孤独与痛苦:情绪调节特征的比较

IF 1.5 4区 心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL
Alyssa J. Tan, Vincent O. Mancini, J. Gross, Amit Goldenberg, J. Badcock, M. Lim, R. Becerra, B. Jackson, D. Preece
{"title":"孤独与痛苦:情绪调节特征的比较","authors":"Alyssa J. Tan, Vincent O. Mancini, J. Gross, Amit Goldenberg, J. Badcock, M. Lim, R. Becerra, B. Jackson, D. Preece","doi":"10.1017/bec.2022.18","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Loneliness, a negative emotion stemming from the perception of unmet social needs, is a major public health concern. Current interventions often target social domains but produce small effects and are not as effective as established emotion regulation (ER)-based interventions for general psychological distress (i.e., depression/anxiety). Given that loneliness and distress are types of negative affect, we aimed to compare them within an ER framework by examining the amount of variance ER strategies accounted for in loneliness versus distress, and comparing the ER strategy profiles characterising them. Participants (N = 582, Mage = 22.31, 77.66% female) completed self-report measures of loneliness, distress, and use of 12 cognitive (e.g., cognitive reappraisal) or behavioural (e.g., expressive suppression) ER strategies. Regression analyses revealed that ER explained comparable variance in these constructs. Latent profile analysis identified seven profiles differing in ER patterns, with no distinct loneliness or distress profile identified. Rather, similar patterns of ER characterised these two constructs, involving the greater use of generally maladaptive strategies and the lesser use of generally adaptive strategies. However, loneliness was additionally characterised by less use of strategies involving social connection/expression. Overall, our study supports the utility of ER for understanding loneliness. Established ER-based frameworks/interventions for distress may have transdiagnostic utility in targeting loneliness.","PeriodicalId":46485,"journal":{"name":"Behaviour Change","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Loneliness Versus Distress: A Comparison of Emotion Regulation Profiles\",\"authors\":\"Alyssa J. Tan, Vincent O. Mancini, J. Gross, Amit Goldenberg, J. Badcock, M. Lim, R. Becerra, B. Jackson, D. Preece\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/bec.2022.18\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Loneliness, a negative emotion stemming from the perception of unmet social needs, is a major public health concern. Current interventions often target social domains but produce small effects and are not as effective as established emotion regulation (ER)-based interventions for general psychological distress (i.e., depression/anxiety). Given that loneliness and distress are types of negative affect, we aimed to compare them within an ER framework by examining the amount of variance ER strategies accounted for in loneliness versus distress, and comparing the ER strategy profiles characterising them. Participants (N = 582, Mage = 22.31, 77.66% female) completed self-report measures of loneliness, distress, and use of 12 cognitive (e.g., cognitive reappraisal) or behavioural (e.g., expressive suppression) ER strategies. Regression analyses revealed that ER explained comparable variance in these constructs. Latent profile analysis identified seven profiles differing in ER patterns, with no distinct loneliness or distress profile identified. Rather, similar patterns of ER characterised these two constructs, involving the greater use of generally maladaptive strategies and the lesser use of generally adaptive strategies. However, loneliness was additionally characterised by less use of strategies involving social connection/expression. Overall, our study supports the utility of ER for understanding loneliness. Established ER-based frameworks/interventions for distress may have transdiagnostic utility in targeting loneliness.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46485,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Behaviour Change\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Behaviour Change\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/bec.2022.18\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Behaviour Change","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/bec.2022.18","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

摘要

摘要孤独感是一种负面情绪,源于对未满足的社会需求的感知,是一个主要的公共卫生问题。目前的干预措施通常针对社会领域,但效果很小,不如基于情绪调节(ER)的一般心理困扰(即抑郁/焦虑)干预措施有效。鉴于孤独和痛苦是负面影响的类型,我们旨在通过检查ER策略在孤独和痛苦中的变化量,并比较表征它们的ER策略概况,在ER框架内对它们进行比较。参与者(N=582,Mage=22.31,77.66%女性)完成了对孤独、痛苦和12种认知(如认知重新评估)或行为(如表达抑制)ER策略的使用的自我报告测量。回归分析显示,ER解释了这些结构中的可比方差。潜在特征分析确定了ER模式不同的七个特征,没有发现明显的孤独或痛苦特征。相反,这两种结构具有相似的ER模式,包括更多地使用一般不适应策略和较少地使用一般适应策略。然而,孤独的另一个特点是较少使用涉及社会联系/表达的策略。总体而言,我们的研究支持ER在理解孤独感方面的效用。已建立的基于ER的痛苦框架/干预措施在针对孤独感方面可能具有跨诊断效用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Loneliness Versus Distress: A Comparison of Emotion Regulation Profiles
Abstract Loneliness, a negative emotion stemming from the perception of unmet social needs, is a major public health concern. Current interventions often target social domains but produce small effects and are not as effective as established emotion regulation (ER)-based interventions for general psychological distress (i.e., depression/anxiety). Given that loneliness and distress are types of negative affect, we aimed to compare them within an ER framework by examining the amount of variance ER strategies accounted for in loneliness versus distress, and comparing the ER strategy profiles characterising them. Participants (N = 582, Mage = 22.31, 77.66% female) completed self-report measures of loneliness, distress, and use of 12 cognitive (e.g., cognitive reappraisal) or behavioural (e.g., expressive suppression) ER strategies. Regression analyses revealed that ER explained comparable variance in these constructs. Latent profile analysis identified seven profiles differing in ER patterns, with no distinct loneliness or distress profile identified. Rather, similar patterns of ER characterised these two constructs, involving the greater use of generally maladaptive strategies and the lesser use of generally adaptive strategies. However, loneliness was additionally characterised by less use of strategies involving social connection/expression. Overall, our study supports the utility of ER for understanding loneliness. Established ER-based frameworks/interventions for distress may have transdiagnostic utility in targeting loneliness.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Behaviour Change
Behaviour Change PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
24
期刊介绍: Behaviour Change is the journal of the Australian Association for Cognitive and Behavioural Therapy and has long been considered a leader in its field. It is a quarterly journal that publishes research involving the application of behavioural and cognitive-behavioural principles and techniques to the assessment and treatment of various problems. Features of Behaviour Change include: original empirical studies using either single subject or group comparison methodologies review articles case studies brief technical and clinical notes book reviews special issues dealing with particular topics in depth.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信