Emotion self-regulation

Emotion regulation refers to all manner of efforts to shaping emotional responses (Gross, 2014; Pekrun & Linnenbrink-Garcia, 2012). Emotion regulation is a sub-part of affective regulation focalizing on emotions. It allows individuals to man-age their emotions, i.e., make an offset correction of an emotional response by in-creasing, maintaining or decreasing both positive and negative emotions towards a more desirable emotional state. Therefore, emotion regulation generates changes in the way individuals experience and express their emotions (Gross, 2014; Koole, 2009). Emotion regulation mobilizes down-regulation (i.e., restore a neutral base-line), maintenance (i.e., maintain a given emotional response over a more extended period of time) and up-regulation (i.e., increase the magnitude of a given emotional response) processes. However, emotion regulation does not always guarantee to reach the desired emotional state and may even have drawback effects (e.g., irre-pressible laughing at funerals) (Koole, 2009). As emotion is a multicomponent phe-nomenon (involving cognitive, experiential, motivational, behavioral and physio-logical components), emotion regulation is intended to be observed across each of these components. Besides, emotion is also characterized by its intrinsic dimensions (e.g., valence, arousal, control). Accordingly, emotional regulation targets these dif-ferent dimensions (Koole, 2009). This process can take place along a continuum from explicit, conscious, effortful and controlled attempt to control emotion (e.g., trying to lower one’s anxiety before an exam) to implicit, unconscious, effortless and auto-matic regulation (Gross, 2014; Koole, 2009). Three factors come into play in an emo-tion regulaemo-tion episode, which are the awareness of one’s emoemo-tion and the context (bringing information about the need to regulated it), the activation of a regulatory goal (determining the form of the regulation; e.g., up or down-regulation), and the engagement of regulatory strategies (specifying the means to reach the goal) (Gross, 2014; Peña-Sarrionandia et al., 2015).

Individuals mobilize a host of implicit or explicit strategies, which refer to the con-crete ways of managing their emotions. These strategies can be grouped along sev-eral criteria. According to Koole (2009), the first criterion that may be considered is the emotion-generating systems targeted by emotion regulation, such as atten-tion, knowledge or bodily expressions. As attention highlights emotional responses, emotion regulation modulates attention to change emotional responses. Emotion regulation also targets emotion knowledge that emerges from cognitive appraisals or memory. Finally, emotion regulation also focuses on bodily manifestations that convey emotions (e.g., facial expressions). A second criterion that can be used to classify emotion regulation strategies is to consider the different functions they play or the goals they aim to achieve. Functions are independent of emotion-generating systems as a given psychological outcome can be obtained through the modulation of one or several of them. A first function (need-oriented or hedonic regulation)

consists of mobilizing emotional regulation to promote a fast return to an agree-able state following an aversive emotional state or to boost positive emotions. This process, mainly implicit and automatic, could help to preserve cognitive resources, overused to cope with negative states. However, hedonic regulation is not system-atically suited. For example, individuals sometimes try to maintain some negative emotions to fulfill particular goals (goal-oriented or instrumental regulation). For example, video game players may downregulate a positive emotion (e.g., amuse-ment) to stay focused on the game. In this case, emotion regulation responds to specific goals, and that regulation may imply going beyond basic hedonic needs.

Besides, another function of emotion regulation is to facilitate personality function-ing (person-oriented regulation) (see Kuhl, 2000, for more details). These different functions may align or conflict with one another. For example, emotion regulation regarding the fulfillment of a given goal can go against automatic hedonic regula-tion.

The Process model of emotion self-regulation The Process Model (Gross, 1998) distinguishes five different types of emotion regulation strategies referring to five ways to regulate a situation. These families of strategies are used at a micro-level (i.e., in the milliseconds or seconds following an emotion-eliciting event) and a macro-level (i.e., in the minutes, hours or days following the emotional situation) (Peña-Sarrionandia et al., 2015). (Figure 3.2). The first family of strategies is

sit-FIGURE3.2: The process model of emotion self-regulation. Retrieved from Gross (1998)

uation selection. It consists of selecting situations that increase the likelihood of meeting relevant emotions. On a reciprocal basis, it also involves avoiding situa-tions that increase the likelihood of irrelevant emositua-tions. Situation selection is di-rected toward the future as it involves individuals to guess the course of their emo-tions if no action alters their default trajectory in a given situation (Gross, 2008).

Some examples are avoiding candy aisles not to feel guilty of having bought un-healthy food (avoidance) or prioritizing homework in order to avoid negative emo-tions coming from dull but necessary tasks (confrontation). The second family is situation modification. It refers to the modification of the external or physical en-vironment to alter its emotional impact. Contrary to situation selection, changes are made within the situation. As an example, alleviate tension during a tough meet-ing or ask one’s neighbor to turn the volume down are ways to anticipate the onset of negative emotions in situation. Examples of situation modification strategies are direct situation modification (i.e., taking direct action to change the situation), help-seeking (i.e., help-seeking assistance in changing the situation), and conflict resolution (i.e., finding a solution to a conflict causing negative emotions). The third family isattentional deployment. It is particularly suited when situation modification is not possible or desired (Gross, 2008). It involves directing one’s attention toward or away from a given situation to influence one’s emotions. Attentional deployment may take several forms. For example, distraction consists of moving one’s attention away from the emotional situation or refocusing on non-emotional aspects. For ex-ample, individuals can alleviate boredom during some meetings by looking at their emails. Thought suppression refers to substitute negative thoughts or mental im-ages to modify one’s emotional state. For example, people can stop focusing on an upcoming stressful event by imagining themselves in a pleasant situation. Rumina-tion is the opposite phenomenon that consists of focusing repetitively on the same specific feeling and its consequences (e.g., continually thinking about a traumatic event). It generally increases the intensity of emotions (Gross, 2008). The fourth family iscognitive change. It concerns the modification of how the situation is ap-praised to alter its emotional significance, and therefore the way we feel about it. It may refer to both the way individuals think about the situation or their ability to manage the situation demands (Gross, 2008). One major form of cognitive change is known as reappraisal, which consists of changing the meaning of an event to al-ter its emotional impact more positively or negatively. For example, a student can down-regulate positive feelings arising after receiving an A grade by considering that he/she does not deserve it. Other forms of reappraisal, such as distancing (i.e., adopting a third-person perspective regarding an emotional event) or using humor, can also help to up-regulate positive emotions and down-regulate negative emo-tions. Finally, the last family is calledresponse modulation. It involves attempts to directly influencing experiential, behavioral, and physiological emotional responses.

As depicted in Figure 3.2, it happens last in the emotion-generation process. A type of response modulation strategy is emotion sharing (e.g., call someone after hav-ing experienced a highly emotional situation). If emotion sharhav-ing does not allow individuals to foster emotional recovery, it is beneficial to mental health or social bonds. Another well-known response modulation is expressive suppression, which refers to inhibit unwanted emotional expressions. Expressive suppression would not change the emotional experience and may even increase sympathetic arousal,

as individuals try to suppress effortfully ongoing emotions. Expressive suppression is considered as a less adaptive emotion regulation strategy than cognitive reap-praisal (Gross, 2008). Other responses modulation techniques are, for example, drug use (aiming mainly at altering negative emotional responses) or exercise (allowing individuals to down-regulate the physiological and experiential effects of negative emotions) (Gross & Thompson, 2007).

In academic settings, as in life, the capacity to manage one’s emotions is thought to influence how students learn and solve problems (Boekaerts & Pekrun, 2015). For example, emotional regulation is related to higher problem-solving ability (Carlson

& Bloom, 2005). However, little is known to date about emotion regulation in learn-ing (Pekrun, 2012). In learnlearn-ing situations, emotion regulation can be defined as the

“students’ capacity to use their emotions as a source of energy, yet modify aspects of the emotional experience when it interferes with the pursuit of important goals”

(Boekaerts & Pekrun, 2015, p. 83).

Boekaerts’ dual processing model Boekaerts’ dual processing model (Figure 3.3) proposes a dynamic model that highlights how emotions intervene in learning con-texts and how they influence cognitions and actions, leading to different achieve-ment and performance. It also explains how students regulate their emotions during learning tasks.

A major tenet of this model is that students experience, during learning, a dilemma between two main priorities, namely achieving learning gains (growth or master pathway) and safeguard their well-being (well-being pathway) (Boekaerts, 2007;

Boekaerts and Pekrun, 2015). Therefore, students try to balance these two goals pri-orities. When getting into a learning activity, students forge a mental representation of the task-in-context according to three sources of information. The first source of information comes from the current perceptions of the task and its context. The second source relates todomain-specific knowledge and meta(cognitive) strategies related to the task. The third source refers todomain-specific motivational beliefs about self-ability, interest, effort, etc. These different sources of information are activated in working memory (WM) when students get into the learning task and represent the proximal determinants of prospective academic emotions as well as learning or coping intentions. When this representation matches their own goals, needs and aspirations, students experience positive cognitions and emotions that encourage them to commit to the task. In this case, they activate cognitive and metacognitive strategies aiming at broadening knowledge and competence (learning intentions in the growth pathway). However, when this representation goes against students’ well-being, negative cognitions and emotions emerge that encourage students to activate strategies aiming at safeguarding their well-being (coping intentions in the well-being pathway). In addition, these evaluations occur throughout the task, and initial representations may change. For example,

FIGURE3.3: The dual processing model. Retrieved from Boekaerts (2011)

threats to well-being may appear, such as poor self-efficacy, negative outcomes expectations, reduced interest, and lead to the emergence of negative emotions (e.g., worry, anticipated embarrassment, disappointment, sadness, irritation, boredom, hopelessness). In contrast, positive cues such as high self-efficacy, positive outcomes expectations, increased interest can trigger hopefulness, satisfaction or anticipated pride (Boekaerts, 2007, 2011).

In summary, emotions need to be adequately appraised, monitored and con-trolled by individuals to foster their beneficial effects and prevent their detri-mental effects on collaborative problem-solving. Emotional intelligence en-compasses different emotional competencies (perception and expression of emotions, assimilating emotions in thought, understanding and analyzing emotions and reflective regulation of emotions) underlying the capacity of individuals to manage emotions in context constructively. More specifically, the regulation of emotions includes different processes allowing to make an offset correction of an occurred or anticipated emotional response (situation selection, situation modification, attentional deployment, cognitive change and response modulation) (Gross, 1998). Boekaerts’ dual processing model (Boekaerts, 2007) describes how emotions inform learners regarding positive or negative events and trigger strategies dedicated to balancing both well-being and learning intentions.