Abstract
Contextual factors influence how people regulate their everyday emotions. While daily life is rich with situations that evoke emotion regulation, few studies have broadly investigated the role of context in regulating emotions in response to naturally occurring negative events. In this study, we use a structured diary technique—the Experience Sampling Method—to test how different types of contextual factors are associated with using reappraisal and distraction to regulate daily emotions in N = 74 young adults from the general population. The following contextual factors were assessed: time of the day, weekday, tiredness, event stressfulness, and event type. We found that higher stressfulness of negative events was associated with using more distraction within- and between-person and using more reappraisal between persons. Time of day and weekday were not associated with reappraisal or distraction use, suggesting that variation in people’s external environments due to temporal patterns does not influence reappraisal or distraction use. However, tiredness was positively associated with distraction and reappraisal use within persons. Exploratory analyses suggested that experiencing time pressure affords less distraction use, and that experiencing physical discomfort affords less reappraisal use. These findings underscore the dynamic nature of emotion regulation, and the importance of context in everyday emotion regulation.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
The data is currently not publicly available, as additional studies may be conducted using this dataset, by researchers within and outside the research group who collected the dataset. To access the dataset, researchers submit an abstract via the DROPS-data access system of the Center for Contextual Psychiatry, KU Leuven. Abstracts are reviewed by a data manager to ensure no overlap with ongoing studies using the same dataset. Once an abstract is approved, and the study pre-registered, researchers can request variables for their analyses, which will be processed by a data manager.
References
Aldao, A. (2013). The future of emotion regulation research: Capturing context. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(2), 155–172. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612459518
Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., Walker, S. (2015). Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1). https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01
Bennik, E. (2015). Every dark cloud has a colored lining: The relation between positive and negative affect and reactivity to positive and negative events. [Groningen]: University of Groningen.
Benning, S. D., Bachrach, R. L., Smith, E. A., Freeman, A. J., & Wright, A. G. C. (2019). The registration continuum in clinical science: A guide toward transparent practices. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 128(6), 528–540. https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0000451
Blatter, K., & Cajochen, C. (2007). Circadian rhythms in cognitive performance: Methodological constraints, protocols, theoretical underpinnings. Physiology & Behavior, 90(2–3), 196–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2006.09.009
Brans, K., Koval, P., Verduyn, P., Lim, Y. L., & Kuppens, P. (2013). The regulation of negative and positive affect in daily life. Emotion, 13(5), 926. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032400
Chin, A., Markey, A., Bhargava, S., Kassam, K. S., & Loewenstein, G. (2017). Bored in the USA: Experience sampling and boredom in everyday life. Emotion, 17(2), 359. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000232
Collip, D., Wigman, J. T. W., Myin-Germeys, I., Jacobs, N., Derom, C., Thiery, E., … van Os, J. (2013). From Epidemiology to Daily Life: Linking Daily Life Stress Reactivity to Persistence of Psychotic Experiences in a Longitudinal General Population Study. PLoS ONE, 8(4), e62688. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0062688
Colombo, D., Fernández-Álvarez, J., Suso-Ribera, C., Cipresso, P., Valev, H., Leufkens, T., ... & Botella, C. (2020). The need for change: Understanding emotion regulation antecedents and consequences using ecological momentary assessment. Emotion, 20(1), 30. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000671
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Larson, R. (1987). The experience sampling method: Toward a systematic phenomenology. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 175, 526–536.
De France, K., & Hollenstein, T. (2021). Emotion Regulation Strategy Use and Success During Adolescence: Assessing the Role of Context. Journal of Research on Adolescence. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12672
De Wild-Hartmann, J. A., Wichers, M., Van Bemmel, A. L., Derom, C., Thiery, E., Jacobs, N., … Simons, C. J. P. (2013). Day-to-day associations between subjective sleep and affect in regard to future depression in a female population-based sample. British Journal of Psychiatry, 202(6), 407–412. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.bp.112.123794
Eisele, G., Vachon, H., Lafit, G., Kuppens, P., Houben, M., Myin-Germeys, I., & Viechtbauer, W. (2020). The Effects of Sampling Frequency and Questionnaire Length on Perceived Burden, Compliance, and Careless Responding in Experience Sampling Data in a Student Population. Assessment, 107319112095710. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191120957102
English, T., Lee, I. A., John, O. P., & Gross, J. J. (2017). Emotion regulation strategy selection in daily life: The role of social context and goals. Motivation and Emotion, 41, 230–242. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-016-9597-z
Ford, B. Q., & Troy, A. S. (2019). Reappraisal reconsidered: A closer look at the costs of an acclaimed emotion-regulation strategy. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 28(2), 195–203. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721419827526
Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Houghton Mifflin.
Gross, J. J. (1998). The emerging field of emotion regulation: An integrative review. Review of General Psychology, 2, 271–299. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.2.3.271
Gross, J. J. (2015). The extended process model of emotion regulation: Elaborations, applications, and future directions. Psychological Inquiry, 26(1), 130–137. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2015.989751
Hawkley, L. C., Preacher, K. J., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2010). Loneliness impairs daytime functioning but not sleep duration. Health Psychology, 29(2), 124. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018646
Hiekkaranta, A. P., Kirtley, O. J., Lafit, G., Decoster, J., Derom, C., de Hert, M., ... & Myin-Germeys, I. (2021). Emotion regulation in response to daily negative and positive events in youth: The role of event intensity and psychopathology. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 144, 103916. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2021.103916
Kirtley, O. J. (2022). Advancing credibility in longitudinal research by implementing open science practices: Opportunities, practical examples, and challenges. Infant and Child Development, 31(1), e2302. https://doi.org/10.1002/icd.2302
Kirtley, O. J., Hiekkaranta, A. P., Kunkels, Y. K., Verhoeven, D., Van Nierop, M., & Myin-Germeys, I. (2023). The Experience Sampling Method (ESM) Item Repository. OSF. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/KG376
Kirtley, O. J., Lafit, G., Achterhof, R., Hiekkaranta, A. P., & Myin-Germeys, I. (2021). Making the Black Box Transparent: A Template and Tutorial for Registration of Studies Using Experience-Sampling Methods. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245920924686
Koole, S. L., & Veenstra, L. (2015). Does emotion regulation occur only inside people’s heads? Toward a situated cognition analysis of emotion-regulatory dynamics. Psychological Inquiry, 26(1), 61–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2015.964657
Koval, P., & Kalokerinos, E. K. (2023). Daily diaries and ecological momentary assessment. In J. J. Gross & B. Q. Ford (Eds.), Handbook of Emotion Regulation (3rd ed). Guilford Publications.
Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B., & Christensen, R. H. B. (2017). lmerTest Package: Tests in Linear Mixed Effects Models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82(13), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v082.i13
Lafit, G., Adolf, J., Dejonckheere, E., Myin-Germeys, I., Viechtbauer, W., & Ceulemans, E. (2020). Selection of the Number of Participants in Intensive Longitudinal Studies: A User-friendly Shiny App and Tutorial to Perform Power Analysis in Multilevel Regression Models that Account for Temporal Dependencies. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/dq6ky
Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. Oxford University Press on Demand.
Lennarz, H. K., Hollenstein, T., Lichtwarck-Aschoff, A., Kuntsche, E., & Granic, I. (2019). Emotion regulation in action: Use, selection, and success of emotion regulation in adolescents’ daily lives. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 43(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025418755540
Levine, L. J., Schmidt, S., Kang, H. S., & Tinti, C. (2012). Remembering the silver lining: Reappraisal and positive bias in memory for emotion. Cognition & Emotion, 26(5), 871–884. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2011.625403
Meers, K., Dejonckheere, E., Kalokerinos, E. K., Rummens, K., & Kuppens, P. (2020). MobileQ: A free user-friendly application for collecting experience sampling data. Behavior Research Methods, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-019-01330-1
Myin-Germeys, I., Kasanova, Z., Vaessen, T., Vachon, H., Kirtley, O., Viechtbauer, W., & Reininghaus, U. (2018). Experience sampling methodology in mental health research: New insights and technical developments. World Psychiatry, 17(2), 123–132. https://doi.org/10.1002/wps.20513
Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (2012). Emotion regulation and psychopathology: The role of gender. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 8(1), 161–187. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032511-143109
Parkinson, B., & Totterdell, P. (1999). Classifying affect-regulation strategies. Cognition & Emotion, 13(3), 277–303. https://doi.org/10.1080/026999399379285
Pasyugina, I., Koval, P., De Leersnyder, J., Mesquita, B., & Kuppens, P. (2015). Distinguishing between level and impact of rumination as predictors of depressive symptoms: An experience sampling study. Cognition and Emotion, 29(4), 736–746. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2014.932755
R Core Team (2019). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL https://www.R-project.org/
Rintala, A., Wampers, M., Myin-Germeys, I., & Viechtbauer, W. (2019). Response compliance and predictors thereof in studies using the experience sampling method. Psychological Assessment, 31(2), 226. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000662
San Chang, Y., Wu, Y. H., Hsu, C. Y., Tang, S. H., Yang, L. L., & Su, S. F. (2011). Impairment of perceptual and motor abilities at the end of a night shift is greater in nurses working fast rotating shifts. Sleep Medicine, 12(9), 866–869. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sleep.2011.03.018
Scheibe, S., Sheppes, G., & Staudinger, U. M. (2015). Distract or reappraise? Age-Related Differences in Emotion-Regulation Choice. Emotion, 15(6), 677. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039246
Scott, K. M., & Kline, M. (2019). Enabling confirmatory secondary data analysis by logging data checkout. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 2(1), 45–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245918815849
Sheppes, G. (2020b). Transcending the “good & bad” and “here & now” in emotion regulation: Costs and benefits of strategies across regulatory stages. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 61, 185. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.aesp.2019.09.003
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., & Gross, J. J. (2012). Emotion regulation effectiveness: What works when. In H. A. Tennen & J. M. Suls (Eds.), Handbook of psychology (2nd ed., pp. 391–406). Wiley-Blackwell Press.
Sheppes, G., Scheibe, S., Suri, G., & Gross, J. J. (2011). Emotion-regulation choice. Psychological Science, 22(11), 1391–1396. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611418350
Sheppes, G., Scheibe, S., Suri, G., Radu, P., Blechert, J., & Gross, J. J. (2014). Emotion regulation choice: A conceptual framework and supporting evidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(1), 163. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030831
Sheppes, G. (2020a). Transcending the “good & bad” and “here & now” in emotion regulation: Costs and benefits of strategies across regulatory stages. In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 61, pp. 185–236). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.aesp.2019.09.003
Silk, J. S., Steinberg, L., & Morris, A. S. (2003). Adolescents’ emotion regulation in daily life: Links to depressive symptoms and problem behavior. Child Development, 74(6), 1869–1880. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1467-8624.2003.00643.x
Sirois, F. M. (2023). Procrastination and stress: A conceptual review of why context matters. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 20(6), 5031. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20065031
Sirois, F. M., & Kitner, R. (2015). Less adaptive or more maladaptive? A meta-analytic investigation of procrastination and coping. European Journal of Personality, 29(4), 433–444. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.1985T
Suri, G., Sheppes, G., Young, G., Abraham, D., McRae, K., & Gross, J. J. (2018). Emotion regulation choice: The role of environmental affordances. Cognition and Emotion, 32(5), 963–971. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2017.1371003
Takano, K., & Tanno, Y. (2011). Diurnal variation in rumination. Emotion, 11(5), 1046. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022757
Thewissen, V., Bentall, R. P., Lecomte, T., van Os, J., & Myin-Germeys, I. (2008). Fluctuations in self-esteem and paranoia in the context of daily life. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 117(1), 143–153. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.117.1.143
Throuvala, M. A., Pontes, H. M., Tsaousis, I., Griffiths, M. D., Rennoldson, M., & Kuss, D. J. (2021). Exploring the dimensions of smartphone distraction: Development, validation, measurement invariance, and latent mean differences of the Smartphone Distraction Scale (SDS). Frontiers in Psychiatry, 12, 199. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2021.642634
Troy, A. S., Saquib, S., Thal, J., & Ciuk, D. J. (2019). The regulation of negative and positive affect in response to daily stressors. Emotion, 19(5), 751–763. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000486
Wilms, R., Lanwehr, R., & Kastenmüller, A. (2020). Emotion Regulation in Everyday Life: The Role of Goals and Situational Factors. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 877. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00877
Wilson, T. D., & Gilbert, D. T. (2008). Explaining away: A model of affective adaptation. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3(5), 370–386. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2008.00085.x
Wright, K. P., Jr., Bogan, R. K., & Wyatt, J. K. (2013). Shift work and the assessment and management of shift work disorder (SWD). Sleep Medicine Reviews, 17(1), 41–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smrv.2012.02.002
Young, G., & Suri, G. (2020). Emotion regulation choice: A broad examination of external factors. Cognition and Emotion, 34(2), 242–261. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2019.1611544
Funding
The research leading to these results has received funding from a Research Foundation Flanders Odysseus grant to IMG (FWO GOF8416N), supporting APH, OJK, and GL. OJK is currently also supported by a Senior Postdoctoral Fellowship from Research Foundation Flanders (FWO 1257821N). At the time of the data collection GE was supported by the Odysseus grant to IMG (FWO GOF8416N) as well.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Conceptualization: APH, OJK, IMG; data curation: GE; formal analysis: APH, GL; funding acquisition: IMG; investigation: GE; methodology: APH, OJK, GL, GE, IMG; project administration: APH, OJK, GE; resources: IMG; software: APH, GE, GL; supervision: OJK, IMG; validation: OJK, IMG; visualization: APH; writing—original draft preparation: APH; writing—review and editing: OJK, GL, GE, MH, IMG.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Informed Consent
Written informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Ethical approval reference:
G-2018 07 1285.
Conflicts of interest
On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Postregistration
The current study and code for analyses were postregistered at the Open Science Framework. Registration for peer review: https://osf.io/9zrge.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendices
Appendix 1
The Twins dataset (Collip et al., 2013; De Wild-Hartmann et al., 2013) from the MERGE dataset library (for a list of studies included in the MERGE, see Appendix 1 in Rintala et al., 2019) included most of the variables also involved in the analyses of the current study. We, therefore, conducted a power analysis using the Twins dataset with variables: negative event intensity, tiredness, time of the day, weekday, and the covariates age and gender. Negative event intensity was measured as event unpleasantness ranging from 0 to -3 and tiredness was measured with one ESM item: I feel tired (1 = not at all to 7 = very much). Time of the day was transformed into the same nine time blocks as in the current study and weekday was included as a 7-level factor. The specific outcomes of reappraisal and distraction were not available in any existing dataset we had access to, therefore, as a proxy we used another emotion regulation variable available within the Twins dataset, rumination (I am ruminating, 1 = not at all—7 = very much). We considered rumination to be a satisfactory proxy for distraction and reappraisal because it provides an estimate of the expected occurrence of an emotion regulation process in daily life as well as its relationship with other daily life variables. Moreover, as hypothesized in the current investigation regarding reappraisal and distraction, rumination has been shown to vary along temporal patterns in daily life (Takano & Tanno, 2011).
The event type variable or a similar proxy, was not available in the Twins dataset. Therefore, we conducted a separate additional sensitivity analysis with estimates of the proportion of interpersonal events from another existing study within the MERGE library, the ZAPP study (Thewissen et al., 2008). In this study, participants were asked to think about the most important event since the last beep and to report whether the event was personal or social (0 = intrapersonal, 1 = interpersonal). Only events which were rated as negative were included. In this additional sensitivity analysis, to estimate power we varied the effect of the variable event type by allowing for an increase of 1%, 2%, 5%, 10%, 20%, 50%, and 100% in the fixed intercept. This means that when participants report an event as being interpersonal, there would be an increase in the fixed intercept of 1%, 2%,…, or 100%. This way, we gained an estimate of how power is affected by expected change in the effect of event type. Because the event type variable parameter estimates were derived from a different dataset, we did not have information about its random effects and therefore, we only estimated the fixed effect in the sensitivity analysis. We also assumed that the event type was linearly independent with the rest of the predictors included in the model, therefore, we used the parameter estimates from the power analysis reported above.
The power analysis was conducted with a Monte Carlo simulation with 1000 replicates with the parameter estimates derived from the Twins dataset and the ZAPP dataset. The study duration was set to 14 days with 3, 6, and 9 measurement occasions per day per participant condition, with 50 participants in each condition, as in the dataset that was used for the current study (current study, N = 74). The model for power analysis included rumination as the outcome variable, with time of the day, day of the week, event intensity, and tiredness as independent variables with random slopes and age as a covariate. Gender was not included as a covariate because there were no males in the Twins dataset used for power analysis. For each simulated sample, the power was estimated as the number of Monte Carlo replicates in which the null hypothesis that the fixed intercepts are not statistically significant from zero, is rejected. At the alpha level 0.05, the following estimates for power were observed for a sample size of 150: time of the day (block 4, 15:00 – 16:30, = 0.88 and block 8, 21:00 – 22:30 = 0.89), day of the week (weekday 5 = 0.93), tiredness (1.0), and event intensity (1.0). Age was not significantly associated with the outcome variable and therefore power to detect its effect was not calculated. The reappraisal, event type, and event stressfulness variables were only included in the long-format ESM questionnaire condition, in which we expected to have 78 participants. At the alpha level 0.05, the following estimates for power were observed for a sample size of 78: time of the day block 8, 21:00 – 22:30 = 0.62), day of the week (weekday 5 = 0.67), tiredness (0.97), and event intensity (1.0). Therefore, the power to detect the hypothesized effects of temporal variables time of day and weekday was potentially low (Hypotheses 1a and 1b). The sensitivity analyses showed that when the event type variable (coded as 0 = personal event, 1 = social event) explained an increase of 5% of in the intercept of the outcome variable, the power to detect the effect was 0.99.
We recognize that the parameter estimates used in this power analysis are not derived from a dataset that is identical to the dataset of the current study and we therefore do not assume this power analysis to be precise, but rather an estimate of how these models fit real data where we expect the effects to be similar to those in the current study. We hope therefore to provide a valuable power estimation derived from real ESM data that closely resembles the dataset used for the current study.
Appendix 2
To access the dataset, we submitted an abstract via the Data Curation for Open Science (DROPS; Kirtley, 2022)—data access system of the Center for Contextual Psychiatry, KU Leuven, which was reviewed by the data manager of the dataset of the original study. After the abstract was approved, we then submitted a request for the variables used for the proposed analyses for the current study. As a part of the variable request, we provided a link to an OSF registration. Variables were then released to the lead researcher, along with a time- and date-stamped receipt of data access. The ESM items used in the current study are also publicly available to other researchers at the ESM Item Repository, and online ongoing project where ESM items, details of their use, and development are documented (Kirtley et al., 2023; https://esmitemrepository.com/).
Appendix 3
Table 5
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Hiekkaranta, A.P., Kirtley, O.J., Eisele, G. et al. Time to reappraise or distract? temporal and situational context in emotion regulation in daily life. Curr Psychol 43, 11139–11156 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-023-05233-5
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-023-05233-5