.80 /6.00 /5.67 /4.15
(8.74) (9.09) (8.37) (8.94) (8.57)
All positive movie Suppress Exaggerate Using /0% antecedent strategies Using 0% antecedent strategies
41 20 21 23 18
10.56 11.35 9.81 10.91 10.11
(7.99) (8.37) (7.74) (8.44) (7.60)
/4.39 /2.60 /6.10 /4.09 /4.78
(7.67) (5.28) (9.22) (6.84) (8.82)
All negative movie Suppress Exaggerate Using /0% antecedent strategies Using 0% antecedent strategies
41 20 21 19 22
6.93 7.60 6.29 7.53 6.41
(7.63) (7.34) (8.02) (8.76) (6.67)
/5.46 /5.00 /5.91 /7.58 /3.64
(9.77) (11.78) (7.65) (10.86) (8.54)
All All All All All
participants suppress exaggerate using /0% antecedent strategies using 0% antecedent strategies
Note: To generally describe the autonomic data, participants were dichotomised into two groups: those who did (‘‘using /50% antecedent strategies’’) and did not (‘‘using 0% antecedent strategies’’) use cognitive strategies. Conversely, the statistical analyses reported tested the impact of antecedent strategy use in a nondichotomised (continuous) manner.
1258
DEMAREE ET AL.
pattern is so difficult (Demaree et al., in press; Gross, 1998a; Gross & Levenson, 1993, 1997) that people are more apt to incorporate the use of antecedent, cognitive strategies to help achieve their down-regulatory goals. Regardless of the reason, the relatively high rate of antecedent strategy use in the current undergraduate sample is particularly surprising when one considers that the preference for antecedent techniques increases significantly with age throughout adulthood (John & Gross, 2004). Across all age groups, and particularly among older individuals, more specific regulation instructions may improve emotion modulation research by increasing strategic homogeneity within groups. For example, researchers may benefit by focusing on facial musculature when providing response-focused instructions (e.g., ‘‘While watching the movie, I want you to focus on not moving your facial muscles at all. Try to stay stone-faced’’.). Antecedent-strategy instructions may likewise benefit from increased specificity. How might the use of antecedent strategies among those given responsefocused instructions impact affective and physiological data? In terms of self-reported affect, prior research has found that response-focused up- and down-regulation to positive stimuli increases and decreases positive affective experience, respectively (e.g., Gross & Levenson, 1997; Stepper & Strack, 1993; Stack et al., 1988). To negative stimuli, conversely, response-focused facial modulation does not impact self-reported affect (e.g., Demaree et al., 2004a; Gross & Levenson, 1997). Analyses of the present data revealed that antecedent down-regulation strategies decreased affective response to the negative, but not the positive, film. Given the previous findings that emotional experience was impacted by facial suppression only for positive stimuli, it follows that the addition of antecedent strategies may be observable in cases where the impact of the suppression strategy is minimal (i.e., on negative stimuli). Physiologically, it was anticipated that the increased use of antecedent strategies would decrease sympathetic arousal commonly witnessed during response-focused modulation (e.g., Demaree et al., 2004a; Gross, 1998a; Lanzetta, Cartwright-Smith, & Kleck, 1976). This was not supported by the present data suggesting that, relative to the robust sympathetic activation evidenced among response-focused modulators, the physiological influence of antecedent strategies is negligible. Lacking from the present design, however, is a condition to instruct the use of antecedent strategies only, which is the comparison used in other studies. It is possible that all subjects in the present study would have shown greater sympathetic arousal than individuals instructed in a pure antecedent strategy, thus raising the possibility that even some attempt at expressive suppression, even in combination with reappraisal strategies, is sufficient to lead to sympathetic arousal. With a renewed interest in emotion regulation, the consequences between antecedent and response-focused strategy use have been increasingly
RESPONSE-FOCUSED EMOTION REGULATION
1259
specified. For instance, the habitual use of reappraisal relative to suppression strategies has been found to predict a heightened sense of well-being, better interpersonal functioning, increased positive emotion, and decreased negative emotion (e.g., Gross & John, 2003; John & Gross, 2004). Relative to antecedent strategies, the use of response-focused techniques when confronted with an affective stimulus has been found to predict increased sympathetic arousal, little affective change, and impaired memory for the emotional event (Richards & Gross, 1999, 2000). Of note, the present data suggest that the spontaneous use of antecedent strategies may decrease emotional experience to negative stimuli but perhaps not reduce sympathetic activation. Thus, while it has already been advanced that habitual responsefocused strategy use may predict coronary artery disease (Demaree et al., 2006), antecedent strategies may be even more effective at reducing moodrelated problems in response to emotional stimuli. It is posited that the training of such antecedent techniques may be particularly helpful for individuals with increased lability to affective material. When determining the direction and effect size of different emotion regulation strategies on affective, autonomic, and behavioural variables, the present research suggests that more specific instructions should be used to increase the likelihood that participants strictly adhere to the experimental protocol. Manuscript received 4 March 2005 Revised manuscript received 20 July 2005
REFERENCES Berntson, G. G., Cacioppo, J. T., Binkley, P. F., Uchino, B. N., Quigley, K. S., & Fieldstone, A. (1994). Autonomic cardiac control: III. Psychological stress and cardiac response in autonomic space as revealed by pharmacological blockades. Psychophysiology, 31, 599 608. Berntson, G. G., Lozano, D. L., Chen, Y. J., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2004). Where to Q in PEP. Psychophysiology, 41, 333 337. Bradley, M. M., & Lang, P. J. (1994). Measuring emotion: The Self-Assessment Manikin and the Semantic Differential. Journal of Behavioral Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 25, 49 59. Cacioppo, J. T., Berntson, G. G., Binkley, P. F., Quigley, K. S., Uchino, B. N., & Fieldstone, A. (1994). Autonomic cardiac control. II. Basal response, noninvasive indices, and autonomic space as revealed by autonomic blockades. Psychophysiology, 31, 586 598. Demaree, H. A., Pu, J., Robinson, J. L., Schmeichel, B. J., & Everhart, D. E. (in press). Predicting facial valence to negative stimuli from resting RSA: Not a function of active emotion regulation. Cognition and Emotion. Demaree, H. A., Robinson, J. L., Everhart, D. E., & Schmeichel, B. J. (2004b). Resting RSA is associated with natural and self-regulated responses to negative emotional stimuli. Brain and Cognition, 56, 14 23. Demaree, H. A., Schmeichel, B. J., Robinson, J. L., & Everhart, D. E. (2004a). Behavioural, affective, and physiological effects of negative and positive emotional exaggeration. Cognition and Emotion, 18, 1079 1097.
1260
DEMAREE ET AL.
Demaree, H. A., Schmeichel, B. J., Robinson, J. L., Pu, J., Everhart, D. E., & Berntson, G. G. (2006). Up- and down-regulating facial disgust: Affective, vagal, sympathetic, and respiratory consequences. Biological Psychology, 71, 90 99. Gross, J. J. (1998a). Antecedent- and response-focused emotion regulation: Divergent consequences for experience, expression, and physiology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 224 237. Gross, J. J. (1998b). The emerging field of emotion regulation: An integrative review. Review of General Psychology, 2, 271 299. Gross, J. J. (1998c). Sharpening the focus: Emotion regulation, arousal, and social competence. Psychological Inquiry, 9, 287 290. Gross, J. J. (1999). Emotion regulation: Past, present, and future. Cognition and Emotion, 13, 551 573. Gross, J. J. (2001). Emotion regulation in adulthood: Timing is everything. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 10, 214 219. 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. Gross, J. J., & Levenson, R. W. (1993). Emotional suppression: Physiology, self-report, and expressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 970 986. Gross, J. J., & Levenson, R. W. (1997). Hiding feelings: The acute effects of inhibiting negative and positive emotion. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 106, 95 103. John, O. P., & Gross, J. J. (2004). Healthy and unhealthy emotion regulation: Personality processes, individual differences, and life span development. Journal of Personality, 72, 1301 1333. Lanzetta, J. T., Cartwright-Smith, J., & Kleck, R. E. (1976). Effects of nonverbal dissimulation on emotional experience and autonomic arousal. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33, 354 370. Quigley, K. S., Barrett, L. F., & Weinstein, S. (2002). Cardiovascular patterns associated with threat and challenge appraisals: A within-subjects analysis. Psychophysiology, 39, 292 302. Richards, J. M., & Gross, J. J. (1999). Composure at any cost? The cognitive consequences of emotion suppression. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 1033 1044. Richards, J. M., & Gross, J. J. (2000). Emotion regulation and memory: The cognitive costs of keeping one’s cool. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 410 424. Schmeichel, B. J., Demaree, H. A., Robinson, J. L., & Pu, J. (in press). Ego depletion by response exaggeration. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. Sherwood, A., Royal, S. A., Hutcheson, J. S., & Turner, J. R. (1992). Comparison of impedance cardiographic measurements using band and spot electrodes. Psychophysiology, 29, 734 741. Stemmler, G. (2003). Methodological consideration in the psychophysiological study of emotion. In R. J. Davidson, K. R. Scherer, & H. H. Goldsmith (Eds.), Handbook of affective sciences (pp. 225 255). New York: Oxford University Press. Stepper, S., & Strack, F. (1993). Proprioceptive determinants of emotional and nonemotional feelings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 211 220. Strack, F., Martin, L. L., & Stepper, S. (1988). Inhibiting and facilitating conditions of the human smile: A nonobtrusive test of the facial feedback hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 768 777. Vaughan, K. B., & Lanzetta, J. T. (1981). The effect of modification of expressive displays on vicarious emotional arousal. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 17, 16 30.
