Temporal orientation of positive reappraisal.

Although it is well established that positive reappraisal-changing the way one thinks about an emotional event to feel more positive about it-is an effective emotion regulation strategy, researchers have only recently begun to characterize the relative utility and effectiveness of different forms of positive reappraisal. We propose that temporal orientation-thinking about the past versus the future-may be one particularly useful characterization of positive reappraisal. In three studies, participants were instructed to use positive reappraisal to feel better about a stressor and we either measured (Studies 1 and 3) or manipulated (Study 2) the orientation of those reappraisals to the future or to the past. The findings demonstrated that people tended to use reappraisals that were more future oriented than past oriented (Studies 1 and 3). In addition, although both forms of reappraisals were effective at regulating emotion, future-oriented reappraisals were slightly more effective at increasing positive emotion (Study 2) and higher in perceived effectiveness (Study 3). Lastly, people generated reappraisals that were more oriented to the past in response to stressors that were familiar (Studies 1 and 3) and/or chronic (Study 3); however, the future orientation of their reappraisals was insensitive to the characteristics of the stressors. Our results suggest that there is a clear distinction in the utility and effectiveness of past-oriented and future-oriented forms of positive reappraisal, suggesting that this novel characterization of positive reappraisals by their temporal orientation may prove critical for more fully understanding the effectiveness of positive reappraisal for regulating emotion. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

How do people use reappraisal? An investigation of selection frequency and affective outcomes of reappraisal tactics.

Although the effects of different emotion regulation strategies are well-documented, most studies to date have focused on the selection and implementation of broad strategies, while overlooking the selection and implementation of specific tactics to enact those strategies. The present research investigated the strategy of cognitive reappraisal and the differences in selection frequency and affective outcomes that are associated with the implementation of different reappraisal tactics to enact that strategy. Participants completed a laboratory task in which they were instructed to reappraise or not to reappraise negative images and reported on their use of specific reappraisal tactics for every trial. Using established reappraisal tactic coding, we assessed how people selected from among common tactics for each image (Study 1) and all tactics (Study 2) and implemented those tactics to reappraise negative images. We compared reappraisal tactic selection and implementation when used during instructed reappraisal versus during spontaneous reappraisal, in the nonreappraise condition. Results of both studies indicate that tactics were used more often when instructed to reappraise versus when spontaneously reappraising. Participants used some tactics (e.g., reality challenge) more frequently compared to the rest of the tactics in both conditions. Negative affect was lower following instructed versus spontaneous reappraisal. Some tactics (e.g., change current circumstances) were more effective at decreasing negative affect in both conditions. Knowing which reappraisal tactics are most frequently selected, and their affective outcomes when used when prompted or spontaneously, may help us better understand how to improve people's ability to use reappraisal to achieve their emotional goals. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

What Parts of Reappraisal Make Us Feel Better? Dissociating the Generation of Reappraisals from Their Implementation.

Although reappraisal has been shown to be a highly successfully emotion regulation strategy, it requires several sequential steps, and it is still unclear when in the reappraisal process emotion changes. We experimentally dissociated the generation of reappraisals from their implementation and hypothesized that the biggest emotional effects would occur during implementation. In Study 1, participants (N = 106) saw a negative image and generated either just positive reappraisals (GEN ++) or positive and negative reappraisals (GEN +-). They then saw the image again and implemented either their positive reappraisals (for the GEN ++ and half of the GEN +- trials) or negative reappraisals (for the other half of GEN +- trials). Although there were small and significant changes in emotion when generating reappraisals, the robust changes in emotion that are typically observed during reappraisal occurred during implementation. In Study 2 (N = 130), we directly replicated the findings from Study 1 and demonstrated that this small emotional effect from just generating reappraisals was not due to discounting the forthcoming implementation goal. In summary, for the first time, we successfully dissociated reappraisal generation from implementation and show that the biggest emotional effects occur during implementation. We discuss the implications of these findings for understanding emotion regulation, the neural underpinnings of reappraisal, and the conditions for reappraisal success in clinical contexts. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s42761-022-00129-2.

Affect labelling increases the intensity of positive emotions.

Although affect labelling has been widely reported to decrease negative emotions, it is less clear whether affect labelling also decreases positive emotions. In four studies, we explored how affect labelling (choosing the emotion that best corresponds with the image), content labelling (choosing the word that best corresponds with the content of the image), and simply viewing images influence positive and negative emotions. Labelling positive emotions led participants to report higher positive emotional intensity than did content labelling or just viewing the image (Study 1, N = 49), and this effect persisted regardless of whether they labelled emotions during or after the image (Study 2, N = 116), rated the intensity or positivity of their emotions (Study 3, N = 120), or rated their emotions after a delay or no delay (Study 4, N = 120). Surprisingly, we did not replicate the previous findings on affect labelling and negative emotion, instead showing that content labelling of negative emotional images tended to be the most consistent predictor of decreased negative emotions. Our results challenge the formulation that affect labelling leads to the automatic downregulation of emotions and instead suggest that it might be an effective mechanism in the upregulation of positive emotions.