Matter over Mind: Comparing Emotion Regulation Techniques with Ego Depletion

It has been found that tasks that require self-control deplete our willpower gradually over time, and have been linked with glucose levels. This “ego depletion” effect has rarely been tested in emotional regulation. The depletion effect (by means of the mentally challenging Stroop task) was compared with two emotional self-regulation strategies by pairing them in four conditions. Half of all participants underwent the Stroop task, and all received instructions for viewing a video clip asking them to either suppress or reappraise their reaction to the film. Participants were then shown a brief video clip invoking disgust, as measured by an emotional rating scale. It was found that of the four proposed conditions (non-depletion/reappraisal, depletion/reappraisal, non-depletion/suppression, depletion/suppression), there were no significant differences in selfreport of arousal or disgust but a main effect approaching significance in self-report of tension. It was also hypothesized that those in both suppression conditions will experience greater change in tension and arousal than reappraisal conditions. Essentially, it is thought that our glucose levels will be more effective in determining emotional intensity and physiological activation than our conscious strategies. RUNNING HEAD: COMPARING EMOTION REGULATION, EGO DEPLETION 3 Matter over Mind: Comparing Emotional Regulation Techniques with Ego Depletion There has been great interest in the field of emotional research into emotional selfregulation lately, especially since the recent research by Baumeister & Tierney (2011) of the role of glucose level in decision making, willpower, and emotional volatility. Any form of emotional labor (suppression, reappraisal, etc.) reduces emotionally expressive behavior, but reappraisal techniques have been found to be more successful than others (Gross, 1998). However, the effects of these strategies have rarely been directly compared with glucose levels. Models of Emotion Regulation Before examining emotional regulation directly, it’s important to examine the models of emotion researchers have worked from so as to understand the significance of the methods of regulation they manipulated. Gross (1998) used a process model of emotion in his study of antecedentand response-focused regulation technique. In this model, an initial evaluation of the internal or external emotional climate leads to a coordinated set of behavioral, physiological, and experiential response tendencies (p. 225). These tendencies are highly adapted to the situation. While this model, like all others, is limited in scope and neglects certain details of the emotional experience, it is well-suited to understanding emotional regulation. Gross manipulated the input of this system to study antecedent-focused regulation (the “reappraisal” method) and compared this to manipulation of the response-focused regulation (the “suppression” method). Gross expands on this process model in his Handbook of Emotional Regulation (2007), renaming it the modal model. In this linear model, the ubiquitous situation and response are separated by a “black box” containing attention and appraisal (Gross & Thompson, 2007). A RUNNING HEAD: COMPARING EMOTION REGULATION, EGO DEPLETION 4 situation occurs, most often though not exclusively externally, and we have our attention drawn to it. We muster an appraisal which leads to a modulated set of responses. Gross notes that emotional responses can often change the situation that brought them about, leading to further appraisals. The relationship between emotions and self-regulation has been conceptualized in many ways. Butler (2011) reviewed three of these as they were related to health. First, she found that our overall self-regulatory system was made up of many fragments, one of which being emotion, and that this system works to adapt our behavioral tendencies and responses to achieve goals and fit the situation. Emotions are cues to the environment and let us know when changes are necessary to be most efficient. For example, if we have a goal of finding a partner and marrying and we feel romantic attraction to one person versus another, we will adapt behaviorally to devote greater courting attention to that person over other viable mates. Second, Butler (2011) described an internal feedback loop involving the central nervous system, environment, and the rest of the body that works to keep us functionally balanced and performing optimally. This perspective views health as a well-regulated system and psychopathology as dysregulation of affect or physical response to each other or the environment. For example, anxiety can work in a feedback loop during situations prompting an appraisal of danger. We pick up on the cues and feel fear while our sympathetic nervous system responds with physiological preparedness for fight or flight. If we were confronted with a bear alone in the woods, a fearful emotional response and physiological reactivity would be appropriate. If we were swimming in shark-infested waters, anxiety responses that prompted us to be vigilant for dark shapes in the water would also be appropriate. However, a powerful fear response and sympathetic activation in response to a public speaking situation would not be RUNNING HEAD: COMPARING EMOTION REGULATION, EGO DEPLETION 5 adaptive or encourage optimal functioning and hence indicative of dysregulation (in this case, social phobia). Third, Butler (2011) embraced a common research topic that finds emotions themselves can be the focus of self-regulatory attempts. This perspective most directly encompasses the efforts of the current study, and indeed Butler describes Gross’ (1998) research with antecedentand response-focused regulation. For an example of this perspective, I will return to public speaking. If you know that public speaking tends to make you nervous and tense, you may practice relaxation techniques prior to your presentation as a form of antecedent regulation. If you are in the middle of your presentation and notice your hands shaking, sweat on your brow, and find yourself forgetting or garbling your words, you may try to hide your nerves and suppress your physical response as a form of response regulation. Gross (1998) directly compared emotional self-regulation strategies, distinguishing between antecedent-focused methods that occur before emotions are fully generated and response-focused methods that occur after an emotion has developed. Participants watched a disgusting film as their physiological responses were recorded, and filled out an emotional rating form before and afterwards to assess baseline and post-film experience. The reappraisal (antecedent-focused) condition was told to “think about the film in such a way that they would feel nothing,” while the suppression (response-focused) condition was told to “behave in such a way that someone watching them would not know they were feeling anything” (p. 227). The control condition was simply told to watch the film. Both emotional regulation methods were effective in reducing emotion expressive behavior compared to the control, but the reappraisal method decreased disgust experience and the suppression method increased arousal of the sympathetic nervous system, or the “fight or flight” response. The suppression condition showed RUNNING HEAD: COMPARING EMOTION REGULATION, EGO DEPLETION 6 significant decreases in finger pulse amplitude (which indicated what Gross believed to be vasoconstriction, a physiological effect of sympathetic activation) and increases in skin conductance (Gross, 1998; Gross & Levenson, 1993). Butler (2011) provides a model of self-regulation that is directly connected to the autonomic nervous system. The Neurovisceral Integration Model (NIM) supports a global selfregulatory system encompassing emotion, cognition, and physiology. Butler reviews literature that has found a relationship between high heart rate variability and parasympathetic activation. Hence, she argues that if one trusts the NIM model, then high heart rate variability should be associated with more effective self-regulation, and that low heart rate variability (indicating sympathetic activation) is associated with poorer self-regulation. The two regulation techniques have a long history of study in very different fields. Gross (1998) notes that the literature exploring psychological health has primarily focused on antecedent methods of regulation taking place before emotions are triggered. The physical health literature, however, is focused more on researching response regulation and dealing with emotions once they are already present (p. 226). For example, in their investigation of the relationship between metabolic syndrome and emotion regulation Kinnunen, Kokkonen, Kaprio, & Pulkkinen (2005) found a significantly positive correlation between low metabolic syndrome factor and high use of “repair” as an emotion regulation technique. The researchers defined “repair” as technique of positive thinking to boost mood and offset current stress, assessed by statements on a survey like “I am imagining something nice to improve my mood” and “I am planning positive things to keep my mood up” (p. 514-515). Other researchers have created similar studies and found support for differences in emotion regulation. Alberts, Schneider, & Martijn (2012) had participants watch a video that RUNNING HEAD: COMPARING EMOTION REGULATION, EGO DEPLETION 7 invoked sadness before performing a self-control task. They knew from previous studies that the alteration of emotional experience draws upon mental resources, and that performance on a subsequent self-control test (in this case, the Stroop task) would be diminished. This was the result for a group instructed to suppress their emotions during the video. Another group, instructed in acceptance-based coping, however, performed better on the Stroop than both the suppression group and a control group give