Just accepted at @SCPdiv12's CP:SP!
Jen Cheavens, @SauerZavala, & I wrote up a framework to specify which parts of emotion regulation skills use researchers are studying and which contribute most to treatment outcomes. https://psyarxiv.com/7w3ed/
Jen Cheavens, @SauerZavala, & I wrote up a framework to specify which parts of emotion regulation skills use researchers are studying and which contribute most to treatment outcomes. https://psyarxiv.com/7w3ed/
Our framework has 4 levels:
1) Motivational mechanisms
2) Between-situation mechanisms
3) Within-situation mechanisms
4) Timescale of targets
+ room for contextual effects at each level!
1) Motivational mechanisms
2) Between-situation mechanisms
3) Within-situation mechanisms
4) Timescale of targets
+ room for contextual effects at each level!
1) Motivation, or emotion regulation self-efficacy, is important b/c people likely won't use skills if they don't think they can. Treatments generally improve self-efficacy, either directly or through reinforcement of successful skills outcomes
. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/da.22970?af=R

2. Many treatments teach patients lots of adaptive skills to broaden patients' repertoires, or the number of skills they have access to
. Larger repertoires may be linked with better psychological health, but the meta-analytic link is small (r = .12):
https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2014-37733-001

https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2014-37733-001
3. These treatments also teach patients to use adaptive skills more frequently. More frequent skill use sometimes mediates improvements (Webb et al., 2016) and sometimes doesn't (Wilks et al., 2016)
.
Webb: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2016.03.006
Wilks: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2015.12.013

Webb: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2016.03.006
Wilks: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2015.12.013
4. Instead, improving the quality of skills used may be helpful. That is, instead of teaching patients a range of skills, it may be more helpful to ensure they're using a few skills well
. Dan Strunk & co have looked at this in CT: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10608-014-9617-9

5. Alternatively, it may be more helpful to teach people to recognize & stop engaging in maladaptive behaviors
. In the @UnifiedProtocol, changes in maladaptive strategies more strongly predicted outcomes than changes in adaptive strategies: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0005796715300243?via%3Dihub

6. When faced with a stressful situation, should people try a lot of strategies or a few targeted ones? In general, more adaptive strategies are probably better, although if the situation persists, coming back to go-to strategies may be most helpful. 
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6191057/


7. If people DO use multiple strategies, in what order should they be used? Guiller et al. (2019) note people tend to avoid, reappraise, then accept. In treatment, it may be best to start with patient strengths instead of new skills.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886919300352

8. We argue strategies can be classified by orthogonal dimensions of short-term effectiveness and long-term adaptiveness. Some strategies, like distraction, are effective in the moment, but, if used habitually, can lead to worse outcomes.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02699931.2020.1797637

9. Of course, context matters. Genetic, neurological, developmental, environmental, and individual difference variables can all impact the effectiveness and/or adaptiveness of strategies. 
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6693875/


10. We hope this framework can (a) help basic affective science researchers translate findings to clinical practice and vice versa, (b) better specify the broad construct of emotion reg, & (c) highlight promising areas of treatment optimization!