See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/356603588

Emotional Resilience and Emotion Regulation: Examining Preference for

Reappraisal or Distraction for Stressors of Differing Intensity

Thesis · November 2021

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.13710.89926

CITATIONS READS

0 3,338

1 author:

Melanie Calder
The University of Western Australia
1 PUBLICATION 0 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Melanie Calder on 29 November 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 1

Emotional Resilience and Emotion Regulation: Examining Preference for Reappraisal or

Distraction for Stressors of Differing Intensity

Melanie Santiago Calder

[Student no]

The University of Western Australia

Supervised by Dr Lies Notebaert

Word Count: 9,942

A report submitted as a partial requirement for the degree of Bachelor of Science with

Honours in Psychology at The University of Western Australia.

November, 2021

I declare that this written assignment is my own work and does not include (i) material from

published sources used without proper acknowledgment, or (ii) material copied from the work of

other students

Signed: Melanie Santiago Calder

Date: 5/11/2021
EMOTIONAL RESILIENCE AND EMOTION REGULATION ALIGNMENT 2

Abstract

Individuals differ markedly in their emotional functioning following stressful experiences, an

individual difference dimension known as emotional resilience. Emotion regulation is known to be

implicated in emotional resilience. However, the nature of this relationship remains unclear.

Historically, reappraisal was considered an adaptive strategy. However, recent theories suggest

emotional resilience requires flexible selection of the optimal emotion regulation strategy

appropriate for varying stressors. Individual differences in choosing regulatory strategies were

tested to determine whether: (1) a general preference for reappraisal; or (2) alignment (a tendency

to choose reappraisal/distraction for low/high intensity stimuli respectively) leads to greater

emotional resilience. Our study (N = 223) tested these hypotheses through a choice paradigm task.

Regression analyses showed no support for either hypothesis. Results provided initial evidence of

a need to capture other theoretical factors that may moderate the effects of regulatory strategies on

emotional resilience. Suggestions to optimise future research design are discussed.

EMOTIONAL RESILIENCE AND EMOTION REGULATION ALIGNMENT 3

Stress is an inescapable part of everyday human life, whether the stress is as relatively banal

as getting to work on time, or as traumatic as coping with the loss of a loved one. Individuals

exhibit profound differences in their ability to manage stress and cope effectively with life

challenges (Parsons et al., 2016). While some individuals develop debilitating, chronic mental

health problems that interfere markedly with their capacity to function, others bounce back

relatively quickly and still maintain stable healthy functioning. What explains these differences?

One of the key determinants of individuals who sustain positive mental health and well-being in

the face of adversity, is high emotional resilience.

Emotional Resilience

Emotional resilience is generally characterised as a dynamic process encompassing

positive adaptation to environmental demands following major adversity (Gross, 2007). Adversity

is generally conceptualised as a perceived difference between the situation an individual is faced

with and the reality of his or her desired aspirations, investments, needs and goals for the future

(Schwager & Rothermund, 2013). Theorists describe resilience as the ability to cope effectively

with, and adapt flexibly to, the stressful demands of negative life events (Block & Kremen, 1996;

Luthar et al., 2000), such that individuals withstand or recover from adversity in a way that

maintains stability, viability, or development (Masten, 2011). Nonetheless, individuals suffering

from emotional difficulty causing diminished mental health functioning following negative life

events are generally viewed as normal (Kalisch et al., 2017). In this light, emotional resilience

reflects better-than-expected levels of psychological functioning in response to adversity.

Empirical studies support such notions that individuals with low stress levels following adversity
EMOTIONAL RESILIENCE AND EMOTION REGULATION ALIGNMENT 4

demonstrate better-than-expected emotional functioning, implying high levels of emotional

resilience (Clark & Hartman, 1996).

Notably, converging research evidence indicates the challenges in measuring emotional

resilience, perhaps due to diverging research in operationalising resilience. This has seen a change

from an intrinsic, stable trait to an outcome or process, by which mental health is maintained or

regained despite adversity (Chmitorz et al., 2018). Consequently, emotional resilience is

traditionally measured using self-report questionnaires, which focus on assessing personality

characteristics, or traits (Gulbrandsen, 2016), coping styles (Carver, 1997), or the availability of

different factors, such as controllability of individuals’ original characteristics levels (Block &

Kremen, 1996), social relationships (Cohen et al., 1985; Sherbourne & Stewart, 1991), and health-

related outcomes (Veit & Ware, 1983; Zigmond & Snaith, 1983), all of which exclude emotional

processes in response to adversity (Resnick & Inguito, 2011). Specifically, using self-report

questionnaires, such as Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC) (Connor & Davidson,

2003) and the Resilience Scale (Wagnild & Young, 1993), explores understanding of resilience as

a trait combined with potentially protective factors and risk factors (Lamond et al., 2008). For

example, CD-RISC items tap into individuals’ abilities to endure stress or pain, change,

adaptability, commitment, control, and problem solving (Connor & Davidson, 2003). Although

developed and widely used, these questionnaires have, nonetheless, been criticised as lacking a

theoretical and empirical basis, and for failing to assess emotional resilience in response to life

adversity (Kalisch et al., 2017; Windle et al., 2011). Furthermore, an earlier review of instruments

measuring emotional resilience indicates a lack of specific psychometric evidence (Ahern et al.,

2006) and validation against ‘gold standard’ measures of emotional resilience (Chmitorz et al.,

2018). Admittedly, such a ‘gold standard’ to measure emotional resilience does not currently exist.
EMOTIONAL RESILIENCE AND EMOTION REGULATION ALIGNMENT 5

According to Booth et al. (2020) individual life adversity experience must first be

evaluated to appropriately measure emotional resilience. Second, individual emotional difficulty

needs to be assessed relative to a normative response of the sample population. As such, they

developed a residual method of measuring emotional resilience, such that individuals exposed to

greater levels of life adversity are expected to have higher emotional difficulty, and vice versa. In

other words, individuals who show better emotional functioning than would be predicted by the

level of adversity they have experienced are thought to have strong emotional resilience. In

contrast, individuals exhibiting worse emotional functioning than would be predicted by the level

of adversity they have experienced are thought to have weak emotional resilience. In short,

responses that deviate from normative responses of the sample indicate strong or weak emotional

resilience. This method has gained popularity in developmental literature as a useful way to assess

emotional resilience functioning (Kalisch et al., 2017). Resilience scores based on this residual

approach show good validity, having been shown to be associated with known risk and protective

factors (Booth et al., 2020). Thus, valid measures of emotional resilience are critically important

in advancing our understanding and promotion of emotional resilience to facilitate the growing

focus on building and strengthening emotional resilience.

Increasing importance of emotional resilience is emphasised by the paradigm shift that has

seen scientist practitioners reduce focus on clinical disorder interventions and, instead, focus more

on building and strengthening emotional resilience. This transition emerged from the notion that

fostering protective mechanisms that safeguard individuals against the negative consequences of

stress before symptoms of stress-related disorder occur, provides a more effective way to reduce

mental health problems (Sapienza & Masten, 2011), as opposed to exploiting insights to improve

interventions (Kalisch et al., 2015). Further evidence of the importance of emotional resilience

comes from a number of empirical studies linking its presence with positive mental health

functioning via a dynamic interplay of various cognitive and emotional processes. For example, an
EMOTIONAL RESILIENCE AND EMOTION REGULATION ALIGNMENT 6

early pioneering research programme, Project Competence, (Garmezy, et al., 1984; Masten &

Tellegen, 2012) revealed that enhancing personal agency, such as self-efficacy or locus of control,

promoted emotional resilience in children (Garmezy et al., 1984). Notably, a growing body of

work on emotional resilience suggests that strong emotional resilience includes an interaction of a

range of cognitive coping mechanisms combined with biological functions (Hunsberger et al.,

2009), psychosocial coping skills (Ayala & Manzano, 2014), and supportive socioecological

contexts (Valentine & Feinauer, 1993).

Taking into account the body of literature that draws on various emotional and cognitive

processes that contribute to emotional resilience, we can infer that emotional resilience is a

complex construct involving a dynamic process of many interacting factors. Thus, it is clear that

variability in individuals’ emotional resilience levels exists due to the numerous interplays

between various emotional and cognitive processes. Despite a plethora of research on emotional

resilience, there remains a paucity of research examining the cognitive processes contributing to

individual differences in emotional resilience. In this study, we focus on the cognitive process of

emotion regulation as a mechanism that may explain why some individuals show more emotional

resilience than others.

Emotion Regulation

Theorists have stated that a key contributing factor to emotional resilience is the ability to

regulate emotions to promote an adaptive outcome (Parson et al., 2016). Emotion regulation has

been conceptualised as the ability through which individuals manage their emotions (Rottenberg

& Gross, 2003) in response to various environmental stressors (Gratz & Roemer, 2004), such that

their emotional stress response minimises the negative effects on healthy functioning (Rottenberg

& Gross, 2003; Williams, et al., 2009). Or, as described by Gross and Jazaieri (2014), emotion

regulation refers to a dynamic process by which activation of personal goals or motivations

EMOTIONAL RESILIENCE AND EMOTION REGULATION ALIGNMENT 7

occurs, aimed at influencing emotions by either increasing or decreasing the intensity level or

magnitude of emotional experience. For example, a grieving person might want to decrease the

intensity of his or her sadness following the loss of a loved one; or a person might want to increase

the intensity of his or her emotions when faced with imminent danger that merits a healthy dose of

anxiety or excitement. We refer to these emotional adjustments as downregulating or upregulating

emotions. Thereby, the process of emotion regulation results in enhanced coping ability and

maintenance of positive mental health (Aldao, 2013; Gross & Jazaieri, 2014).

Different types of emotion regulation strategies include reappraisal, acceptance, future

planning, positive distancing (Min et al., 2013), self-soothing, attentional control, self-awareness

(Zhang, et al., 2020), mindfulness, distraction, suppression, avoidance, inhibition (Conklin et al.,

2015), rumination, self-blame, catastrophising (Rochat et al., 2012), positive refocussing, putting

into perspective, and other-blame (Garnefski et al., 2001). Our study focuses specifically on

distraction and reappraisal strategies, the two most common types of regulatory strategy, both of

which have been the focus of a large body of research (Sheppes et al., 2011; Sheppes et al., 2014).

Distraction involves early disengagement from negative emotion, allowing for rapid shifts

of mental set to unrelated neutral thoughts so as to direct attention away from emotional

information before it is represented in working memory (Levy-Gigi et al., 2015; Van Dillen &

Koole, 2007). This early disengagement involves shifting thoughts to relatively simple and

unrelated alternatives to the emotional information stream, such as thinking of simple geometric

shapes or of performing daily chores, with a goal to avoid or reduce unwanted negative emotions.

For example, one of the circumstances in which an individual might use distraction to

downregulate a negative emotion is if he or she receives upsetting news, yet needs to perform a

complex task at work. The use of distraction strategy, by which his or her thoughts are rapidly

diverted to focus on the task at hand, may be useful in achieving the current occupational and
EMOTIONAL RESILIENCE AND EMOTION REGULATION ALIGNMENT 8

emotional goals. Studies suggest that distraction results in successful emotion regulation (Sheppes

& Meiran, 2007) because rapid blocking of emotional information through early disengagement

requires little effort as no semantic processing of negative information is needed (Levy-Gigi et al.,

2015).

By contrast, reappraisal is a strategy aimed at re-evaluating the emotional meaning and

perspective or interpretation of potentially threatening situations, such that positive aspects of a

situation are recognised (Gross, 2002). This occurs by allowing intricate, more complex cognitive

processing of the emotional information to be represented in working memory at a later stage of

emotional processing and reappraising the initial negative meaning of the situation to be more

positive (Levy-Gigi et al., 2015). For example, one circumstance in which an individual might use

reappraisal to downregulate negative emotion is when he or she experiences a relationship break-

up. The use of a reappraisal strategy to re-evaluate the situation may provide relief in his or her

current occupational and emotional goals, such that memories of negative aspects of the

relationship are realised and positive aspects of the break-up are illuminated (e.g., exciting new

opportunities).

Emotion Regulation and Emotional Resilience

Parson et al.’s (2016) theory on Cognitive Model of Resilience is a useful framework to

understand how emotional resilience relates to emotion regulation. According to this model,

different types of emotion regulation strategies are more adaptive than others, whilst some

regulatory strategies are considered to be maladaptive. It has been known for a long time that an

adaptive emotion regulation strategy provides a possible marker for emotional resilience. In

particular, reappraisal was thought to be a more adaptive strategy than distraction (Booth et al.,

2020). This notion is supported in Webb, Miles, and Sheeran’s (2012) meta-analysis review of

emotion regulation strategies. Their findings suggest that the use of reappraisal had small to
EMOTIONAL RESILIENCE AND EMOTION REGULATION ALIGNMENT 9

moderate overall positive effects, whilst the use of distraction produced no overall positive effect.

Other evidence comes from behavioural and neuroscientific studies in the laboratory setting

supporting the notion that greater use of reappraisal is effective in reducing psychological and

physiological indices of emotional reactions (Grecucci et al., 2013). Extending these findings

outside the laboratory setting indicates that frequent use of reappraisal is associated with well-

being and positive emotions (Gross, 2002). This claim is consistent with another set of

observations from the clinical area, according to which there is a negative association between

greater use of reappraisal and symptoms of psychopathology (Martin & Dahlen, 2005) and a

positive association between greater use of reappraisal and well-being (Aldao et al., 2010; Gross,

2002). Such a pattern suggests that engaging in greater use of reappraisal is key to good mental

health (Kalisch et al., 2017) that proactively cultivates positive emotional functioning (Ochsner &

Gross, 2005).

However, a large body of more recent research supports an additional theoretical stance

that a big repertoire of strategies to facilitate the ability to make alternative choices is needed to

show emotional resilience (Kobylinska & Kusev, 2019). According to these ‘flexibility’ models,

adaptive forms of emotion regulation involve flexible use of many different strategies adaptive for

the situation at hand (Bonanno & Burton, 2014; Kashdan & Rottenberg, 2010; Koole et al., 2015).

As such, individuals with a rich repertoire of emotion regulation strategies are better able to

implement adaptive strategies more flexibly in response to contextual demands (Aldao & Nolen-

Hoeksema, 2012). Evidence for these flexibility models comes from other research suggesting that

some psychological dysfunction (e.g., affective disorders or borderline personality disorder) may

be characterised by an individual’s lack of ability to flexibly use different strategies, as a result of

a deficit in their available emotion regulation strategies (Bonanno & Burton, 2014). Other past

studies suggest that individuals with greater flexibility in implementing their strategies have a

greater chance of reducing negative emotional impact and enhancing more positive emotions
EMOTIONAL RESILIENCE AND EMOTION REGULATION ALIGNMENT 10

(Aldao, 2013). This research supports Bonanno and Burton’s (2014) claim that emotion regulation

is effective when a wide range of regulatory strategies can accommodate divergent contextual

demands and opportunities.

The reason this flexibility is thought to be important is that there is evidence to suggest that

reappraisal is an adaptive strategy in many contexts, however, may not be adaptive in all contexts.

Evidence from a previous neurobiological study suggests that, in highly intense emotional

situations, there may not be enough cognitive processing capacity to engage effectively in

reappraisal (Dolcos & McCarthy, 2006). As such, neuroimaging studies show a reduction in blood

oxygenation level dependent signal in the prefrontal cortex during induced emotional states

(Mayberg et al., 1999). The prefrontal cortex is a region known to implement regulatory strategies.

Similarly, further support comes from a study by Dolcos and McCarthy (2006), in which findings

revealed strong activity in typical emotional processing regions (amygdala and ventrolateral

prefrontal cortex) whilst inhibition of prefrontal cortex activity was apparent. This suggests that

working memory is impaired on presentation of distracting emotional stimuli. These findings

revealed that, during highly emotional events, there is a likelihood that reappraisal strategy may be

unavailable for regulating the experienced emotion as a result of disrupted working memory

(Dolcos & McCarthy, 2006). Thus, highly intense emotional situations may require different

adaptive regulatory strategies. Other evidence comes from a previous study suggesting that

frequent use of positive reappraisal may lessen individuals’ sensitivity to real dangers, such that

their inaccurate beliefs of truth increase their susceptibilities to being exposed to real negative

consequences (Colvin et al., 1995). Other studies suggest that positive reappraisal may lead to

disappointments in situations where negative feedback is inevitable, thereby, promoting unrealistic

expectation which, in turn, promotes emotional vulnerability (Diener et al., 1991).

EMOTIONAL RESILIENCE AND EMOTION REGULATION ALIGNMENT 11

In line with these findings, there is a growing body of research suggesting that choices of

pattern of strategies to regulate emotions vary between individuals, such that some strategies are

more optimally appropriate than others, depending on individuals’ ability to apply their coping

strategies for certain contexts (Sheppes et al., 2014). Consequently, theorists have proposed that a

crucial factor to explain individual differences in emotional resilience is the ability to

appropriately choose an adaptive regulatory strategy from a repertoire of different strategies

within the context of adversity (Aldao et al., 2015; Bonanno, 2004; Parsons et al., 2016).

Specifically, the choice of appropriate strategies needs to align with the intensity of stressor

experienced (Sheppes et al., 2014). Recent studies have focused on the importance of determining

the choice of strategy for varying intensity levels. Specifically, a series of incremental studies on

emotion regulation choice (an emerging area that aims at understanding individual choices of

different regulatory strategies to adopt in a given situation) (Sheppes et al., 2011) showed

convincingly that healthy individuals flexibly switched their regulatory choice from preferring

reappraisal in low intensity situations to preferring distraction in high intensity situations (Sheppes

et al., 2011; Sheppes et al., 2014). The experiments were tested using the emotion regulation

choice paradigm, in which a series of emotional contexts were created that varied in intensity (low

and high) using negative emotional images (Sheppes et al., 2011; Sheppes et al., 2014). Using this

paradigm, findings reveal that healthy individuals behave in ways that are consistent with this

pattern of strategy (distraction in high intensity and reappraisal in low intensity), whilst deviation

from choosing this pattern can be seen in individuals who are prone to develop major depression,

and thus, might be related to different psychopathologies (Sheppes et al., 2011). Therefore, such

choices of strategies may be the optimal pattern of strategy because these choices are aligned with

the appropriate stressors of low and high intensity levels.

EMOTIONAL RESILIENCE AND EMOTION REGULATION ALIGNMENT 12

Taken together, it is clear that there are both large individual differences as to which

strategies individuals prefer, and their level of effectiveness at applying strategies to regulate their

emotions. Several theorists have, thus, proposed that those who are better at recruiting the most

efficacious strategy according to the stressor experienced, will be more emotionally resilient

(Aldao et al., 2015; Parsons et al., 2016). However, this proposition remains, as yet, untested.

The Current Study

The relationship between emotional resilience and emotion regulation strategies remains

unclear, given that no previous studies have directly investigated the association between

emotional resilience and individuals’ preferences between two key emotion regulation strategies:

reappraisal and distraction. Based on previous research, there are two ways in which emotion

regulation could contribute to individual differences in emotional resilience. First, empirical

research suggests that individuals with preference for reappraisal show less risk of developing

mental health problems (Kalisch et al., 2015; Aldao et al., 2015). On this basis, our first

hypothesis (Reappraisal Preference Hypothesis) is that greater preference for using reappraisal

over distraction to downregulate negative emotions leads to higher emotional resilience because

emotion regulation efforts will be more effective. Second, more recent studies suggest that

individuals with good mental health and well-being show greater tendency to select distraction

when confronted with high intensity stressors, and a tendency to select reappraisal when

confronted with low intensity stressors (Sheppes et al., 2011; Sheppes et al., 2014). We will refer

to this pattern of emotion regulation strategy as alignment. On this basis, our second hypothesis

(Alignment Hypothesis) is that greater alignment will lead to higher emotional resilience because

such alignment means emotion regulation efforts will be more effective.

Investigating these two hypotheses, Reappraisal Preference Hypothesis and Alignment

Hypothesis, will increase our understanding of the mechanisms by which individuals demonstrate
EMOTIONAL RESILIENCE AND EMOTION REGULATION ALIGNMENT 13

differences in emotional resilience. Furthermore, this will contribute to our understanding of how

emotional resilience is developed in response to adversity, which may offer important insights into

how resilience might be boosted and how to drive future empirically based resilience

interventions. Such an approach will move the focus of researchers from simply understanding the

outcomes or consequences of using emotion regulation strategies, towards inclusion of

competence models that focus on prevention, strengthening, and building emotional resilience.

The current study aimed to investigate the validity of our two hypotheses. To examine

these hypotheses, individual differences in emotional resilience were assessed by measuring

emotional resilience using a residual approach (Booth et al., 2020). Accordingly, participants

completed Negative Life Events for Students Scale (NLESS) and Depression and Anxiety Stress

Scale (DASS) measures to determine participants’ emotional resilience. The residual-based

measure of resilience reflects whether individuals demonstrate better-than-expected DASS scores

relative to the number of negative life events they have experienced. Preference for reappraisal or

alignment were then assessed using a choice paradigm task, where participants were exposed to a

series of negative stimuli with high and low intensities, in which they were asked to choose

between distraction or reappraisal to downregulate their negative emotion.

If Reappraisal Preference Hypothesis is true, that greater reappraisal preference leads to

greater emotional resilience, then it is predicted that participants who demonstrate high levels of

emotional resilience will be more likely to choose reappraisal strategy for both high and low

intensity stimuli. It is also predicted that this relationship between reappraisal preference and

emotional resilience will be mediated by the effectiveness of their downregulation efforts

throughout the task. If Alignment Hypothesis is true, that alignment leads to emotional resilience,

then it is predicted that participants who demonstrate high levels of emotional resilience will be

more likely to choose reappraisal for low intensity and distraction for high intensity stimuli. It is
EMOTIONAL RESILIENCE AND EMOTION REGULATION ALIGNMENT 14

also predicted that this relationship between alignment and emotional resilience will be mediated

by the effectiveness of participants’ downregulation efforts throughout the task.

Method

Participants

An a priori power analysis using G*Power3 (Faul et al., 2009) indicated that a minimum

sample size of 222 was needed to detect a small effect of f = .10 with α = .05 and 1 - β = .80. Thus,

it was decided to recruit a target of 222 participants who completed all tasks.

Participants were undergraduate students (N = 223, female = 150, male = 70, other = 3; M

= 19.36 years, SD = 3.61; Caucasian = 61.04%, non-Caucasian = 38.96%) at the University of

Western Australia who participated for course credit. Eight additional participants started the

study but were removed from the data due to incomplete tasks.

Materials

Negative Life Events Scale for Students (NLESS; Homes & Rahe, 1967). The 25-item,

self-reported NLESS was used to screen for common adverse experiences by participants. This

included stressful events such as “death of a family”, “divorce of parents”, “addiction”, and

“serious conflict with a close friend”. Participants were asked to indicate whether they have

experienced each event described on each item by answering ‘yes’ or ‘no’. Participants were also

given the option to describe two further negative life events that they may have experienced but

were not included in the scale. A score was computed for each participant by summing the number

of adverse events they had experienced, with higher scores indicating greater negative live events.

This formed the basis for our Adversity Index. The NLESS has been shown to exhibit good

reliability and validity (Scully & Tosi, 2000); Cronbach’s alpha was reported  = .96 for students

of the general population (Buri, 2018).

EMOTIONAL RESILIENCE AND EMOTION REGULATION ALIGNMENT 15

Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale 21 (DASS-21; Lovibond & Lovibond, 1995).

The 21-item DASS-21 was used to assess frequency of negative emotional states of depression,

anxiety, and stress levels of participants over the last 12 months. This included statements such as

“I felt that life is meaningless”, “I felt close to panic”, and “I found it hard to wind down” for each

scale respectively. Each item was rated on a four-point Likert scale from 0 (not at all) to 3 (very

much of the time) referring to how much each statement applied to them over the past 12 months.

A Negative Emotional Experience Index was computed for each participant, calculated by

summing the scores for each item on the scale, with higher scores indicating higher levels of

negative emotional states. The DASS-21 exhibits good reliability and validity; Cronbach’s alpha

was reported  = .97 for adults of the general population (Henry & Crawford, 2005). In this study,

internal consistency reliability was demonstrated to be high (Cronbach’s  = .94).

Resilience Measure

In order to calculate resilience measure, the Adversity Index derived from the NLESS

scores and Negative Emotional Experience Index derived from DASS scores were used to

calculate residual scores. The standardised residual score for each participant was saved from the

regression model with Adversity Index as the predictor variable and Negative Emotional

Experience Index as the outcome variable. This formed the basis for the Emotional Resilience

Index scores. Data points above the regression line indicated lower resilience (more emotional

difficulty than predicted based on their adversity measures), whereas scores below the regression

line indicated higher resilience (less emotional difficulty than predicted based on their adversity

measures). Scores were reverse coded (Booth et al., 2020), so that positive scores reflected better

than expected levels of emotional resilience and negative scores reflected worse than expected

levels of emotional resilience. These scores reflected the degree to which the amount of emotional
EMOTIONAL RESILIENCE AND EMOTION REGULATION ALIGNMENT 16

difficulty experienced by a participant was less than (or more than) what would be expected given

the number of negative life events experienced.

Choice Task Stimuli

Choice task stimuli included digital images (133 x 100 mm) from the standardised and

well-validated International Affective Picture System (IAPS) (Lang et al., 2008) (see Figure 1

example). A total of 60 images were used with negative valence from five domains: threat,

disgust, sadness, fear and mutilation. Mean arousal rating specified on IAPS normative ratings

were used to categorise images into two different intensity levels: 30 High Intensity Image Set (M

= 6.52, SD = 0.58) and 30 Low Intensity Image Set (M = 4.89, SD = 0.86).

A series of t-tests were used to confirm that there was a significant difference in arousal

between our selected Low Intensity Image Set and High Intensity Image Set. Total mean arousal

ratings for the High Intensity Image set and for the Low Intensity Image set yielded a significant

difference (t = -18.93, p < .001, d = -3.46). This implies that the images categorised into high and

low intensity image sets were sufficient to elicit different levels of intensity arousal.
EMOTIONAL RESILIENCE AND EMOTION REGULATION ALIGNMENT 17

Emotion Regulation Choice Task

The choice task was created to determine: (1) the preferred choices of different strategies

under varying emotional intensities; and (2) the effectiveness at downregulating negative emotions

using the preferred strategies. The present study focussed on the preference for reappraisal

throughout the task, and the use of alignment as the optimal pattern of strategy.

Each participant was exposed to 10 low intensity and 10 high intensity images, randomly

drawn from our selection of 30 High Intensity Image set and 30 Low Intensity Image set.

Presentation of images was counterbalanced across tasks to ensure than any differences in the

effectiveness of emotion regulation attempts in all tasks were not due to the particular images used

in the tasks. Participants were shown the images one by one. On each trial, participants were

briefly shown each image, then asked to choose between distraction and reappraisal to regulate

their emotions during subsequent viewing of the image. This enabled obtaining a measure of

reappraisal preference, and as the images varied in intensity, a measure of alignment. Participants

also were asked to rate the intensity of their negative emotions to obtain a measure of emotion

regulation effectiveness. Throughout the task, participants were instructed to ensure that they keep

their eyes on the image.

A schematic depiction of trial structure and screen time durations of the choice paradigm is

shown in Figure 2. A screen appeared that stated, “Watch”, then participants previewed a negative

image for a brief two seconds. Next, participants were instructed to rate the intensity of their

negative emotions in response to the previewed image, using a 9-point Likert rating scale from 1

(not intense at all) to 9 (very intense). These initial ratings were referred to as the preview rating.

The statement included, “Please indicate how intense you would rate your negative emotions (fear,

threat, disgust, sadness, anger,…)” while viewing the image. Then they were instructed to choose

the strategy they want to apply to downregulate the intensity of their negative emotions, by
EMOTIONAL RESILIENCE AND EMOTION REGULATION ALIGNMENT 18

clicking on either distraction or reappraisal. A screen appeared that confirmed their chosen

strategy. The negative image then reappeared. Participants then implemented their chosen strategy

while watching the image for eight seconds. Then participants were instructed to indicate the

intensity of their negative emotion again, after they have downregulated their negative emotion,

using the same 9-point Likert scale. These second ratings were referred to as the downregulation

rating. Then participants were automatically taken to the next trial, until all 20 trials were

completed.

A practice trial task was included to help participants with the application of each strategy.

The trial task consisted of two distraction trials (a trial that involved using distraction strategy) and

two reappraisal trials (a trial that involved using reappraisal strategy), using one low-intensity and

one high-intensity for each strategy. This included extensive instructions explaining how to apply

the distraction and reappraisal strategies (see Appendix i for instructions). At the end of each

practice trial, participants were asked to type in a brief description of how they implemented their
EMOTIONAL RESILIENCE AND EMOTION REGULATION ALIGNMENT 19

strategy to downregulate their negative emotions. Then participants proceeded to the actual trials,

which consisted of 20 trials for each participant.

The following three critical measures were derived from the emotion regulation choice

task:

Reappraisal Preference Index. This index reflects the proportion of trials in which

participants chose reappraisal over distraction across the task. The trials for reappraisal were

computed by summing the number of times participants chose reappraisal (irrespective of the

image intensity level) across the choice task. Scores on this index can range between zero to 20

and a higher score indicates greater preference for reappraisal strategy.

Emotion Regulation Alignment Index. This index reflects the proportion of trials

participants chose distraction over reappraisal for high intensity stimuli, and reappraisal over

distraction for low intensity stimuli. A score was computed for each participant by taking the

relative difference of the proportion of high intensity trials where distraction was chosen and the

proportion of low intensity trials where distraction was chosen. Scores on this index can range

between negative one to ten and a higher score indicates greater use of reappraisal in low intensity

and distraction in high intensity, thus, greater alignment.

Downregulation Effectiveness Index. This index reflects participants’ effectiveness at

downregulating their emotions and is computed as the difference between the preview mean rating

score and the downregulated mean rating score for low intensity and high intensity for each

strategy. Scores on this index can range between negative one to four and a higher score indicates

a greater level of effectiveness at downregulating emotions.

EMOTIONAL RESILIENCE AND EMOTION REGULATION ALIGNMENT 20

Apparatus

The experiment was created and administered using Inquisit6 (https://millisecond.com/), a

leading provider of software for psychological testing. The experiment was run on Windows-

based PCs, with a 17-inch monitor set at a resolution of 1920 x 1080 at a viewing distance of

approximately 60 cm. Peripheral included a QWERTY keyboard and a mouse.

Procedure

This study was approved by the University of Western Australia’s Human Research Ethics

Office (Reference RA/4/1/5295). All participants provided written informed consent before data

collection and were free to withdraw at any time. Testing took approximately 50 minutes per

participant, and was administered in a quiet, individual room. Participants completed a set of

demographical questions (gender, age, ethnicity, language, employment, and education). Then,

they provided image consent where they were shown four samples of negative emotional images

of similar arousal taken from IAPS. Participants indicated either ‘yes’ or ‘no’ as part of their

image consent. If participants answered ‘no’, the experiment discontinued; if participants

answered ‘yes’, then participants proceeded to complete the DASS and NLESS questionnaires.

Lastly, they completed the choice task. Participants were debriefed at the end.

Statistical Analyses

Data were analysed using SPSS V27 for Mac OS (V 10.13.6). The study used regression

based simple mediation analyses to test the proposed relationships between choice strategies

(reappraisal and alignment), downregulation effectiveness and emotional resilience. Two separate

path analytic models were analysed (Figure 3, panel i and panel ii). Included in the models were

reappraisal preference (panel i) and alignment (panel ii) as the predictor variables, with Emotional

Resilience Index as the outcome variable, and downregulation effectiveness as the

intervening/mediating variable for both models.

EMOTIONAL RESILIENCE AND EMOTION REGULATION ALIGNMENT 21

Result

Data were assessed for multivariate outliers using a Mahalanobis Distance Test

(Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013). With a demarcation of X2 = 29.15, df = 10, p < .001, seven

multivariate outliers were identified and removed from the data, leaving a final sample of N = 216.

Evaluating the Appropriateness of the Residual Approach to Indexing Emotional Resilience

An assumption regarding the use of the residual approach to index emotional resilience is

that an association between negative life events and negative emotions measures will be observed.

Figure 4 illustrates the bivariate correlation between the negative life events and negative

emotions. The result indicates a statistically significant Pearson correlation between the Adversity

Index scores and the Negative Emotional Experience Index scores, r = .40, p < .001, 95%
EMOTIONAL RESILIENCE AND EMOTION REGULATION ALIGNMENT 22

Confidence Intervals (CI) [0.28, 0.50]. This significant association suggests that experiencing a

larger number of negative life events over the last 12 months was associated with increasing

negative emotions. Therefore, the results suggest that the residual method is an appropriate

approach to indexing emotional resilience.

Downregulation Effectiveness. Preview ratings of negative emotional intensity and

downregulation ratings were compared to determine whether, overall, participants were able to

effectively downregulate their negative emotions when confronted with negative stimuli. Results

are reported in Figure 5. A paired samples t-test showed a significant difference between preview

rating and downregulation rating, t(215) = 22.00, p < .001, d = .77, suggesting that participants

were overall effective at downregulating their negative emotions.

EMOTIONAL RESILIENCE AND EMOTION REGULATION ALIGNMENT 23

Testing the emotion regulation alignment assumption

The Alignment Hypothesis rests on the assumption that, in general, individuals will have a

preference for using distraction for high intensity stimuli and reappraisal for low intensity stimuli.

To test the validity of this assumption, the proportion of trials in which distraction was chosen

over reappraisal for high intensity stimuli was calculated. Similarly, the proportion of trials in

which reappraisal was chosen over distraction for low intensity stimuli was calculated. The results

of this can be seen in Figure 6. Consistent with this assumption, participants chose to apply

distraction on 64.80% of the high intensity trials, 95% CI [0.41, 0.70], and reappraisal on 35.20%

of the high intensity trials, [0.41, 0.70]; whilst participants chose to apply reappraisal on 64.75%

of the low intensity trials, [-0.72, -0.43] and distraction on 35.25% of the low intensity trials, [-

0.72, -0.43]. This preference in the selection of regulatory strategies of distraction over reappraisal

for high intensity stimuli, and of reappraisal over distraction for low intensity stimuli was

observed in 64.78% of the participants.

EMOTIONAL RESILIENCE AND EMOTION REGULATION ALIGNMENT 24

Examination of associations prior to conducting mediation analyses

Prior to testing the hypotheses, Pearson correlations for the variables corresponding to c, a,

and b paths (in Figure 3) were run individually using bivariate regression. These tests examined

how the variables were correlated in order to determine the viability for mediation analysis. In

particular, these tests examined if there was a total effect (c path) between the two predictor

variables (reappraisal preference and alignment) and the outcome variable (emotional resilience).

These tests also examined if the downregulation effectiveness were correlated with the predictor

variables (a paths), and emotional resilience to determine if downregulation effectiveness is a

viable mediator for the relationships between the predictor variables and emotional resilience. The

results of this can be seen in Table 1.

EMOTIONAL RESILIENCE AND EMOTION REGULATION ALIGNMENT 25

From correlational analyses, the total c path in Figure 3, panel i, indicates that reappraisal

preference was not statistically significantly correlated with emotional resilience (p = .581, 95%

CI [-0.03, 0.04]). Similarly, the c path in Figure 3, panel ii, indicates that alignment was not

statistically significantly correlated with emotional resilience (p = .454, [-0.52, 0.23]). These

results suggest that there were no significant total effects between the predictor variables

(reappraisal preference and alignment), and emotional resilience. The paths defining the indirect

effects, the a paths and the b paths in Figure 3 panel i and panel ii, were also not significant.

In some cases, despite the absence of a total effect, the c’ path becomes significant with

the inclusion of a mediating variable, in this case, downregulation effectiveness. Regression

analyses were conducted to determine the coefficients corresponding the b path, and c’ path, in

Figure 3, panel i. Emotional resilience was regressed on reappraisal preference, simultaneously

including downregulation effectiveness. That is, the relationship between downregulation

effectiveness and emotional resilience (b path) was examined while controlling for the effect of
EMOTIONAL RESILIENCE AND EMOTION REGULATION ALIGNMENT 26

reappraisal preference, and the relationship between reappraisal preference and emotional

resilience (which now represents the c’ path) while controlling for the effect of downregulation

effectiveness. The full model (Figure 3, panel i) was not significant, R2 = .002, F(2, 214) = 0.25,

p = .778, SE = 0.99. Downregulation effectiveness was not a significant predictor of emotional

resilience, ß = .03, t(215) = 0.45, p = .657, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.22], SE = 0.09. Furthermore, the

effect of reappraisal preference was not significant, ß = .04, t(215) = 0.61, p = .544, [-0.02, 0.05],

SE = 0.19, suggesting that there is no direct effect between reappraisal preference and emotional

resilience.

Regression analyses were also conducted to determine the coefficients corresponding the b

path, and c’ path, in Figure 3, panel ii. Emotional resilience was regressed on alignment,

simultaneously including downregulation effectiveness. That is, the relationship between

downregulation effectiveness and emotional resilience (b path) was examined while controlling

for the effect of alignment, and the relationship between alignment and emotional resilience

(which now represents the c’ path) while controlling for the effect of downregulation

effectiveness. The full model (Figure 3, panel ii) was not significant, R2 = .01, F(2, 214) = 0.39, p

= .679, SE = 0.99. Downregulation effectiveness was not a significant predictor of emotional

resilience, ß = .08, t(215) = 0.47, p = .642, SE = 0.09, 95%[-0.13, 0.22]. Furthermore, the effect of

alignment was not significant, ß = .06, t(215) = -0.80, p = .424, [-0.53, 0.23], SE = 0.19,

suggesting that there was no direct effect between alignment and emotional resilience.

Given the absence of correlations between all variables, conducting a Sobel test was not

warranted to test the significance of the ab paths, thus, further testing for mediation analysis was

deemed neither required nor appropriate. Furthermore, the assumption of linearity was violated, as

described below. Combined, these results indicate that the Reappraisal Preference Hypothesis and

the Alignment Hypothesis were not supported.

EMOTIONAL RESILIENCE AND EMOTION REGULATION ALIGNMENT 27

Supplementary analysis: examining non-linear effects

Scatterplots depicting the relationships between variables corresponding the paths in

Figure 3, panel i and ii were examined to clarify the non-linear pattern of association and to

determine any interrelationships, in order to guide future research. If the non-linear patterns are

significant, this may suggest confounding interaction effects in which competing variables may be

present, thus obscuring the relationship between variables. Summary of descriptive statistics for

all variables are reported in Table 2.

The presence of curvilinear effects between variables was tested using hierarchical

quadratic multiple regression with variables entered at step one and squared variables entered at

step two (controlling for the effects of linear associations) (Pedhauzur, 1997). The assumption of

multicollinearity was not a concern in the context of curvilinear analysis due to the shared

variance between transformed variables. A visual depiction of these effects through scatterplots

using regression curve estimations is presented in Figure 7. Three significant curvilinear

EMOTIONAL RESILIENCE AND EMOTION REGULATION ALIGNMENT 28

relationships were observed, and a further regression analysis was conducted to determine the

interrelationships between three variables defining the Alignment Hypothesis. These are described

in more detail below.

Downregulation effectiveness was regressed on squared reappraisal preference, controlling

for the linear effect of reappraisal preference. By including the squared reappraisal preference in

model R2, a significant change in percentage of variance accounted for was observed, R2 = 0.02,

F(1, 215) = 5.02, p = .012, increasing the predictive capacity of the regression equation by 2.30%,

implying a curvilinear association. Correspondingly, the quadratic term (i.e., squared reappraisal

preference) was associated with significant standardised beta-weight, ß = -.55, t(215) = -2.24, p =

.026, 95% CI [-0.01, -0.00], r = -.17 (r2 = .03), semi-partial r = -.15 (r2 = .02). As can be seen in

Figure 7 (panel A), the ordinary least squares line of best fit suggested that the correlation between

downregulation effectiveness and reappraisal preference was positive between low to average

levels of reappraisal preference, peaking to about 10. However, beyond a reappraisal preference of

10, the correlation was reduced. This suggest that downregulation effectiveness was highest when

reappraisal was preferred about 35% to 50% of the time. Any deviations from this suggest a

decrease in effectiveness at downregulating negative emotions.

Downregulation effectiveness was regressed on squared alignment, controlling for the

linear effect of alignment. By including the squared alignment in model R2, a significant change in

percentage of variance accounted for was observed, R2 = 0.02, F(1, 215) = 4.41, p = .020,

increasing the predictive capacity of the regression equation by 2.00%, implying a curvilinear

association. Correspondingly, the quadratic term (i.e., squared alignment) was associated with

significant beta-weight, ß = -0.19, t(215) = -2.10, p = .037, 95% CI [-1.15, -0.04], r = -.02 (r2 =

.00), semi-partial r = -.14 (r2 = .02). As can be seen in Figure 7 (panel B), the ordinary least

squares line of best fit suggested that the correlation between downregulation effectiveness and
EMOTIONAL RESILIENCE AND EMOTION REGULATION ALIGNMENT 29

alignment was positive between low to moderately high levels of alignment, thus, effectiveness

increases as alignment increases. However, the incremental increase of effectiveness plateaus

between 0.00 to 0.50 levels of alignment, and beyond 0.50 (or 75%) onwards, the correlation was

slightly reduced.

Emotional resilience was regressed on squared alignment, controlling for the linear effect

of alignment. By including the squared alignment in model R2, a significant change in percentage

of variance accounted for was observed, R2 = 0.04, F(1, 215) = 8.26, p = .013, increasing the

predictive capacity of the regression equation by 3.70%, implying a curvilinear association.

Correspondingly, the quadratic term (i.e., squared alignment) was associated with significant

standardised beta-weight, ß = .26, t(215) = 2.87, p = .004, 95% CI [0.33, 1.77], r = .11 (r2 = .01),

semi-partial r = .19 (r2 = .04). As can be seen in Figure 7 (panel C), the ordinary least squares line

of best fit suggested that the correlation between emotional resilience and alignment was negative

between -1.00 to about 0.50 levels of alignment. However, beyond alignment levels of 0.50, the

correlation increased. This suggests that individuals who scored low on alignment showed high

emotional resilience but decreases with increasing alignment scores between low to average.

Beyond average alignment scores, emotional resilience increases with increasing use of alignment.

Emotional resilience was at its lowest when alignment was moderate.

Given the significant quadratic effect of alignment on emotional resilience, and on

downregulation effectiveness, further supplementary analysis was conducted to examine the

possible interrelationships between these three variables. Emotional resilience was regressed on

squared alignment, simultaneously including downregulation effectiveness, controlling for the

linear effect of alignment. By including the squared alignment in model R2 and the downregulation

effectiveness, a significant change in percentage of variance accounted for was observed, R2 =

0.04, F(1, 215) = 4.53, p = .012, increasing the predictive capacity of the regression equation by
EMOTIONAL RESILIENCE AND EMOTION REGULATION ALIGNMENT 30

4.10%. Correspondingly, the quadratic term (i.e., alignment) was associated with significant beta-

weight, ß = 0.27, t(215) = 2.97, p = .003, 95% CI [0.37, 1.82], r = .11 (r2 = 0.01), semi-partial r =

.20 (r2 = .04), indicating a large increase of 2.75% from total effect to semi-partial correlation

between squared alignment and emotional resilience when downregulation effectiveness was

combined with the squared alignment. Downregulation effectiveness was not associated with

significant beta-weight, ß = .06, t(215) = 0.89, p = .373, [-0.10, 0.25], r = .02 (r2 = .00), semi-

partial r = .08 (r2 = .01), however, a small increase of 1.00% was still observed from total effect to

semi-partial correlation between downregulation effectiveness and emotional resilience. Thus,

when both squared alignment and downregulation effectiveness were included in the regression,

their beta-weights increased in magnitude in comparison to their respective zero-order correlation

with emotional resilience, suggesting a possible interrelationship.

EMOTIONAL RESILIENCE AND EMOTION REGULATION ALIGNMENT 31
EMOTIONAL RESILIENCE AND EMOTION REGULATION ALIGNMENT 32

Discussion

The overarching aim of the present study was to examine the associations between choices

of emotion regulation strategies and emotional resilience in low intensity and high intensity

situations. Specifically, this study investigated whether: (1) reappraisal preference leads to

emotional resilience, and (2) alignment (an optimal pattern of strategy in which individuals tend to

select distraction for high intensity stressors and reappraisal for low intensity stressors) leads to

emotional resilience. We predicted that the use of both strategies will lead to emotional resilience

as emotion regulation efforts will be more effective. In other words, the relationships between

these regulatory strategies and emotional resilience will be mediated by the effectiveness of their

downregulation efforts throughout the task. On this basis, two hypotheses that correspond to these

investigations were formulated: (1) Reappraisal Preference Hypothesis; and (2) Alignment

Hypothesis. No prior study has directly investigated the associations between regulatory strategies

and emotional resilience. Theoretical and applied implications of these results, as well as

limitations of the study will be discussed below to assist future research directions.

In the Reappraisal Preference Hypothesis, it was hypothesised that (1) high reappraisal

preference leads to higher emotional resilience because emotion regulation efforts will be more

effective. Similarly, in the Alignment Hypothesis, it was hypothesised that (2) high alignment

leads to emotional resilience because emotion regulation efforts will be more effective. In both

hypotheses, we aimed to determine whether these adaptive regulatory strategies associate with

emotional resilience via an intervening variable, which is individuals’ effectiveness at

downregulating negative emotion. A series of correlational analyses revealed no significant

Pearson correlations between all variables. Scatterplots were examined to further clarify the

pattern of associations. Surprising results revealed that some variables had significant curvilinear

effects, violating the assumption of linearity. As such, further testing for mediation analyses was
EMOTIONAL RESILIENCE AND EMOTION REGULATION ALIGNMENT 33

neither deemed required nor appropriate. Therefore, the mediation analyses showed no support for

both (1) the Reappraisal Preference Hypothesis, and (2) the Alignment Hypothesis. A possible

explanation might be that simple mediation analyses were insufficient to capture the complex

processes that lead to emotional resilience, and that other theoretical factors may account for the

non-linear effects. Or, the lack of significant effects could be attributed to the common issue of

low statistical power, given that our final sample size was reduced below the required amount to

detect a small effect after exclusion of incomplete tasks.

Nonetheless, as discussed in the introduction, emotional resilience involves a dynamic

interplay of complex processes that influence individuals’ cognitive resources. As such, the

Cognitive Model of Psychological Resilience (Parsons et al., 2016) posits that efficient coping

strategies can only be understood if basic mechanisms in emotional processing that help adjust

affect, cognition, and motivation to regulate emotions are all adequately included (Schwager &

Rothermund, 2013). Specifically, the significant non-linear relationships between alignment and

emotional resilience, and between downregulation effectiveness and the two regulatory strategies

of interest, may suggest that other moderating variables known to influence emotional and

cognitive processes may explain the effects of these non-linear associations. These interacting

factors may include attentional bias (Parsons et al., 2016), memory bias (Platt et al., 2017),

emotional clarity (ability to identify, distinguish and describe specific emotions) (Gohm & Clore,

2000; Park & Naragon-Gainey, 2020), emotional awareness (Sheppes et al., 2014), motivation,

social support, personality traits such as neuroticism, (Opitz et al., 2012), cultural origin and

clinically significant levels of psychopathology (Garmezy, 1985), as well as many other

environmental factors (e.g., level of education, finances). On this basis, the significant non-linear

effects between variables relating to both the Reappraisal Preference Hypothesis and the

Alignment Hypothesis may be due to complex interrelationships involving other theoretical

EMOTIONAL RESILIENCE AND EMOTION REGULATION ALIGNMENT 34

factors that may moderate the effect of associations between our regulatory strategies of interest

and emotional resilience.

In relation to the Reappraisal Preference Hypothesis, we predicted reappraisal preference

to associate with emotional resilience, through downregulation effectiveness as a mediator.

Findings reveal no association between reappraisal preference and emotional resilience (Figure 7,

panel E). Despite earlier support for reappraisal, the absence of association between reappraisal

preference and emotional resilience provides support for the more recent theoretical stance

discussed in the introduction, suggesting that a large repertoire of strategies is needed to show

emotional resilience (Bonanno & Burton, 2014; Kashdan & Rottenberg 2010; Koole et al., 2015).

Given that our measure of reappraisal preference involves using reappraisal for both low and high

intensity stimuli, these findings also support the ‘flexibility’ models discussed in the introduction,

in which greater use of different strategies adaptive for the situation is essential to have greater

chances of enhancing positive emotions and reducing negative emotions (Aldao, 2013; Bonanno

& Burton, 2014). Furthermore, there was a non-linear (inverted U-shaped) association between

reappraisal preference and downregulation effectiveness, violating the assumption of linearity

(Figure 7, panel A). Scatterplot reveals that, between low to average levels of reappraisal

preference, there was essentially no correlation with downregulation effectiveness. The negative

non-linear effect resided almost entirely between moderate to high levels of reappraisal

preference, with downregulation effectiveness reduced to almost zero for high levels of reappraisal

preference. This provides further support for the more recent studies discussed in the introduction,

suggesting that frequent use of reappraisal may be counterproductive at downregulating negative

emotions, or even maladaptive, in certain situations (Aldao, 2013; Bonanno & Burton, 2014).

Regarding the Alignment Hypotheses, alignment rests on the assumption that, in general,

individuals tend to choose reappraisal for low intensity stimuli and distraction for high intensity
EMOTIONAL RESILIENCE AND EMOTION REGULATION ALIGNMENT 35

stimuli. Our results provide robust evidence that individuals, indeed, prefer to use reappraisal

when confronted with stressors of low intensity, and distraction when confronted with stressors of

high intensity, consistent with previous research (Sheppes et al., 2014). Therefore, this present

study added value and validity to the emerging interest in this optimal pattern of strategy (Sheppes

et al., 2014).

Although we predicted alignment to have a linear association with emotional resilience,

through downregulation effectiveness as a mediator, we did not find such an effect. Nonetheless,

further examination of scatterplot suggests a non-linear (U-shaped) association between alignment

and emotional resilience (Figure 7, panel C). The non-linear effect implies that both high and low

levels of alignment were associated with high emotional resilience, whilst moderate levels of

alignment were associated with low emotional resilience. In other words, high alignment, for

which distraction was chosen for high intensity and reappraisal for low intensity stimuli,

associated with high emotional resilience. In contrast to this optimal pattern of strategy, low

alignment, for which distraction was chosen for low intensity and reappraisal for high intensity

stimuli, also associated with high emotional resilience. This is surprising as the latter pattern of

strategy is counter intuitive to the optimal pattern of strategy that we predicted. The U-shaped

effect may imply that when applying a flexible pattern of strategy, such that when reappraisal and

distraction strategies were applied in a systematic way for low and high intensity stimuli, such a

systematic approach associated with high emotional resilience. In other words, individuals who

systematically implement one strategy more than the other, according to the intensity of the

stressor, showed high levels of emotional resilience. Therefore, a possible variant of alignment

may involve using distraction for low intensity and reappraisal for high intensity stressors.

However, it is also important to take into account possible theoretical reasons (as discussed earlier

in this section) that may moderate the effect of the non-linear association of alignment and

emotional resilience, prior to making a conclusive interpretation.

EMOTIONAL RESILIENCE AND EMOTION REGULATION ALIGNMENT 36

Additionally, the non-linear (inverted U-shaped) association between downregulation

effectiveness and alignment (Figure 7, panel B), implies that individuals’ downregulation

effectiveness increases with increasing levels of alignment scores between low to average.

However, the non-linear association suggests the presence of a threshold effect, that is, assuming a

causal connection between alignment and downregulation effectiveness (Parson et al., 2016).

Thus, alignment may facilitate effectiveness at downregulating negative emotions but only up to a

point; beyond moderate levels of alignment, downregulation effectiveness may not yield much

impact, and may even reduce the ability to effectively downregulate negative emotions in high

levels of alignment.

We note that no association was observed between downregulation effectiveness and

emotional resilience (Figure 7, panel D). However, taking into account the significant non-linear

effect of alignment on emotional resilience, and on downregulation effectiveness, further

examination of the interrelationships between these three variables implies a large increase in

variance accounted for (from the zero-order correlation to semi-partial correlation) between

squared alignment and emotional resilience when downregulation effectiveness was included in

the regression. Downregulation effectiveness also showed a small increase in variance accounted

for, thus, suggesting a possible suppressor effect. Findings indicate that both alignment and

downregulation effectiveness may have an interdependent relationship, such that by including

downregulation effectiveness in the regression model, while controlling for its effects, we may

have controlled for other factors that influence individuals’ ability to effectively downregulate

their negative emotions. Therefore, the distinctive characteristics and the fundamental aspects of

alignment may have expressed its true nature of association on emotional resilience. However, the

suppressor effect provides only a possibility, not a certainty. Future research may benefit from

following this up and may need to take into account other theoretical factors that could moderate
EMOTIONAL RESILIENCE AND EMOTION REGULATION ALIGNMENT 37

the effect of non-linear associations between alignment and emotional resilience, and between

alignment and downregulation effectiveness.

Our novel approach to measuring emotional resilience index scores involved using the

residual approach (Booth et al., 2020) derived from two self-report questionnaires (NLESS and

DASS). Our findings established a clear link between negative life events and emotional

difficulty. As discussed in the introduction, converging evidence suggests that one of the

challenges to emotional resilience research is the enormous heterogeneity in the way resilience is

defined, operationalised, and measured. As such, we opted to deviate from using a typical

resilience self-report questionnaire, as the available questionnaires are inconsistent with the way

this present study defines and measures emotional resilience. For example, CD-RISC explores

understanding of resilience as a personality trait, combined with potential protective factors and

risk factors (Lamond et al., 2008). The residual approach which we adopted defined emotional

resilience as the degree to which the amount of negative emotion experienced by an individual

was less than (or more than) would be expected given the number of negative life events

experienced. Therefore, given that a strong correlation was found between negative life events and

emotional difficulty, the residual approach is, in our view, currently the best resilience measure

available. Nevertheless, alternative approaches are still possible for future research, as discussed

later.

Limitations

It is important to acknowledge the limitations of the present study. The first limitation

involves theoretical factors which were not included in our research design that may have

attributed to the non-linear associations. These components may moderate the effects of our

predictor variables (reappraisal preference and alignment) and our mediating variable

(downregulation effectiveness) on emotional resilience. The second limitation involves sample-

EMOTIONAL RESILIENCE AND EMOTION REGULATION ALIGNMENT 38

related concerns. The samples involved students drawn from the same population with limited

diversity in age group. Thus, our sample must be taken into account when attempting to generalise

findings, given that these factors have theoretical implications on emotion regulation. The third

limitation is that participants’ preview or initial exposure to the negative stimuli may have

influenced their response to the subsequent exposure of the negative stimuli, as a result of priming

effect, which may have contributed to their effectiveness in downregulating their negative

emotion.

Finally, it is plausible to consider the ecological validity of our results. Our understanding

is limited by artificial laboratory paradigms, and the artificial nature of emotional stimuli using

images (IAPS pictures). Although affective pictures can be powerful elicitors of negative

emotions, nonetheless, they are only symbolic representations of real-life events. There may be

differences in how participants responded to negative emotional images under experimental

conditions and how they respond when faced with adversity in the real world. In the real world,

individual preference for regulatory strategies to downregulate the intensity of negative emotions

in different situations will vary because real life experiences pose different sensitivities to

stressors. For example, using reappraisal to alter an emotional response to an image presented in

the laboratory is fundamentally different from using reappraisal when faced with the actual life

situation shown in the image. Strategies that work well in the laboratory situation might be

ineffective or even counterproductive in real-life or vice versa. Therefore, this study may be

replicated in naturalistic contexts, similar to emotional stimuli used in the study by Rude et al.

(Rude et al., 2013).

Theoretical Implications and Directions for Future Research

Future research should address these limitations in order to gain insight into optimisation

of research design. Specifically, future researchers may benefit from recruiting larger sample sizes
EMOTIONAL RESILIENCE AND EMOTION REGULATION ALIGNMENT 39

taken from different populations, as the hypothesised effects may only be detected in larger

samples, consistent with the two meta-analysis reviews on emotion regulation strategies discussed

in the introduction, wherein only small effect sizes were detected overall between reappraisal and

psychopathology or healthy populations (Aldao et al., 2010; Webb et al., 2012). Furthermore,

according to Parsons et al., 2016, resilience should be operationalised according to the rate of

decrease of a particular stress-marker in the period following exposure to adversity. Thus, heart

rate variability, skin conductance, self-reported mood or anxiety are among the viable measures

that could be included in future research design to examine shifts in processing negative emotion

from preview rating to downregulation rating of negative emotion during presentation of

emotional images.

Our research design centred around applying appropriate regulatory strategies following

exposure to negative situations of varying intensity levels to downregulate negative emotion. As

such, researchers must be mindful that the experience of dealing with adversity is an essential

component in the study of emotional resilience. Thus, negative life experience and emotional

difficulty need to be taken into account in research design. Multiple domains of life adversity need

to be considered when operationalising the definition of resilience. For example, an individual

may be observed to suffer from emotional difficulty as a result of a traumatic event. However, he

or she may choose to move forward in a positive manner and not to succumb to its negative effects

by drawing on experience learned from an adversity and making a conscious effort to embrace

positive aspects in order to adapt successfully. This involves enormous time to research,

particularly given that individuals typically vary across domains in how well they function

(Southwick et al., 2014). Therefore, measures of emotional resilience may need to involve

longitudinal designs to enable concise monitoring of the cognitive processes associated with

selection of appropriate regulatory strategies in different situations (Parsons et al., 2016). As such,

longitudinal studies may yield better insights into the effects of regulatory strategies that could
EMOTIONAL RESILIENCE AND EMOTION REGULATION ALIGNMENT 40

show the trajectory and the mechanisms involved in the association between regulatory strategies

and emotional resilience.

Additionally, researchers might benefit from capturing potential moderating effects that

may have influenced the non-linear effects in our findings. For example, theoretical factors that

help adjust affect, cognition, and motivation to regulate emotions (e.g., memory or attentional

biases) can be investigated prospectively to understand how emotional processing that interacts

with prior experience influences choices of reappraisal and distraction strategies. In doing so, this

will increase understanding of the mechanisms of interactions between individual’s choices of

strategies and their effectiveness at regulating emotions. Such an approach might result in a more

precise understanding of the complex relationship between our regulatory strategies of interest

(reappraisal and distraction), downregulation effectiveness, and emotional resilience.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the results of the present study indicate that emotional resilience is a

complex construct that needs to be approached from a multi-level analysis perspective. Such

analysis needs to recognise the factors that moderate the effects of regulatory strategies in

individuals’ choices of strategies in emotional processing to capture adequately how regulatory

strategies lead to emotional resilience. Furthermore, the effectiveness of using the optimal pattern

of strategy to reduce negative emotions may be more complex than the linear associations

documented thus far. Findings provide some initial evidence for a more nuanced understanding of

the importance of flexibility in selecting the optimal pattern of strategy. This study is the first to

test these effects that have been suggested by theory, examining distraction and reappraisal

strategies in different intensities. This study also suggests that effects may be small and may differ

across samples or measures. Future research is warranted to fully delineate the exact nature of the

role of reappraisal and distraction strategies on emotional resilience.

EMOTIONAL RESILIENCE AND EMOTION REGULATION ALIGNMENT 41

References

Ahern, N. R., Kiehl, E. M., Sole, M. L., & Byers, J. (2006). A review of instruments measuring

resilience. Issues in Comprehensive Pediatric Nursing, 29(2), 103-125.

Aldao, A. (2013). The future of emotion regulation research: capturing context. Perspectives on

Psychological Science, 8(2), 155-172. https://doi/10.1177/1745691612459518

Aldao, A., & Dixon-Gordon, K. L. (2014). Broadening the scope of research on emotion

regulation strategies and psychopathology. Cognitive Behaviour Therapy, 43(1), 22-33.

https://doi/10.1080/16506073.2013.816769

Aldao, A., & Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (2012). The influence of context on the implementation of

adaptive emotion regulation strategies. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 50(7-8), 493-501.

https://doi/10.1016/j.brat.2012.04.004

Aldao, A., Nolen-Hoeksema, S., & Schweizer (2010). Emotion regulation strategies across

paychopathology: A meta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 30, 217-237.

Aldao, A., Sheppes, G., & Gross, J. J. (2015). Emotion regulation flexibility. Cognitive Therapy

and Research, 39, 263-279.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10608-014-9662-4

Ayala, J. C., & Manzano, G. (2014). The resilience of the entrepreneur: influence on the success

of the business, a longitudinal analysis. Journal of Economic Psychology, 42, 126-135.

https://doi/10.1016/j.joep.2014.02.004

Block, J., & Kremen, A. M. (1996). IQ and ego-resiliency: conceptual and empirical connections

and separateness. American Psychological Association, 70(2), 349-361.

https://doi/10.1037/0022-3514.70.2.349

Bonanno, G. A. (2004). Loss, trauma, and human resilience: have we underestimated the human

capacity to thrive after extremely aversive events? The American Psychologist, 59(1), 20–8.

https://doi.org/10.1037/0003- 066X.59.1.20
EMOTIONAL RESILIENCE AND EMOTION REGULATION ALIGNMENT 42

Bonanno, G. A., & Burton, C. L. (2014). Regulatory flexibility: An individual differences

perspective on coping and emotion regulation. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8,

591–612.

Booth, C., Songco, A., Parsons, S., & Fox, E. (2020). Cognitive mechanisms predicting resilient

functioning in adolescence: evidence from the cognitive bias longitudinal study.

Development and Psychopathology, 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579420000668

Bowes, L., Maughan, B., Caspi, A., Moffitt, T. E., & Arseneault, L. (2010). Families promote

emotional and behavioural resilience to bullying: Evidence of an environmental effect.

Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 51, 809–817.

Bradley, M. M., Codispoti, M., Sabatinelli, D., & Lang, P. J. (2001). Emotion and motivation II:

Sex differences in picture processing. Emotion, 1, 300–319.

https://doi:10.1037/1528-3542.1.3.300

Buri, J. (2018). Negative life events scale for students. College Student Journal, 52(3), 361.

Carthy, T., Horesh, N., Apter, A., Edge, M. D., & Gross, J. J. (2010). Emotional reactivity and

cognitive regulation in anxious children. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 48(5), 384–393.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2009.12.013

Carver, C. S. (1997). You want to measure coping but your protocol’s too long: consider the brief

cope. International Journal of Behavioural Medicine, 4(1), 92-100.

https://doi/org/10.1207/s15327558ijbm0401_6

Chmitorz, A., Kunzler, A., Helmreich, I., Tuscher, O., Kalish, R., & Kubiak, T. (2018).

Intervention studies to foster resilience: a systematic review and proposal for a resilience

framework in future intervention studies. Clinical Psychology Review, 50, 78-100.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2017.11.002
EMOTIONAL RESILIENCE AND EMOTION REGULATION ALIGNMENT 43

Clark, L. M. & Hartman, M. (1996). Effects of hardiness and appraisal on the psychological

distress and physical health of caregivers to elderly relatives. Research on Aging, 18(4), 379-

401. https://doi/org/10.1177/0164027596184001

Cohen, S., Mermelstein, R., Kamarck, T., & Hoberman, H. (1985). Measuring the functional

components of social support. In Social Support: Theory, Research and Applications,

Martinus Nijhoff, Holland.

Collishaw, S., Hammerton, G., Mahedy, L., Sellers, R., Owen, M. J., Craddock, N., & Thapar, A.

(2016). Mental health resilience in the adolescent off-spring of parents with depression: A

prospective longitudinal study. The Lancet Psychiatry, 3, 49–57.

Colvin, C. R., Block, J., & Funder D. C. (1995). Overly positive self-evaluations and personality:

Negative implications for mental health. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68,

1152-1162. https://doi/10.1037/0022-3514.68.6.1152 7608859

Conklin, L. R., Cassiello-Robbins, C., Brake, C. A., Sauer-Zavale, S., Farchione, T. J., Craulo, D.

A., & Barlow, D. H. (2015). Relationships among adaptive and maladaptive emotion

regulation strategies and psychopathology during the treatment of comorbid anxiety and

alcohol use disorders. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 73, 124-130.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2015.08.001

Connor, K. M. & Davidson, J. R. T. (2003). The development of a new resilience scale: the

Connor-Davidson resilience scale. Depression and Anxiety, 4(2), 76-82.

https://doi.org/10.1002/da.10113

Crystal, L., Rude S., & Allen, G (2014). Neural correlates of emotion regulation: an fMRI study of

big picture reappraisal. Cognitive Sciences, 9(2), 131-149.

Diener, E., Colvin, C. R., Pavot, W. G., & Allman A. (1991). The psychic costs of intense positive

affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 492-503.

https://doi/10.1037/0022-3514.61.3.492 1941521
EMOTIONAL RESILIENCE AND EMOTION REGULATION ALIGNMENT 44

Dolcos, F., & McCarthy, G. (2006). Brain systems mediating cognitive interference by emotional

distraction. The Journal of Neuroscience, 26(7), 2072-2079.

https://doi/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5042-05.2006

Ehring, T., & Quack, D. (2010). Emotion regulation difficul- ties in trauma survivors: The role of

trauma type and PTSD symptom severity. Behaviour Therapy, 41, 587–598.

https://doi:10.1016/j.beth.2010.04.004

Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A. (2009). Statistical power analyses using GPower

3.1: tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behaviour Research Methods, 41(4), 1149-

1160. https://doi/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149

Gaffrey, M. S., Barch, D. M., Luby, J. L., & Petersen, S. E. (2020). Amygdala functional

connectivity is associated with emotion regulation and amygdala reactivity in 4- to 6-year-

olds. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, S0890-8567

(20), 30125–30128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2020.01.024

Gardner, S. E., Betts, L. R., Stiller, J., & Coates, J. (2017). The role of emotion regulation for

coping with school-based peer-victimisation in late childhood. Personality and Individual

Differences, 107, 108–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.11.035

Garmezy, N., Masten, A. S., & Tellegen, A. (1985). The study of stress and competence in

children: a building block for developmental psychopathology. Child Development, 55(1),

97-111. https://doi/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1984.tb00276.x

Garnefski, N., & Kraaij, V. (2007). The cognitive emotion regulation questionnaire. European

Journal of Psychological Assessment, 23(3), 141-149.

Garnefski, N., & Kraaij, V., & Spinhoven, P. (2001). Negative life events, cognitive emotion

regulation and emotional problems. Personality and Individual Differences, 30(8), 1311-

1327. https://doi/10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00113-6
EMOTIONAL RESILIENCE AND EMOTION REGULATION ALIGNMENT 45

Gohm, C. L. & Clore, G. L. (2000). Individual differences in emotional experience: mapping

available scales to processes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(6), 679-697.

https://doi/10.1177/0146167200268004

Gratz, K. L., & Roemer, L. (2004). Multidimensional assessment of emotion regulation and

dysregulation: Development, factor structure, and initial validation of the Difficulties in

Emotion Regulation Scale. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioural Assessment, 26,

41-54. https://doi:10.1023/B:JOBA.0000007455.08539.94

Grecucci, A., Giorgetta, C., Wout, M., Bonini, N., & Sanfey, A. G. (2013). Reappraising the

ultimatum: an fMRI study of emotion regulation and decision making. Cerebral Cortex, 23,

399-410.

Gross, J. J. (1998). Antecedent- and response-focused emotion regulation: divergent consequences

for experience, expression and physiology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

74, 224-237.

Gross, J. J. (2002). Emotion regulation: Affective, cognitive, and social consequences.

Psychophysiology, 39, 281–291. https://doi:10.1017/ S0048577201393198

Gross, J. J. (2007). Handbook of emotion regulation. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Gross, J. J., & Jazaieri, H. (2014). Emotion, emotion regulation, and psychopathology: an

affective science perspective. Clinical Psychological Science.

https://doi:10.1177/2167702614536164

Gulbrandsen, C. (2016). Measuring older women’s resilience: Evaluating the suitability of the

Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale and the Resilience Scale. Journal of Women & Aging.

28(3), 225-237. https://doi.org/10.1080/08952841.2014.951200

Hayes, A. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A

regression-based approach. Guilford publications.

EMOTIONAL RESILIENCE AND EMOTION REGULATION ALIGNMENT 46

Henry, J. D., & Crawford, J. R. (2004). The short-form version of the depression anxiety stress

scales (DASS-21): construct validity and normative data in a large non-clinical sample.

British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 44(2), 227-239.

https://doi/10.1348/014466505X29657

Holmes, T. H., & Rahe, R. H. (1967). The social readjustment rating scale. Journal of

Psychosomatic Research, 11(2), 213-218.

Hu, T., Zhang, D., Wang, J., Mistry, R., Ran, G., & Wang, X. (2014). Relation between emotion

regulation and mental health: A meta-analysis review. Psychological Reports, 114(2), 341–

362. https://doi.org/10.2466/03.20.PR0.114k22w4

Hunsberger, J. G., Austin, D. R., Chen, G., & Manji, H. K. (2009). Cellular mechanisms

underlying affective resiliency: the role of glucocorticoid receptor- and mitochondrially-

mediated plasticity. Brain Research, 1293, 76-84. https://doi/10.1016/j.brainres.2009.06.103

Juhyun, P., Naragon-Gainey, K. (2020). Is more emotional clarity always better? An examination

of curvilinear and moderated associations between emotional clarity and internalising

symptoms. Cognition and Emotion, 34(2), 273-287.

https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2019.1621803

Kalisch, R., Muller, M. B., & Tuscher, O. (2015). A conceptual framework for the neurobiological

study of resilience. Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 1, 79.

https://doi:10.1017/S0140525X1400082

Kalisch, R., Baker, D. G., Basten, U., Boks, M. P., Bonanno, G. A., Brummelman, E., & Galatzer-

Levy, I. (2017). The resilience framework as a strategy to combat stress-related disorders.

Nature Human Behaviour, 1, 784.

Kashdan, T. B. & Rottenberg, J. (2010). Psychological flexibility as a fundamental aspect of

health. Clinical Psychology Review, 30(4), 467-480. https://doi/10.1016/j.cpr.2010.04.006

EMOTIONAL RESILIENCE AND EMOTION REGULATION ALIGNMENT 47

Kim-Cohen, J., Moffitt, T. E., Caspi, A., & Taylor, A. (2004). Genetic and environmental

processes in young children’s resilience and vulnerability to socioeconomic deprivation.

Child Development, 75, 651–668.

Kobylinska, D., & Kusev, P. (2019). Flexible emotion regulation: how situational demands and

individual differences influence the effectiveness of regulatory strategies. Frontiers in

Psychology, 10(72). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00072

Koole, S. L. (2009). The psychology of emotion regulation: An integrative review. Cognition &

Emotion, 23, 4–41.

Koole, S. L., Schwager, S., & Rothermund, K. (2015). Resilience is more about being flexible

than about staying positive. The Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 38, 109-e109.

https://doi/10.1017/S0140525X14001599

Lang, P. J., Bradley, M. M., & Cuthbert, B. N. (2008). International affective picture system

(IAPS): Affective ratings of pictures and instruction manual. Technical Report A-8.

University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.

Lebel, E. P., & Paunonen, S. V. (2011). Sexy but often unreliable: the impact of unreliability on

the replicability of experimental findings with implicit measures. Personality and Social

Psychology Bulletin, 37(4), 570-583. https://doi/10.1177/0146167211400619

Levy-Gigi, E., Bonanno, G. A., Shapiro, A. R., Richter-Levin, G., Keri, S., & Sheppes, G. (2015).

Emotion regulatory flexibility sheds light on the elusive relationship between traumatic

exposure and posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms. Clinical Psychological Science, 4(1),

28-39. https://doi/10.1177/2167702615577783

Lovibond, S. H., & Lovibond, P. F. (1995). Manual for the depression and anxiety stress scales.

Sydney Psychology Foundation Australia.

Lu, F., & Chen, G. P. (2007). The development of preschool children’s emotion regulation

strategies. Psychological science, 30(5), 1202–1204.

EMOTIONAL RESILIENCE AND EMOTION REGULATION ALIGNMENT 48

https://doi.org/10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981

Luthar, S. S., Cicchetti, D., & Becker, B. (2000). The construct of resilience: A critical evaluation

and guidelines for future work. Child Development, 71, 543–562.

Martin, R. C., & Dahlen, E. R. (2005). Cognitive emotion regulation in the prediction of

depression, anxiety, stress, and anger. Personality and Individual Differences, 39(7), 1249-

1260. https://doi/10.1016/j.paid.2005.06.004

Masten, A. S. (2007). Resilience in developing systems: Progress and promise as the fourth wave

rises. Development and Psychopathology, 19, 921–930.

Masten, A. S., & Tellegen, A. (2012). Resilience in developmental psychopathology:

contributions of the project competence longitudinal study. Development and

Psychopathology, 24(2), 345-61. https://doi/10.1017/S095457941200003X

Mayberg, H. S., Liotti, M., Brannan, S. K., McGinnis, S., Mahurin, R. K., Jerabek, P. A., Silva, J.

A., Tekell, J. L., Martin, C. C., Lancaster, J. L., & Fox, P. T. (1999). Reciprocal limbic-

cortical function and negative mood: converging PET findings in depression and normal

sadness. American Journal of Psychiatry, 156(5), 675–682.

https://doi/10.1176/ajp.156.5.675

Miller-Lewis, L. R., Searle, A. K., Sawyer, M. G., Baghurst, P. A., & Hedley, D. (2013). Resource

factors for mental health resilience in early childhood: An analysis with multiple

methodologies. Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health, 7, 6.

Min, J., Yu, J., Lee, C. U., & Chae, J. (2013). Cognitive emotion regulation strategies contributing

to resilience in patients with depression and/or anxiety disorders. Comprehensive

Psychiatry, 54(8), 1990-1197. https://doi.10.1016/j.comppsych.2013.05.008.

Obradovic, J., Bush, N. R., Stamperdahl, J., Adler, N. E., & Boyce, W. T. (2010). Biological

sensitivity to context: The interactive effects of stress reactivity and family adversity on

socio- emotional behavior and school readiness. Child Development, 81(1), 270–289.
EMOTIONAL RESILIENCE AND EMOTION REGULATION ALIGNMENT 49

Opitz, P. C., Rauch, L. C., Terry, D. P., & Urry, H. L. (2012). Prefrontal mediation of age

differences in cognitive reappraisal. Neurobiology of Aging, 33, 645-655.

Ochsner, K. N., & Gross, J. J. (2005). The cognitive control of emotion. Trends in Cognitive

Sciences, 9(5), 242-249. https://doi/10.1016/j.tics.2005.03.010

Pedhazur, E. L. (1997). Multiple regression in behavioural research (3rd ed.). South Melbourne:

Wadsworth.

Park, J., & Naragon-Gainey, K. (2020). Is more emotional clarity always better? An examination

of curvilinear and moderated associations between emotional clarity and internalising

symptoms. Cognition and motion, 34(2), 273-287.

https://doi/10.1080/02699931.2019.1621803

Parsons, S., Kruijt, A., & Fox, E. (2016). A cognitive model of psychological resilience. Journal

of Experimental Psychopathology, 7(3), 296-310. https://doi.org/10.5127/jep.053415

Pennebaker, J. W. (1997). Opening up: the healing power of expressing emotions. New York, NY:

Guildford Press.

Platt, B., Waters, A., Schulte-Koerne, G., Engelmann, L., & Salemink, E. (2017). A review of

cognitive biases in youth depression: attention, interpretation and memory. Cognition and

Emotion, 31(3), 462-483. https://doi/10.1080/02699931.2015.1127215

Resnick, B., & Inguito, P. (2011). The Resilience Scale: Psychometric properties and clinical

applicability in older adults. Archives of Psychiatric Nursing, 25(1), 11–20.

https://doi/10.1016/j.apnu.2010.05.001

Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in

simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36(4),

717-731. https://doi/10.3758/BF03206553
EMOTIONAL RESILIENCE AND EMOTION REGULATION ALIGNMENT 50

Resnick, B. A. & Inguito, P. L. (2011). The resilience scale: psychometric properties and clinical

applicability in older adults. Archives of Psychiatric Nursing, 25(1), 11-20.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apnu.2010.05.001

Rodman, A. M., Jenness, J. L., Weissman, D. G., Pine, D. S., & McLaughlin, K. A. (2019).

Neurobiological markers of resilience to depression following childhood maltreatment: The

role of neural circuits supporting the cognitive control of emotion. Biological Psychiatry,

86(6), 464–473. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2019.04.033

Rochat, L., Billieux, J., & Van der Linden, M. (2012). Difficulties in disengaging attentional

resources from self-generated thoughts moderate the link between dysphoria and

maladaptive self-referential thinking. Cognition & Emotion, 26(4), 748–757.

https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2011.613917

Rottenberg, J., & Gross, J. J. (2003). When emotion goes wrong: realizing the promise of affective

science. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice. https://doi:10.1093/clipsy.bpg012

Rude, S. S., Miller, J., Haner, M., Gill, S., Zelmanova, J., & Bruehlman-Senecal, E. (2013).

Emotion regulation: Exploring the benefits of "big picture" appraisal. In S.S. Rude (Chair).

Symposium conducted at the meeting of the Association for Psychological Sciences,

Washington D.C.

Sapienza, J. K. & Masten, A. S. (2011). Understanding and promoting resilience in children and

youth. Current Opinion in Psychiatry, 24(4), 267-273.

https://doi/10.1097/YCO.0b013e32834776a8

Sapouna, M., & Wolke, D. (2013). Resilience to bullying victimization: The role of individual,

family and peer characteristics. Child Abuse & Neglect, 37, 997–1006.

Schafer, J. O., Naumann, E., Holmes, E. A., Tuschen-Caffier, B., & Samson, A. C. (2017).

Emotion regulation strategies in depressive and anxiety symptoms in youth: A meta-analytic

review. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 46(2), 261–276.

EMOTIONAL RESILIENCE AND EMOTION REGULATION ALIGNMENT 51

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-016-0585-0

Scully, J. A., & Tosi, H. (2000). Life event checklists: revisiting the social readjustment rating

scale after 30 years. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60(6), 864-876.

Sheppes, G., Scheibe, S., Suri G., & Gross, J. J. (2011). Emotion regulation choice. Association

for Psychological Science, 22(11), 1391-1396. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611418350

Sheppes, G., & Gross, J. J. (2011). Is timing everything? Temporal considerations in emotion

regulation. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 15, 319–331.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868310395778

Sheppes, G., & Meiran, N. (2007). Better late than never? On the dynamics of online regulation of

sadness using distraction and cognitive reappraisal. Personality & Social Psychology

Bulletin, 33(11), 1518-1532. https://doi/10.1177/0146167207305537

Sheppes, G., Scheibe, S., Radu, P., Suri, G., & Blechert, J. (2014). Emotion regulation choice: a

conceptual framework and supporting evidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology,

143(1), 163-181. https://doi/10.1037/a0030831

Sherbourne, C. D. & Steward, A. L. (1991). The medical outcomes study social support survey.

Social Science & Medicine, 32(6), 705-714. https://doi.org/10.1016/0277-9536(91)90150-B

Smith, B. W., Dalen, J., Wiggins, K., Tooley, E., Christopher, P., & Bernard, J. (2008). The Brief

Resilience Scale: Assessing the Ability to Bounce Back. International Journal of

Behavioural Medicine, 15, 194-200. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705500802222972

Schwager, S., & Rothermund, K. (2013). Counter-regulation triggered by emotions: Positive and

negative affective states elicit opposite valence biases in affective processing. Cognition and

Emotion, 27(5), 839-855. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2012.750599

Southwick, S., M., Bonanno, G. A., Masten, A., Panter-Brick, C., & Yehuda, R. (2014).

Resilience definitions, theory, and challenges: interdisciplinary perspectives. European

Journal of Psychotraumatology, 5. https://doi/10.3402/ejpt.v5.25338

EMOTIONAL RESILIENCE AND EMOTION REGULATION ALIGNMENT 52

Urry, H. L., & Gross, J. J. (2010). Emotion regulation in older age. Current Directions in

Psychological Science, 19, 352– 357. https://doi:10.1177/0963721410388395

Valentine, L., & Feinauer, L. L. (1993). Resilience factors associated with female survivors of

childhood sexual abuse. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 21(3), 216-224.

https://doi/10.1080/01926189308250920

van Harmelen, A. L., Kievit, R. A., Ioannidis, K., Neufeld, S., Jones, P. B., Bullmore, E., &

Goodyer, I. (2017). Adolescent friendships predict later resilient functioning across

psychosocial domains in a healthy community cohort. Psychological Medicine, 47, 2312–

2322.

Van Dillen, L. F., & Koole, S. L. (2007). Clearing the mind: A working memory model of

distraction from negative mood. Emotion, 7, 715–723.

https://doi:10.1037/1528-3542.7.4.715

Vanderbilt-Adriance E, & Shaw, D.S. (2008). Conceptualizing and re-evaluating resilience across

levels of risk, time, and domains of competence. Clinical Child and Family Psychology

Review, 11(1-2), 30-58.

Veit, C. T. & Ware, J. E. (1983). The structure of psychological distress and well-being in general

populations. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51(5), 730-742.

https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.51.5.730

Wagnild, G. M., & Young, H. M. (1993). Development and psychometric evaluation of Resilience

Scale. Journal of Nursing Measurement, 1(2), 165-178.

Wallace, K. A., Bisconti, T. L., Bergeman, C. S., & Ong, A. D. (2001). Psychological resilience,

positive emotions, and successful adaptation in later life. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 91(4), 730-749. https://doi/10.1037/0022-3514.91.4.730

EMOTIONAL RESILIENCE AND EMOTION REGULATION ALIGNMENT 53

Webb, T. L., Miles, E., & Sheeran, P. (2012). Dealing with feeling: A meta-analysis of the

effectiveness of strategies derived from the process model of emotion regulation.

Psychological Bulletin, 138, 775–808. https://doi/10.1037/a0027600

Williams, L. E., Bargh, J. A., Nocera, C. C., & Gray, J. R. (2009). The unconscious regulation of

emotion: nonconscious reappraisal goals modulate emotional reactivity. Emotion, 9(6), 847-

854. https://doi/10.1037/a0017745

Windle, G., Bennett, K., & Noyes, J. (2011). A methodological review of resilience measurement

scales. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 9(8), 1-18. https://doi.10.1186/1477-7525-9-8

Wu, Y. L., Chen, J., Yang, L. S., Ding, X. X., Yang, H. Y., & Sun, Y. H. (2015b). Change and

associated factors of self-esteem among children in rural China: A two-year longitudinal

study. Psychology, Health & Medicine, 20(8), 879–888.

Yoon, J. H., Lee, J. H., Lee, C. Y., Cho, M., & Lee, S. M. (2014). Suppressor effects of coping

strategies on resilience. Asia Pacific Education Review, 15, 537-545. doi:10.1007/s12564-

014-9343-8

Zhang, J., Wu, Y., Qu, G., Wang, L., Wu, W., Tang, X., Liu, H., Zhao, T., Xuan, K., & Sun, Y.

(2020). The relationship between psychological resilience and emotion regulation among

preschool left-behind children in rural China. Psychology, Health & Medicine, 26(5), 595-

606.

Zigmond, A., S. & Snaith, R. P. (1983). The hospital anxiety and depression scale. Acta

Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 67(6), 361-370. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-

0447.1983.tb09716.x
 EMOTIONAL RESILIENCE AND EMOTION REGULATION ALIGNMENT 54

Appendix i

Instructions provided to participants on

how to apply distraction and reappraisal strategies for the Choice Tasks

DISTRACTION:

A strategy people often use to regulate emotions is distraction.

You can feel less negative about the pictures that will be shown by thinking of something that is
completely unrelated to the picture.

There are several ways you can do this. For instance, if you see a negative picture of a woman
who has been burnt, you could think of biking around campus and the different buildings around
you. You could also imagine yourself doing everyday tasks, such as taking a shower or making
coffee in the morning. You can distract yourself in any way that works best for you, as long as it is
making you feel less negative.

You do not have to use the same distraction all the time. However, it is important that you keep
your eyes on the picture and not avert your gaze. Also, when distracting, it is important that you
do not focus on something that is highly emotional, so we do not want you to think about anything
that brings you sadness or extreme happiness.

REAPPRAISAL

A strategy people often use to regulate emotions is reappraisal.

You can feel less negative about the pictures that will be shown by attending to the picture and
trying to change its meaning or context.

There are several ways you can do this. For instance, if you see a negative picture of a woman
who has been burnt, you could think about how paramedics may be on the scene to assist her,
about how health care and plastic surgery will help her to make a full recovery, or even about how
a potential perpetrator will be caught and brought to justice.

But we want you to stay focused on the picture and *NOT* think of random things that make you
feel better, but rather to change something about the picture that helps you to feel less negative
about it.

View publication stats