Me versus everyone: Discrepancies between general and personal emotion malleability beliefs predict clinical symptoms, affect, and emotion regulation.

IF 3.6 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL
Emotion Pub Date : 2025-08-21 DOI:10.1037/emo0001569
Elizabeth T Kneeland, Mabel Shanahan, Chéla Cunningham, Isabella Lattuada, Maya Cwalina
{"title":"Me versus everyone: Discrepancies between general and personal emotion malleability beliefs predict clinical symptoms, affect, and emotion regulation.","authors":"Elizabeth T Kneeland, Mabel Shanahan, Chéla Cunningham, Isabella Lattuada, Maya Cwalina","doi":"10.1037/emo0001569","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>One factor that relates to clinical symptoms, affect, and emotion regulation is beliefs that individuals hold about the nature of emotions, specifically the degree to which they view emotions as changeable (E. T. Kneeland, Dovidio, et al., 2016). Across two studies (Study 1, <i>N</i> = 371, data collected from June 2021 to May 2023; Study 2, <i>N</i> = 143, data collected from January 2023 to December 2023), we examined how the <i>discrepancy</i> between individuals' beliefs about the malleability of emotion in general relative to their own emotions related to and predicted clinical symptoms, affect, and emotion regulation efforts. Mechanisms linking the discrepancy in emotion beliefs to emotional distress and emotion regulation also were investigated, as well as how differences in emotion beliefs varied by depression status (Study 2). In line with hypotheses, a stronger bias toward viewing emotion in general as more malleable compared to one's own emotions was associated with higher psychological distress and less active emotion regulation concurrently and longitudinally. As expected, individuals with past depression or no history of depression had more of a bias toward viewing their own emotions as more malleable compared to emotion in general. The present studies address a gap in existing emotion belief research to clarify how discrepancies in general versus personal emotion beliefs are associated with emotional distress and emotion regulation and mechanisms in these relationships.143, data collected from January 2023 to December 2023), we examined (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":48417,"journal":{"name":"Emotion","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Emotion","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0001569","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

One factor that relates to clinical symptoms, affect, and emotion regulation is beliefs that individuals hold about the nature of emotions, specifically the degree to which they view emotions as changeable (E. T. Kneeland, Dovidio, et al., 2016). Across two studies (Study 1, N = 371, data collected from June 2021 to May 2023; Study 2, N = 143, data collected from January 2023 to December 2023), we examined how the discrepancy between individuals' beliefs about the malleability of emotion in general relative to their own emotions related to and predicted clinical symptoms, affect, and emotion regulation efforts. Mechanisms linking the discrepancy in emotion beliefs to emotional distress and emotion regulation also were investigated, as well as how differences in emotion beliefs varied by depression status (Study 2). In line with hypotheses, a stronger bias toward viewing emotion in general as more malleable compared to one's own emotions was associated with higher psychological distress and less active emotion regulation concurrently and longitudinally. As expected, individuals with past depression or no history of depression had more of a bias toward viewing their own emotions as more malleable compared to emotion in general. The present studies address a gap in existing emotion belief research to clarify how discrepancies in general versus personal emotion beliefs are associated with emotional distress and emotion regulation and mechanisms in these relationships.143, data collected from January 2023 to December 2023), we examined (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).

我与每个人:一般和个人情绪可塑性信念之间的差异预测临床症状、情感和情绪调节。
与临床症状、情感和情绪调节相关的一个因素是个体对情绪本质的信念,特别是他们认为情绪变化的程度(E. T. Kneeland, Dovidio等人,2016)。在两项研究中(研究1,N = 371,数据收集于2021年6月至2023年5月;研究2,N = 143,数据收集于2023年1月至2023年12月),我们研究了个体对情绪可延展性的信念与自身情绪之间的差异如何与临床症状、情感和情绪调节努力相关并预测它们。研究还探讨了情绪信念差异与情绪困扰和情绪调节的联系机制,以及情绪信念差异如何随抑郁状态而变化(研究2)。与假设一致,与自己的情绪相比,将情绪视为更具可塑性的更强烈的偏见,与更高的心理困扰和更少的积极情绪调节同时和纵向相关。不出所料,与一般情绪相比,过去患有抑郁症或没有抑郁症病史的人更倾向于认为自己的情绪更具可塑性。本研究旨在填补现有情绪信念研究的空白,阐明一般情绪信念与个人情绪信念的差异与情绪困扰和情绪调节的关系及其机制。143,数据收集于2023年1月至2023年12月),我们检查了(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA,版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Emotion
Emotion PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
8.40
自引率
7.10%
发文量
325
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊介绍: Emotion publishes significant contributions to the study of emotion from a wide range of theoretical traditions and research domains. The journal includes articles that advance knowledge and theory about all aspects of emotional processes, including reports of substantial empirical studies, scholarly reviews, and major theoretical articles. Submissions from all domains of emotion research are encouraged, including studies focusing on cultural, social, temperament and personality, cognitive, developmental, health, or biological variables that affect or are affected by emotional functioning. Both laboratory and field studies are appropriate for the journal, as are neuroimaging studies of emotional processes.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信