Emotion Regulation Styles And The Tendency To Learn From Academic Failures

Emotion regulation refers to the processes by which individuals influence which emotions they have, when they have them, and how they experience and express these emotions.

In the classroom, emotion regulation plays a crucial role in how students handle academic challenges, stress, and failure.

Effective emotion regulation can lead to better focus, improved learning outcomes, and healthier social interactions, while poor regulation may result in disengagement, anxiety, or disruptive behaviors.

Sharabi, Y., & Roth, G. (2024). Emotion regulation styles and the tendency to learn from academic failures. British Journal of Educational Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12696

Key Points

• Integrative emotion regulation (IER) is positively associated with adaptive responses to academic failure, including learning from failure and engagement.
• Suppressive emotion regulation (SER) and emotion dysregulation are related to maladaptive responses to failure.
• Adaptive coping practices mediate the relationship between IER and learning from failure.
• Learning from failure mediates the relationship between IER and cognitive engagement following failure.
• The ability to attend to and explore negative emotions may facilitate learning even in the face of frustration.
• Emotion regulation styles play an important role in how students respond to and learn from academic failures.
• This research has implications for educational practices and interventions aimed at helping students cope with failure.

Rationale

Academic failures are inevitable in learning processes and can potentially foster learning (Kapur, 2008; Keith & Frese, 2005).

However, negative emotions associated with failure may present an obstacle for learning, leading to disengagement and avoidance (Eskreis-Winkler & Fishbach, 2019).

While research has examined various factors influencing the tendency to learn from failure, such as achievement goals (Dweck & Leggett, 1988) and self-concept (Tulis et al., 2018), the role of emotion regulation styles has been relatively neglected (Tulis et al., 2015).

Self-determination theory (SDT) posits that negative emotions can serve as informational inputs assisting in the choice and self-guidance of actions (Vansteenkiste et al., 2010).

SDT differentiates between three styles of emotion regulation: integrative emotion regulation (IER), suppressive emotion regulation (SER), and amotivated emotion regulation (Ryan & Deci, 2017).

This study aims to explore the associations between these emotion regulation styles and learning from failure among adolescents, addressing a gap in the literature and potentially informing educational practices.

Method

The research consisted of two studies: one cross-sectional and one longitudinal design.

Procedure

Study 1 (Cross-sectional):

• Participants completed online self-report questionnaires measuring emotion regulation styles, coping practices, and tendency to learn from failure.

Study 2 (Longitudinal):

• First measurement: Participants completed measures of emotion regulation styles, math efficacy, and engagement.
• Second measurement (2 months later): Participants who perceived failure in math completed measures of adaptive responses to failure and math engagement.

Sample

Study 1:

• 184 Israeli adolescents aged 14-18 (Mean age = 16.55; SD = 1.2; 55% girls)
• Majority middle class (88.6%)

Study 2:

• Initially 565 adolescents (8-12 graders)
• Main analysis based on 192 adolescents who perceived failing math grades
• Mean age = 16.49, SD = 1.58; 24.5% males
• 80% reported middle or upper-middle SES

Measures

1. Emotion Regulation Styles:
   • Integrative Emotion Regulation (IER)
   • Suppressive Emotion Regulation (SER)
   • Dysregulation
2. Coping with Academic Failure:
   • Instrumental Help-Seeking
   • Emotional Support-Seeking
   • Positive Reinterpretation and Growth (Study 2 only)
   • Denial (Study 1 only)
   • Blaming Others (Study 1 only)
   • Rumination (Study 1 only)
3. Learning from Failure
4. Classroom Engagement:
   • Behavioral Engagement
   • Cognitive Engagement
5. Math Efficacy (Study 2 only)
6. Academic Efficacy (Study 1 only)
7. Mastery Goals (Study 1 only)

Statistical Measures

• Descriptive statistics and correlations
• Multiple regression analyses
• Bootstrapping mediation analysis (Study 2)

Results

Hypothesis 1: IER would be positively associated with adaptive responses to failure and learning from failure.

• Supported in both studies. IER was positively related to adaptive coping practices and learning from failure.

---

Hypothesis 2: SER and dysregulation would be related to maladaptive coping practices.

• Partially supported. SER and dysregulation were positively related to some maladaptive responses and negatively related to some adaptive responses.

---

Hypothesis 3: Adaptive coping practices would mediate the association between IER and learning from failure.

• Supported in Study 2. All three adaptive coping practices (emotional support, help-seeking, and positive reinterpretation) mediated the relationship between IER and learning from failure.

---

Hypothesis 4: Learning from failure would mediate the association between IER and cognitive engagement following failure.

• Supported in Study 2 for cognitive engagement, but not tested for behavioral engagement due to weak initial correlation.

Insight

This research provides valuable insights into the role of emotion regulation styles in learning from academic failures.

The findings suggest that the ability to be attentive to and explore negative emotions (IER) may facilitate learning even in the face of frustration.

This is in contrast to consistently suppressing or minimizing negative emotions (SER) or being overwhelmed by them (dysregulation), which may hinder adaptive responses to failure.

The study extends previous research by focusing on emotion regulation styles as antecedents of learning from failure, an area that has been relatively understudied.

It demonstrates that IER not only predicts adaptive coping practices but also indirectly influences learning from failure and subsequent cognitive engagement.

These findings have important implications for educational practices. Instead of avoiding challenges to prevent failure and negative emotions, educators might focus on helping students develop more adaptive emotion regulation strategies.

This could involve teaching students to view negative emotions as informative rather than threatening, potentially leading to more effective learning from failure experiences.

Future research could explore the development and implementation of interventions aimed at fostering IER in educational settings.

Additionally, investigating the long-term effects of different emotion regulation styles on academic achievement and well-being could provide further insights into their importance in educational contexts.

Strengths

This study had several methodological strengths, including:

1. Use of both cross-sectional and longitudinal designs, allowing for more robust conclusions.
2. Examination of specific failure experiences in math (Study 2), providing context-specific insights.
3. Control for alternative explanations such as academic efficacy and mastery goals.
4. Use of mediation analyses to explore the mechanisms linking emotion regulation to learning from failure and engagement.
5. Large sample sizes, increasing statistical power and generalizability of findings.

Limitations

This study also had several methodological limitations, including:

1. Reliance on self-report measures, which may be subject to bias.
2. Limited geographical scope (Israeli adolescents), potentially affecting generalizability to other cultures.
3. Focus on math failure in Study 2, which may not generalize to other academic subjects.
4. Lack of experimental manipulation, limiting causal inferences.
5. Relatively short time frame in the longitudinal study (2 months), which may not capture long-term effects.

Implications

The results of this study have significant implications for educational practice and policy:

1. Emotion Regulation Training: Schools could implement programs to help students develop integrative emotion regulation skills, potentially improving their ability to learn from failures.
2. Teacher Education: Teachers could be trained to recognize and support different emotion regulation styles, helping students navigate academic challenges more effectively.
3. Parental Involvement: Parents could be educated on the importance of emotion regulation in academic success, encouraging supportive home environments.
4. Curriculum Design: Educational curricula could be designed to incorporate opportunities for students to practice adaptive responses to failure, fostering resilience and learning.
5. Assessment Practices: Evaluation methods could be reviewed to ensure they support learning from failure rather than promoting avoidance or disengagement.
6. Mental Health Support: Schools could enhance mental health support services, recognizing the link between emotion regulation and academic success.
7. Personalized Learning: Understanding individual differences in emotion regulation could inform more personalized approaches to education.

These implications underscore the importance of considering emotional processes in educational settings, moving beyond a sole focus on cognitive factors in learning and academic achievement.

References

Primary reference

Sharabi, Y., & Roth, G. (2024). Emotion regulation styles and the tendency to learn from academic failures. British Journal of Educational Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12696

Other references

Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological review, 95(2), 256. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.95.2.256

Eskreis-Winkler, L., & Fishbach, A. (2019). Not learning from failure—The greatest failure of all. Psychological science, 30(12), 1733-1744. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797619881133

Kapur, M. (2008). Productive failure. Cognition and Instruction, 26, 379-424.

Keith, N., & Frese, M. (2005). Self-regulation in error management training: emotion control and metacognition as mediators of performance effects. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(4), 677.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. Guilford Press.

Tulis, M., Steuer, G., & Dresel, M. (2015). Learning from errors: Process and contextual conditions. Towards a model of individual processes within context. In M. Gartmeier, H. Gruber, T. Hascher, & H. Heid (Eds.), Fehler: Ihre funktionen im kontext individueller und gesellschaftlicher entwicklung (pp. 53–70). Waxmann.

Tulis, M., Steuer, G., & Dresel, M. (2018). Positive beliefs about errors as an important element of adaptive individual dealing with errors during academic learning. Educational Psychology, 38, 139–158. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2017.1384536

Vansteenkiste, M., Niemiec, C. P., & Soenens, B. (2010). The development of the five mini-theories of self-determination theory: A historical overview, emerging trends, and future directions. In T. C. Urdan & S. A. Karabenick (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement: Vol. 16A: The decade ahead: Theoretical perspectives on motivation and achievement (pp. 105–165). Emerald Group.

Keep Learning

Socratic Questions for Discussion:

1. How might cultural differences impact the relationship between emotion regulation styles and learning from failure? How could we investigate this?
2. What ethical considerations should be taken into account when designing interventions to promote integrative emotion regulation in educational settings?
3. How might the findings of this study apply to other domains beyond academic learning, such as sports or professional development?
4. In what ways could technology be leveraged to support the development of adaptive emotion regulation skills in students?
5. How might the relationship between emotion regulation and learning from failure change across different developmental stages, from early childhood to adulthood?
6. What role might teacher emotion regulation play in fostering adaptive responses to failure in students? How could this be studied?
7. How might the findings of this study inform approaches to high-stakes testing and educational assessment?
8. In what ways could the principles of integrative emotion regulation be incorporated into classroom management strategies?
9. How might different educational philosophies or approaches (e.g., Montessori, project-based learning) align with or diverge from the findings of this study?
10. What potential unintended consequences could arise from emphasizing integrative emotion regulation in educational settings, and how might these be mitigated?