Differentiate to Regulate : Low Negative Emotion Differentiation is Associated with Ineffective Emotion Regulation Use , but not Strategy Selection

Emotion differentiation, which involves experiencing and labeling emotions in a granular way, has been linked with well-being. It has been theorized that differentiating between emotions facilitates effective emotion regulation, but this link has yet to be comprehensively tested. In two experience-sampling studies, we examined how negative emotion differentiation was related to 1) emotion regulation strategy selection, and 2) the effectiveness of strategies in down-regulating negative emotion (Ns=200 and 101 participants; 34,660 and 6,282 measurements). Unexpectedly, we found few relationships between differentiation and the selection of putatively adaptive or maladaptive strategies. Instead, we found interactions between differentiation and strategies in predicting negative emotion. Among low differentiators, all strategies (Study 1) and 4 of 6 strategies (Study 2) were more strongly associated with increased negative emotion than among high differentiators. This suggests that low differentiation may hinder successful emotion regulation, supporting the idea that effective regulation may underlie differentiation benefits. EMOTION DIFFERENTIATION AND REGULATION 4 Sometimes you feel awful, but you cannot put your finger on any particular feeling – you feel angry, sad, and anxious all at once. At these times, you are showing low emotion differentiation. Emotion differentiation, or emotional granularity, is the ability to experience and label emotions precisely (Kashdan, Barrett, & McKnight, 2015). Differentiating between negative emotions is associated with well-being, and it is argued that this is because differentiation facilitates emotion regulation (Kashdan et al., 2015). When you can pinpoint your feelings not angry, not sad, but anxious you can successfully tailor regulation. This idea is central to theory but has not yet been empirically verified. We test this idea in two experience-sampling studies, investigating the associations between differentiation and emotion regulation strategy selection and effectiveness. Affect is generalized, rather than context-specific. This contrasts with discrete emotions, which deliver unique contextual information (Schwarz, 2010). This information may underlie the benefits of emotion differentiation, facilitating adaptive responding (Kashdan et al., 2015) and potentially enabling effective emotion regulation (Barrett & Gross, 2001). There are multiple ways in which discrete emotional information could assist in regulation. For example, discrete emotions provide information about emotional cause and context, directing regulation towards appropriate targets. The identification of discrete emotions could also assist in the selection of the most effective regulation strategies for those emotions, and help in specifying emotion goals. There is some empirical evidence supporting the link between differentiation and regulation. First, low differentiation is associated with stronger links between some maladaptive coping strategies and undesirable outcomes, including alcohol consumption and negative emotion (Kashdan, Ferssizidis, Collins, & Muraven, 2010), rumination and selfinjury (Zaki, Coifman, Rafaeli, Berenson, & Downey, 2013), and brooding and depressive symptoms (Starr, Hershenberg, Li, & Shaw, 2017). Second, differentiation is linked to EMOTION DIFFERENTIATION AND REGULATION 5 improved behavior regulation, including reduced aggression following anger (Pond et al., 2012) and reduced impulsivity (Tomko et al., 2015). These studies provide initial evidence for a link between differentiation and some specific strategies. However, theory suggests a deeper link, spanning multiple strategies and processes. To our knowledge, only one study tests this deeper link. Barrett, Gross, Christensen, and Benvenuto (2001) asked 53 people to retrospectively report how much they used nine regulation strategies over the previous two weeks, and averaged these strategies together as an index of regulation. For the next two weeks, participants reported emotion during their most negative daily experience, which was used for indices of emotion differentiation and intensity. Greater negative (but not positive) differentiation was associated with stronger regulation, particularly at high emotional intensity. This study suggests that differentiation is associated with increased regulation, but is limited in two respects. First, this study averaged all regulation strategies together, but strategies are differentially associated with well-being (Webb, Miles, & Sheeran, 2012). Thus, a strategy-specific approach is necessary. Second, this study does not investigate how effectively regulation shapes subsequent emotional outcomes. Given theory is centered around effective regulation, rather than increased regulation, such a test is crucial. Here, we examine how negative emotion differentiation relates to both emotion regulation strategy selection and effectiveness. We focus specifically on negative differentiation since it has been more consistently linked with well-being than positive differentiation (Kashdan et al., 2015). We take a strategy-specific approach, assessing three strategies generally effective at reducing negative emotion (reappraisal, acceptance, distraction), two strategies generally ineffective at reducing negative emotion (rumination, suppression), and social sharing. EMOTION DIFFERENTIATION AND REGULATION 6 We tested two sets of hypotheses. First, we examined whether differentiation was linked to strategy selection, operationalized as the degree to which each strategy was used. Rumination and suppression are negatively associated with well-being, and often seen as maladaptive (Gross & John, 2003; Nolen-Hoeksema, Wisco, & Lyubomirsky, 2008). In contrast, reappraisal and acceptance are positively associated with well-being, and often seen as adaptive (Ford, Lam, John, & Mauss, 2018; Gross & John, 2003). We hypothesized that differentiation would be positively associated with reappraisal and acceptance, and negatively associated with suppression and rumination (Hypothesis 1). Second, we examined whether differentiation was linked to strategy effectiveness, operationalized as the association between each strategy and subsequent negative emotion. Negative emotion reduction is only one component of effective regulation, but is our focus because it is the most common regulation goal in daily life (Riediger, Schmiedek, Wagner, & Lindenberger, 2009). We hypothesized that differentiation would moderate the relationship between strategies and negative emotion (Hypothesis 2). Among low differentiators, we hypothesized that all strategies would be associated with increased negative emotion (Hypothesis 2a), suggesting an inability to effectively implement any strategy. Among high differentiators, we hypothesized that reappraisal, acceptance, distraction, and sharing would be associated with decreased negative emotion (Hypothesis 2b), and that the effects of suppression and rumination on negative emotion would be attenuated (Hypothesis 2c). This would suggest effective use of putatively adaptive strategies and a buffer against maladaptive strategies. We tested these hypotheses in two experience-sampling studies. The first consisted of three experience-sampling periods across a year, investigating these relationships in everyday life. The second was conducted during a real-life emotional event, investigating these relationships in an intense emotional period. EMOTION DIFFERENTIATION AND REGULATION 7