Shame on me for needing you: A multistudy examination of links between receiving interpersonal emotion regulation and experiencing shame.

Recent theory and research have drawn attention to interpersonal dimensions of emotion regulation. Yet, few empirical investigations of the outcomes of interpersonal emotion regulation have been conducted. We propose that one negative affective outcome of received interpersonal emotion regulation of conceptual and practical interest is shame. In the present series of studies, participants from six disparate samples reported on experiences of receiving interpersonal emotion regulation using autobiographical recall and ecological sampling paradigms (total analyzed n = 1,868; total analyzed k = 2,515 instances of receiving interpersonal emotion regulation). We sought to quantify the frequency and distinctiveness of shame as an outcome of receiving interpersonal emotion regulation. We used an exploratory-confirmatory approach to identify robust and generalizable correlates of shame. We considered individual (e.g., trait external shame-proneness), situational (e.g., desire for regulation), relational (e.g., perceived closeness with the provider), and interaction-specific (e.g., perceptions of provider hostility) variables. Our results indicate that it is not uncommon for people to experience receiving interpersonal emotion regulation as shame-inducing, and these perceptions are distinct from their evaluations of the overall helpfulness of the interaction. An internal mini meta-analysis showed that the strongest correlates of shame across studies and samples were individual differences in nonacceptance of negative emotions and expressive suppression and interaction-specific ratings of provider responsiveness and hostility. We discuss the conceptual, methodological, and practical implications of these findings for studying interpersonal emotion regulation and shame. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Momentary Emotion Goals and Spontaneous Emotion Regulation in Daily Life: An Ecological Momentary Assessment Study of Desire for High Versus Low Arousal Positive Emotion.

Recent research has highlighted that emotion regulation strategy use varies both between and within people, and specific individual and contextual differences shape strategy use. Further, use of specific emotion regulation strategies relates to a wide array of differential outcomes, including mental health and behavior. Emotion goals (desire for a given emotion state) are thought to play a particularly important role in shaping people's use of emotion regulation strategies; yet, surprisingly little is known about whether and how momentary emotion goals predict spontaneous strategy use in daily life. In the present investigation, we examined whether ideal desire for high versus low arousal positive affect was associated with subsequent use of specific emotion regulation strategies. Undergraduate participants (final N = 101) completed ecological momentary assessments (final ks = 1,932 for contemporaneous analyses, 1,386 for time-lagged analyses) of their momentary experienced affect, momentary desire for high versus low arousal positive affect, and emotion regulation. Desire for higher arousal predicted greater use of three disengagement strategies: distraction, expressive suppression, and experiential suppression. None of these strategies, though, were associated with sustained enhancement of high arousal (or low arousal) positive affect. These findings point to a possible disconnect between the strategies that people tend to use when they want to feel more arousal and the affective outcomes associated with use of those strategies.

Beliefs About One's Non-Suicidal Self-Injury: The Experiences of Self-Injury Questionnaire (ESIQ).

OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to develop and validate a measure of self-rated positive and negative beliefs about one's non-suicidal self-injury (NSSI), the Experiences of Self-Injury Questionnaire (ESIQ). METHOD: Psychometric properties and validation against NSSI severity and shame were tested in two U.S. and two U.K. samples of individuals who endorsed a history of NSSI. RESULTS: Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses indicated five factors. Subscales were labeled Positive Beliefs, Personal Dislike, Interpersonal Concern, Emotional Suppression, and Emotional Expression. The Positive Beliefs Subscale covers beliefs that NSSI is valuable. Scores on this subscale were associated with endorsement of NSSI frequency, NSSI urges, and perceived likelihood of future NSSI. Other subscales showed validity in that they all showed unique effects on outcome indices of NSSI severity or shame. CONCLUSION: The ESIQ shows promise as a brief reliable measure of beliefs about and experiences of NSSI.

Development of a brief online intervention to address aggression in the context of emotion-related impulsivity: Evidence from a wait-list controlled trial.

Trait-like tendencies to respond impulsively to emotion, labelled emotion-related impulsivity, are robustly related to aggression. We developed and tested an online intervention to address emotion-related impulsivity and aggression. The 6-session intervention focused on behavioral techniques shown to decrease arousal and aggression, supplemented with implementation intentions and smartphone prompts to facilitate skills transfer into daily life. First, we piloted the intervention in-person with 4 people. Then, 235 participants were randomly assigned to take the online intervention immediately or after a wait-list period; those in the waitlist were then invited to take part in the intervention. Participants completed the self-rated Feelings Trigger Action Scale to assess emotion-related impulsivity, the interview-based Modified Overt Aggression Scale and the self-rated Buss Perry Aggression Questionnaire. Participants who took part in the treatment completed daily anger logs. Attrition, as with other online programs, was high; however, treatment completers reported high satisfaction, and outcomes changed more rapidly during treatment than waitlist across all key outcome indices. In analyses including all participants who took part in the treatment (immediate or delayed), we observed moderate-to-large treatment gains, which were maintained as of the 3-month follow-up assessment. This work supports the usefulness of an intervention for addressing emotion-related impulsivity and aggression.

Maladaptive behavior and affect regulation: A functionalist perspective.

Clinical science has benefited tremendously from taking seriously the proposition that putatively maladaptive behaviors serve psychological functions, prominently among these affect regulation (AR). These functionalist accounts have not only advanced basic clinical science, but also formed the bedrock for the development of effective treatments. Drawing heavily on reinforcement learning theory, we aim to elucidate functional relationships between maladaptive behavior and AR. Specifically, we take the view that maladaptive behaviors are frequently motivated and reinforced by hedonic AR functions (i.e., decreasing negative affect and increasing positive affect) but are also susceptible to becoming stimulus-bound habits. We review empirical evidence related to one such behavior, nonsuicidal self-injury. We close with a brief reflection on future directions. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

A brief online intervention to address aggression in the context of emotion-related impulsivity for those treated for bipolar disorder: Feasibility, acceptability and pilot outcome data.

Although aggression is related to manic symptoms among those with bipolar disorder, new work suggests that some continue to experience elevations of aggression after remission. This aggression post-remission appears related to a more general tendency to respond impulsively to states of emotion, labelled emotion-related impulsivity. We recently developed the first intervention designed to address aggression in the context of emotion-related impulsivity. Here, we describe feasibility, acceptability, and pilot data on outcomes for 21 persons who received treatment for bipolar disorder and endorsed high levels of aggression and emotion-related impulsivity. As with other interventions for aggression or bipolar disorder, attrition levels were high. Those who completed the intervention showed large changes in aggression using the interview-based Modified Overt Aggression Scale that were sustained through three months and not observed during wait list control. Although they also showed declines in the self-rated Buss-Perry Aggression Questionnaire and in self-rated emotion-related impulsivity as assessed with the Feelings Trigger Action Scale, these self-ratings also declined during the waitlist control. t Despite the limitations, the findings provide the first evidence that a brief, easily disseminated intervention could have promise for reducing aggression among those with bipolar disorder.