What are the theories of emotion regulation?

At present, emotion regulation theories that have been proven in practice in the fields of clinical psychology and public emotion guidance and have a wide range of applications include three core categories: process-oriented emotion regulation theory, positive emotion expansion and construction theory, and meta-emotion regulation theory. Research related to embodied emotion regulation that has emerged in recent years has gradually formed an independent practice system.

The most commonly used theory at present is the process orientation theory proposed by Gross of Stanford University. It is equivalent to drawing a timeline operation map for the development of emotions, from situation selection and situation modification before the emotion occurs, to attention shifting and cognitive restructuring when the emotion has just emerged, to response adjustment after the emotion has exploded. Each node has a corresponding intervention method. For example, if you have to give a report to the whole company next week, you can choose content you are familiar with to make PPT half a month in advance, and repeatedly ask colleagues to simulate the lecture. This is the earliest situation correction, which can reduce the probability of tension from the root cause. ； If your heart starts to beat faster when you are already standing on the edge of the stage, doing abdominal breathing and squeezing the stress relief toys in your hands at this time are the final reaction adjustments. There was controversy in the academic circles in the early years. They felt that this theory was too linear. After all, in reality, people do not adjust their emotions according to nodes. They often do mental construction for themselves while taking deep breaths. Later, Gross also revised the theory and added the dynamic interaction of different adjustment strategies. It is now the most commonly used framework in EAP training and psychological science.

If the process-oriented theory is a "one-of-a-kind" approach, then Fredrickson's theory of expanded construction of positive emotions points out a shortcut to pave the way in advance. The core logic of this theory is simple: Positive emotions are not the "opposite" of negative emotions, but can broaden your cognitive bandwidth and help you respond to negative events more flexibly. I once met an operation manager who stayed up late every night to change the plan before a major promotion. She would easily collapse as soon as her boss pushed her back. She would cry for half an hour in front of a blank document and couldn't move. Later, I asked her to spend two minutes every time before changing the plan to refresh two short videos of cats trampling on breasts that she had saved to save some happiness before starting work. On the contrary, she rarely collapsed to the point where she couldn't move. In the early years, some people felt that this theory was too similar to "Chicken Soup for the Soul." Why would you need psychological counseling if you thought happiness could solve your problems? Later, brain science research also proved that moderate positive emotions can increase the cognitive flexibility of the prefrontal lobe by about 30%. It can indeed help people break out of the endless cycle of "the more annoying they become, the more stuck they become, the more annoying they become." This is not just empty talk.

However, many people have had this feeling: I know all the methods, but when they are really angry/emo, they forget everything, and even go to the doctor in a hurry, but the methods they use only add fuel to the fire. This is the problem that meta-emotion regulation theory aims to solve. The core of this theory is that you not only need to be able to regulate your emotions, but you must also be able to jump out and notice "How am I regulating my emotions now?" Will this method work for me in the short and long term? ”For example, many people like to eat sweets when they are anxious. They feel really good at the moment. After eating, they look at the scale and fall into new anxiety. Essentially, they lack the ability to perceive meta-emotions and only focus on the immediate emotional relief without realizing the long-term side effects of this strategy. I now conduct emotional exercises with visitors. In the first two weeks, I basically don’t teach them any adjustment methods. I first ask them to keep an emotional diary. After each mood swing, they write down, “What method did I just use to adjust my emotions?” What is the effect? "Should I change it next time?" is actually practicing the emotional ability. Once you practice this, you don't need to memorize a bunch of adjustment techniques, and you can find the method that best suits you.

There is also a more down-to-earth theoretical branch that has become very popular in the past two years, which is embodied emotion regulation. The core logic is that emotions are not simply psychological activities, but are bound to the physical state. There is no need to work hard on psychological construction, and the emotion can be directly adjusted by changing the physical state. For example, when your mood is so low that you don't want to move, forcing yourself to stand with your head up and chest out for two minutes, or washing your face with cold water, can immediately improve your mood score by three or four points. Many professionals rely on this trick to save themselves when they are rushing to meet a deadline. Of course, research in this direction is still controversial. The main reason is that the adjustment effect is short-lasting and can only be used to temporarily save the situation. To really solve the long-term emotional internal friction, we still have to rely on the previous theoretical methods.

Anyway, I have been doing emotion-related work for five years, and I never give a rigid theory to visitors. The one that suits you is the best. Some people are naturally able to deal with all tense moments with deep breathing, while others have to do simulation exercises half a month in advance. There is no need to follow the standards of any theory.