Emotion regulation choice: a conceptual framework and supporting evidence.

By Gal Sheppes, S. Scheibe, Gaurav Suri, Peter T. Radu, Jens Blechert, James J. Gross. Journal of experimental psychology. General, 2014

603 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Applied Psychology, Clinical Psychology, Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/8e15b9341af1df9de6e438914cca43ff6b4af405

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Applied Psychology

In Clinical Psychology

In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

Citations in the corpus

Regulatory Flexibility (2013, background): “Might the same be true of emotion regulation strategies? Because disengagement is more often preferred in high-intensity situations (Sheppes et al., 2012), we might ask whether high-intensity situations are less amenable to feedback monitoring.”
Emotion Regulation Flexibility (2014, methodology): “Of note, these tools are 2 Our examples focus on the ER strategies of reappraisal and expressive suppression because there is a vast experimental literature documenting the mechanisms underlying their selection, implementation, and consequences (e.g. Gross 2013; Sheppes et al. 2014; Webb et al. 2012”
Transcending the “good & bad” and “here & now” in emotion regulation: Costs and benefits of strategies across regulatory stages (2020, methodology): “Applying our conceptual framework (Sheppes, 2014; Sheppes & Levin, 2013) to regulatory identification follows the same aforementioned logic according to which identification decisions would be determined by maximization of the benefits over costs of different regulatory options relative to not…”
Emotion Regulation: Current Status and Future Prospects (2015, background): “For example, people prefer reappraisal to distraction when emotion intensity is low but prefer distraction to reappraisal when emotion intensity is high, perhaps because at high intensity levels reappraisal is less effective (Sheppes, Scheibe, Suri, & Gross, 2011; Sheppes et al., 2014).”
Emotion regulation in context: Examining the spontaneous use of strategies across emotional intensity and type of emotion (2015, background): “Consistentwith priorwork,we expected the putatively adaptive strategies to be used more at lower levels of intensity and the putatively maladaptive strategies to be used more at high levels of intensity (Campbell-Sills et al., 2006; Sheppes et al., 2014).”
Play at Work: An Integrative Review and Agenda for Future Research (2018, background): “As such, we may understand when play elicits positive or negative outcomes by considering the effectiveness of play as an emotion regulation strategy (Sheppes et al., 2014; Gross, 2015).”
Emotion, Emotion Regulation, and Psychopathology (2014, background): “For example, in a series of studies, Sheppes and colleagues (Sheppes, Scheibe, Suri, & Gross, 2011; Sheppes et al., 2014) found that healthy participants chose to implement reappraisal in low-intensity emotional situations and distraction in high-intensity emotional situations.”
Emotions and Emotion Regulation in Intractable Conflict: Studying Emotional Processes Within a Unique Context (2015, background): “Other than levels of engagement or effectives, these and other emotion regulation strategies may differ in the amount of cognitive effort they demand, their appropriateness for different situations, and the different motivations associated with them (Sheppes et al., 2014).”
Emotion Regulatory Flexibility Sheds Light on the Elusive Relationship Between Repeated Traumatic Exposure and Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Symptoms (2016, methodology): “Specifically, we developed a novel performance-based paradigm that tests how individuals choose between engagement or disengagement regulatory options when dealing with emotional contexts that vary in their intensity (Sheppes et al., 2014; Sheppes, Scheibe, Suri, & Gross, 2011).”