Luo, J., McRae, K., & Waugh, C. E. (2025). Committing to emotion regulation: Factors impacting the choice to implement a reappraisal after its generation. Emotion, 25(4), 787–801. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0001455
Key Takeaways
- Focus: The study explores why individuals choose to implement (use) cognitive reappraisal strategies to regulate emotions after initially generating these strategies.
- Method: Conducted three experiments involving participants (N = 52, 58, 134) who were asked to generate reappraisals of negative stimuli, rate their emotional response and plausibility of reappraisals, and choose whether to implement them or distract themselves instead.
- Findings: Participants were more likely to implement reappraisals when they felt more positive after generation and when reappraisals were more plausible. Positive emotion was a stronger predictor than plausibility.
- Implications: The results highlight the critical role of emotional states and plausibility evaluations in deciding to continue using emotion regulation strategies, providing insights for clinical practices and emotional resilience programs.
Rationale
The study investigates cognitive reappraisal, an emotion regulation strategy involving altering the meaning of stressful events to reduce negative feelings.
Prior research distinguishes between generating multiple possible reappraisals and actually implementing or elaborating on one selected reappraisal.
While generation alone slightly improves mood, substantial positive changes occur during the implementation phase.
However, individuals sometimes generate reappraisals without implementing them, and it is unclear what influences this choice.
Existing research primarily explores initial strategy selection rather than the decision to persist after initial efforts.
Understanding factors that drive implementation could enhance emotion regulation effectiveness.
This study examines whether positive emotions or perceived plausibility influence people’s decisions to implement reappraisals.
Future research should explore implementation choices over longer periods, across diverse contexts, and include other potential factors like creativity and social support.
Method
The researchers conducted three studies where participants generated emotional reinterpretations (reappraisals) for negative events and chose whether to implement them or distract themselves.
Sample
- Study 1: 52 undergraduate students (mean age 18.8, 61.5% female, mostly White).
- Study 2: 58 undergraduate students (mean age 18.7, 62.1% female, mostly White).
- Study 3: 134 adults recruited online (mean age 36.9, 48.5% female, mostly White).
Variables
Independent:
- Positive emotion after reappraisal generation
- Reappraisal plausibility
- Type of emotional motivation (feel better or understand stressor)
Dependent:
- Choice to implement reappraisal or distract oneself
Procedure
Participants:
- Viewed negative images or described personal stressful situations.
- Generated multiple possible reappraisals (positive or negative interpretations).
- Rated how positive they felt after generating each reappraisal.
- Rated how realistic (plausible) each reappraisal was.
- Decided whether to further elaborate (implement) on one reappraisal or instead engage in a distracting task.
Measures
- Positive Emotion: Self-reported ratings of positive feelings after generating reappraisals.
- Plausibility: Self-reported ratings of how realistic or believable the reappraisals were.
- Creativity (Study 3 only): Self-reported ratings of originality in reappraisals.
Statistical measures
- Mixed-effects regression analyses to predict implementation choices.
- Bayesian mediation analysis to explore indirect effects.
Results
- Participants consistently chose to implement reappraisals associated with higher positive emotions after generation.
- Higher plausibility increased implementation likelihood, especially with self-generated reappraisals.
- Positive emotion was a stronger predictor than plausibility across all studies.
- Negative reappraisals were frequently implemented despite decreasing positive emotions, likely driven by a motive for understanding rather than mood improvement.
Insight
These findings provide clarity on decision-making during emotion regulation, emphasizing that feeling positive post-generation strongly predicts choosing to implement reappraisal.
The study reveals that positive emotion signals successful progress in emotion regulation goals, making individuals persist with that strategy.
Plausibility also matters significantly because reappraisals seen as realistic are easier to elaborate upon.
The study uniquely clarifies that positive emotions play a central role even when understanding rather than feeling good is the primary motive.
It extends previous research by distinguishing clearly between the generation and implementation phases of reappraisal, opening avenues for exploring other factors like creativity or context-specific efficacy.
Future research should examine these choices longitudinally in real-world scenarios and consider reappraisal strategies provided interpersonally.
Clinical Implications
Clinicians and policymakers could leverage these insights to design emotion regulation interventions emphasizing the importance of immediate positive feedback during the initial generation phase.
Practitioners can help individuals create plausible, believable reappraisals and recognize when these reappraisals improve mood, encouraging continued elaboration.
Recognizing when individuals prematurely stop implementing effective reappraisals due to initially low positive emotions could reduce therapy dropout rates and enhance coping strategies.
Implementation training focusing explicitly on elaboration rather than merely generation of positive alternatives can enhance emotional resilience and therapy effectiveness, although clinicians must be aware of clients potentially rejecting useful strategies prematurely.
Strengths
- Clearly separates reappraisal generation from implementation, clarifying distinct emotional outcomes.
- Incorporates multiple robust statistical approaches ensuring strong methodological rigor.
- Uses both controlled (images) and ecologically valid (real-life stressors) scenarios to enhance external validity.
Limitations
- Sample mainly consists of young university students, limiting generalizability to broader populations.
- Study relies primarily on self-report measures, potentially introducing biases.
- Manipulated plausibility had limited impact, suggesting complexities in how participants perceive externally provided reappraisals.
Socratic Questions
- How might individual differences, like personality or past trauma, influence the choice to implement reappraisals?
- Could repeated failure to implement plausible reappraisals lead to maladaptive coping, like rumination?
- How might different cultural contexts affect the plausibility and effectiveness of cognitive reappraisals?
- If positive emotion strongly predicts reappraisal implementation, how might interventions enhance positive emotions during generation?
- In what contexts might distraction be more effective or beneficial than continued reappraisal implementation?
- How do everyday stressors compare to laboratory-induced emotions in terms of reappraisal implementation?
- Could the interpersonal provision of reappraisals from trusted individuals improve reappraisal plausibility and effectiveness?
