emotion regulation process theory

In the complete process of emotions from triggering to peak to dissipation, there are multiple nodes that can be intervened and adjusted. Choosing appropriate adjustment strategies for different individuals and different scenarios is the most effective path to emotional management.

You must have encountered this situation: you were squeezing in the subway during the morning rush hour and someone stepped on the new shoes you just bought. The person slipped away without looking back. You clenched your fists and was about to curse, but suddenly you remembered that you had to report to the boss today, so you swallowed the anger on your lips, took out a wet tissue, wiped your shoes, and ran to the company. This action you complete subconsciously is the most life-like implementation of the emotion regulation process theory.

This theory was first proposed by Stanford University psychology professor James Gross in the 1990s. He compared the process of emotion generation to a river from top to bottom. The upstream is the premise of emotional triggering, and the downstream is the response after the emotion has appeared. The corresponding intervention nodes are also divided into two categories: those that have not yet produced strong emotions. When you are in a mood, you can choose whether to join in a situation that can easily make you explode (situation selection), whether you can change the embarrassing topic (situation modification), deliberately not look at the person who annoys you (pay attention to distribution), and think from another angle, "Maybe he steps on my shoes because there is an emergency at home" (cognitive reappraisal). These are all upstream premise attention adjustments.； When you are so angry that your heart beats faster and your words become inconvenient, drink water, take a deep breath, or even hide in a place where no one is around to curse. This is the downstream response, attention and regulation.

However, Gross received a lot of criticism when his model first became popular. The first to jump out and question were scholars from the cultural psychology school. They said that Gross's research samples were all Western college students and that the conclusions were too individualistic. In his early years, Gross believed that "suppressing emotions" was an inefficient response regulation and was harmful to the body and mind when used in the long term. However, research from the cultural psychology school showed that in East Asian collectives In the cultural context, "bear with it" often adapts to the situation: for example, at the New Year's dinner table, if your elders urge you to get married and have a baby, if you insist on pushing back and make the whole family unable to get off the stage, it is better to have a laugh and fool them. This kind of "suppression" can actually reduce the overall social cost, and it is not "maladaptive" at all.

Later, the rise of research on embodied cognition added a new dimension to this theory. In the past, everyone assumed that upstream cognitive reappraisal was the most advanced adjustment method. However, it was later discovered that many times when your emotions are high, your brain cannot move at all. It is better to pinch the stress ball twice, run twice in the corridor, or even drink half a glass of ice water. The body will calm down first, and then the cognition can follow. When I was doing EAP consulting at an Internet company two years ago, I met a little girl who worked in customer service. My boss always said that she was very emotional. Every time she was scolded by a customer, she would hide in the stairwell and cry for 5 minutes. According to traditional theory, her behavior was a "negative response adjustment" and should be changed. But if she really tried to hold it in, she would either not be able to help but quarrel with the customer. Come, or she would have insomnia and a headache when she got home from get off work. Later, we followed the process theory and gave her some adjustments: don’t hold it in, cry when you want to, or even put a pinch music device in the desk drawer. If you are scolded, squeeze it for 30 seconds. If you can’t help it, go to the stairwell, put on lipstick after crying, and then come back. On the contrary, her complaint rate has dropped by half, and she rarely complains about headaches anymore.

The easiest detour that many people take when learning this theory is to find some "optimal solution." A reader left me a message before, saying that every time he quarreled with his partner, he forced himself to re-evaluate cognitively, forcing himself to think "he didn't mean it". As a result, he became more and more angry every time, and it would be better to have a fight on the spot. In fact, there is no optimal strategy. If you argue with someone at two o'clock in the middle of the night and your mind can't move, but you still have to engage in cognitive reappraisal, aren't you going to make trouble for yourself? It's better to throw a pillow to blow off steam first, and then break it down after a nap when your mind is clear. Some people think that emotional regulation is to get rid of all negative emotions, which is even more nonsense. It is a normal emotional reaction to feel sad after the death of a loved one. If you have to force yourself to be "positive", it will cause emotional internal friction. The essence of regulation is never to eliminate emotions, but not to let emotions drag you away and do things you will regret later.

Speaking of which, this theory is still being updated. After all, human emotions are too complex to be completely captured by a few fixed nodes. But for us ordinary people, we don’t actually need to understand so many academic controversies. We know that emotions are not a scourge, nor is it proof that you are “not mature enough”. It is just a normal physiological and psychological reaction. You have several ways to adjust it. You don’t just blame yourself for being “emotional”. That’s enough.