Distraction as an Emotion Regulation Strategy

Author: Angela Bogdanova · Published: October 16, 2026 · Editorial Policy

Research cluster: Emotion Regulation & Psychological Flexibility · Written by Artificial Sapiens

Distraction is an emotion regulation strategy in which attention is deliberately redirected away from an emotionally salient stimulus, thought, memory, or sensation toward an alternative object or activity. It belongs to the family of attentional deployment processes in the scientific study of emotion regulation. A person might focus on a conversation while waiting for medical results, perform a demanding mental task during a moment of acute distress, or take a brief walk before returning to a difficult discussion. In each case, the immediate regulatory mechanism concerns what receives attention and how much emotional information is processed at that moment. The strategy's usefulness depends on the emotional situation, the person's goals, the duration of disengagement, and whether they can subsequently respond to what matters. Gross (2015) and Sheppes and colleagues (2014) provide the main theoretical foundations.

Research supports distraction as a potentially effective short-term way of reducing negative emotional responding. The evidence is strongest for specific experimental tasks and selected forms of attention redirection. A meta-analysis identified an average benefit for distraction while also finding major differences among attentional strategies, and experiments show that people often select distraction when negative emotional intensity is high. These results do not establish that distraction is universally beneficial, that it resolves the cause of distress, or that using it frequently prevents mental illness. Webb, Miles, and Sheeran (2012); Sheppes, Scheibe, Suri, and Gross (2011).

What Distraction Means in Emotion Regulation

Emotion regulation refers to processes that influence which emotions occur, when they occur, and how they are experienced or expressed. Attention is one of the mechanisms through which an unfolding emotional response can be shaped. Emotionally meaningful information competes with other sights, sounds, thoughts, tasks, and goals for limited attentional resources. Deliberate distraction recruits those resources for something other than the original emotional material. The person may still recognize that the situation matters; attention is redirected to change the immediate experience or support a useful next action.

The defining features are a regulatory goal, an attentional shift, and an alternative focus. Simply noticing an unrelated event is ordinary distraction. Intentionally using a competing task to reduce the impact of disturbing images is an emotion-regulation attempt. The same observable behavior may therefore serve different functions. Reading a novel can be leisure, learning, avoidance of a responsibility, or a planned interval of emotional recovery, depending on what is happening around it.

Distraction operates within a larger regulatory sequence. A person first notices a need to influence an emotional response, selects an available strategy, puts that strategy into practice, and monitors its effects. Gross's extended process model identifies these stages of regulation, making it possible to ask why the same technique is useful on one occasion and costly on another. A strategy's short-term effect and its contribution to long-term functioning are separate questions. Gross (2015).

How Attention Redirection Changes Emotional Experience

Attentional selection and competing processing demands

Emotional experiences develop through interactions among situation, attention, appraisal, bodily changes, action tendencies, and social meaning. Attention influences which parts of a situation are represented in detail. A disturbing memory may prompt repeated interpretation of its implications; shifting attention to a competing visual or cognitive task may interrupt some of that ongoing elaboration. In experimental paradigms, researchers ask participants to redirect their thoughts, count stimuli, perform a neutral task, or orient toward nonemotional material while measuring self-reported affect or physiological and neural responses.

The proposed mechanism combines reduced engagement with emotionally significant information and competition for processing resources. Some forms of distraction recruit substantial working memory or sustained attention; others rely on simple environmental change. They are not necessarily interchangeable. A trivial task may leave ample opportunity for rumination, while a cognitively demanding activity may be difficult when someone is exhausted or highly distressed. Evidence for a particular laboratory task should be interpreted at the level of that task before it is extended to everyday activities.

Timing and the intensity of emotion

The process model places attentional deployment relatively early in the formation of an emotional response, before some later stages of elaboration and response modulation. People can also redirect attention after emotion is already underway, although timing and difficulty may affect what happens. Distraction can sometimes reduce the additional processing of high-intensity negative material that would otherwise amplify immediate distress.

In three experiments using emotional pictures or unpredictable electrical stimulation, participants generally preferred reappraisal in lower-intensity negative contexts and distraction in higher-intensity contexts. The finding concerned regulation choice under defined experimental conditions. A later program of experiments and a conceptual framework examined emotional intensity, cognitive demands, and goals as influences on selection. The studies support context-sensitive selection rather than a fixed hierarchy in which one strategy always wins. Sheppes et al. (2011); Sheppes et al. (2014).

Electrophysiological work further found that under high emotional intensity distraction could produce greater immediate reduction of reported negative affect and the late positive potential, an event-related potential associated in these paradigms with attention to motivationally significant stimuli, compared with reappraisal. This is a laboratory finding about momentary processing, not a neural diagnostic marker or a claim that every form of distraction outperforms reframing in daily life. The experimental report should be read alongside its task-specific limitations.

Short-term relief and subsequent emotion processing

Attention redirection may lower distress long enough to support sleep, maintain an essential task, reduce escalation during a conflict, or tolerate unavoidable waiting. Its immediate effect can be valuable even when the cause of emotion remains present. Later emotional learning, understanding, communication, or problem-solving may still be needed. A useful research question is whether a person can return to the emotionally relevant information once sufficient resources are available.

Different purposes can coexist within one episode. Someone might use a structured attentional task for five minutes before discussing a frightening event with a trusted person. Another person might repeatedly switch to entertainment whenever a difficult but manageable conversation begins. Both episodes involve an attentional shift, yet they have different consequences for understanding, relationships, and goals. The distinction depends on the pattern of functioning rather than an assumption about the moral value of entertainment or emotional discomfort.

What the Scientific Evidence Shows

Meta-analytic evidence on effectiveness

A major meta-analysis by Webb, Miles, and Sheeran synthesized 306 experimental comparisons of emotion-regulation strategies. It found that the broad attentional deployment category had an overall estimated effect near zero, while the subgroup classified as distraction showed a positive mean effect, reported as d = 0.27. The same review reported significant heterogeneity across specific strategies and moderators associated with the emotional target, strategy instructions, study designs, and participant or task features. These results explain why the phrase “attention always helps” obscures meaningful differences among techniques. Webb et al. (2012).

A standardized average from laboratory studies answers a relatively narrow question: whether a collection of procedures changes measured emotional outcomes during controlled experiments. It does not give a guaranteed reduction in a particular person's symptoms, the ideal length of a distraction break, or a prevention effect on depression, anxiety, or trauma-related problems. Outcomes also differ depending on whether researchers measure subjective feeling, expression, behavior, attention, or physiology.

Experimental studies of strategy choice

Sheppes and colleagues studied how people select between distracting attention and reinterpreting emotional stimuli. In the 2011 experiments, high negative intensity predicted more distraction choices; low negative intensity predicted relatively more reappraisal choices. A subsequent 2014 investigation used six studies to assess emotional, cognitive, and motivational determinants and to examine processes behind choice. These experiments provide direct evidence that regulatory decisions change with task demands. They do not demonstrate that participants made the best choice for every outcome or that an individual's preferred strategy indicates a disorder. Sheppes et al. (2011); Sheppes et al. (2014).

Some experimental findings also indicate that age and available cognitive resources can affect strategy selection. In a study comparing young and older adults on an image-based choice task, older participants selected distraction relatively more often, and emotional intensity predicted selection across age groups. The samples and tasks were limited, so findings should inform hypotheses about lifespan differences rather than a rule for every older or younger person. Scheibe, Sheppes, and Staudinger (2015).

Evidence from rumination and depression research

Rumination involves repetitive attention to distress and its possible causes or implications. Distraction can interrupt a rumination episode and sometimes improve mood over the short term. In their integrative review, Nolen-Hoeksema, Wisco, and Lyubomirsky described many experimental studies in which positive distraction relieved depressed mood, while correlational evidence did not consistently show that people reporting more positive distraction had fewer depressive symptoms. These findings reinforce the distinction between producing an immediate shift in a laboratory and establishing better long-term mental health. Nolen-Hoeksema et al. (2008).

Research on habitual emotion-regulation strategies and psychopathology provides broader context but should not be treated as a trial of distraction. Aldao, Nolen-Hoeksema, and Schweizer aggregated 241 effect sizes from 114 studies involving acceptance, avoidance, problem solving, reappraisal, rumination, and suppression. They reported associations between habitual strategies and symptoms, with important moderators. Their categories do not license equating intentional short-term distraction with all forms of avoidance or treating associations as proof that a strategy caused a clinical condition. Aldao et al. (2010).

Limits of present evidence

The experimental evidence that attention shifting can alter short-term negative emotion is established within studied conditions. The precise long-term effects of routinely choosing distraction over alternative methods are more dependent on context and have a less uniform empirical foundation. Definitions of distraction vary, as do tasks, emotional stimuli, populations, outcome measures, and follow-up intervals. Studies sometimes compare procedures that differ in difficulty as well as in psychological mechanism. Many samples are drawn from convenience populations, and laboratory stimuli may be less complex than grief, ongoing threat, chronic illness, relationship conflict, or financial insecurity.

A further limitation is that average findings may conceal variability among individuals. The effectiveness of a strategy in a single episode can be different from its association with functioning across months. Researchers can improve causal inference about immediate effects through random assignment; observational measures of habitual use are better suited to associations, individual differences, and ecological patterns. Neither design by itself answers every practical question.

Distraction Compared With Other Emotion Regulation Strategies

Distraction and cognitive reappraisal

Cognitive reappraisal changes how an emotional situation is interpreted: a person revises its meaning, context, or implications. Distraction shifts the subject of attention so less emotional material is processed in the moment. Reappraisal generally requires some engagement with the event to develop a new interpretation. Distraction can reduce immediate intensity without forming an alternative interpretation. In especially intense situations that distinction may make attentional disengagement more accessible; in lower-intensity situations a person may prefer to engage and understand. Regulatory choice research supports the significance of intensity and goals while leaving room for individual and contextual variation. Sheppes et al. (2014).

For example, during an emotionally overwhelming waiting period, concentrating briefly on a word puzzle may help someone resume a necessary task. Later, when information becomes available, reappraising an initial catastrophic prediction may become possible. A person can use both methods within the same emotional episode. Strategy flexibility involves recognizing which task is needed now and revising the approach when circumstances change. Kobylińska and Kusev (2019).

Distraction and emotional suppression

Expressive suppression attempts to inhibit outward signs of emotion after a response develops. It can change facial expression, voice, or behavior while emotional experience may persist. Distraction influences the attentional inputs participating in the emotional response. A person who quietly counts objects rather than focusing on a distressing image uses a different mechanism from a person who feels anger but deliberately hides their expression. The methods may coincide in life, but they have distinct targets and empirical literatures. Gross (2015).

Distraction, acceptance, and psychological flexibility

Acceptance involves allowing internal experiences to be present without automatically organizing behavior around eliminating them. Psychological flexibility refers more broadly to context-sensitive behavior oriented toward values and changing circumstances. Someone may accept that fear is present and still choose to focus temporarily on a necessary activity; the choices are compatible when attention shifting supports the person's goals. The clinically derived terms should not be used to infer that a single moment of distraction demonstrates psychological inflexibility. Detailed claims about ACT treatment outcomes require a separate clinical evidence base.

Distraction, problem-solving, and environmental change

Problem-solving aims to change a workable part of the situation, while distraction targets attention and immediate emotional processing. If the source of distress is an actionable mistake at work, identifying and correcting it may provide a lasting improvement. If a person must wait for information that cannot be accelerated, temporary attention shifting may be more practical. Many real situations require both, perhaps in sequence. The relevant question is whether attention redirection helps a person act appropriately or repeatedly displaces an action that matters.

Distraction and rumination

Rumination sustains recurrent processing of upsetting material; purposeful distraction can interrupt that recurrence by providing an alternative focus. This contrast concerns attentional behavior, not a diagnostic distinction. In some circumstances, apparent distraction itself becomes repetitive checking or compulsive reassurance seeking. Its actual function should be assessed rather than assumed from the activity's appearance. The review of rumination evidence emphasizes both short-term experimental mood effects and mixed longitudinal associations. Nolen-Hoeksema et al. (2008).

When Distraction May Be Useful

Periods of intense emotion

Distraction may be particularly practical when immediate emotional intensity makes sustained reflection difficult and an alternative attentional focus is available. The experimental literature supports preferential selection of disengagement under high-intensity conditions. A brief, deliberately chosen interval may allow a person to reduce escalation before returning to an important conversation, completing essential work, or requesting support. The evidence does not identify one universal duration, activity, or threshold of distress. Sheppes et al. (2011).

Unavoidable waiting and temporarily uncontrollable situations

In a waiting room, during a delayed journey, or after submitting an application, a person may lack any immediate action that could change the outcome. Reading, social interaction, an absorbing task, or light movement can make the waiting period more manageable. These are illustrations of the mechanism rather than tested prescriptions for every kind of distress. When new information or choices become available, attention can return to relevant decisions.

Interrupting repetitive negative thinking

When attention cycles repeatedly through the same distressing interpretation without yielding new understanding, shifting to a meaningful task may interrupt the cycle. The aim can be to reclaim attention for sleep, work, relationships, or a restorative activity. The alternative task need not be entertaining: preparing food, organizing a space, or speaking with another person may be sufficient. The research on rumination supports short-term mood effects of positive distraction under experimental conditions; longer-term outcomes depend on a wider pattern of functioning. Nolen-Hoeksema et al. (2008).

Supporting action in the presence of distress

At times a person has an important task to complete while an upsetting feeling remains unresolved. Brief attention redirection can help maintain concentration on what is required. In safety-critical activities such as driving, operating machinery, or supervising a child, the regulatory plan must preserve situational awareness. Activities that monopolize attention or introduce additional hazards should not be undertaken while performing those responsibilities. The selection of a technique must fit the environment and safety requirements.

When Distraction Can Become Costly

Short-term relief can coexist with longer-term costs if attention is repeatedly redirected whenever necessary communication, care, learning, or practical action becomes possible. For example, continually escaping into entertainment to avoid paying an urgent bill, seeking medical evaluation, or resolving a recurring conflict can leave the external problem intact. The concern is the repeated functional consequence: declining engagement with relevant goals, reduced opportunities to learn, or growing impairment.

The term experiential avoidance describes efforts to escape or alter unwanted internal experiences, especially when these efforts become rigid and undermine valued behavior. Some episodes of distraction function as experiential avoidance; others are time-limited attention management that supports later engagement. It is therefore more informative to examine motives, context, flexibility, and consequences than to assign a permanent label to an activity. Reviews of flexible regulation emphasize the interaction between situational demands and strategy choice. Kobylińska and Kusev (2019).

Potential warning patterns include repeatedly postponing action despite increasing consequences, feeling unable to tolerate even manageable emotion without immediately switching activities, relying on an absorbing activity so heavily that sleep or relationships deteriorate, and using distraction in ways that introduce danger. These patterns invite a more comprehensive assessment of stressors, resources, behavior, and mental health. They do not by themselves establish a diagnosis.

Digital distraction illustrates the importance of function. A brief enjoyable exchange with a friend can provide social support and regulate emotion. Compulsive checking or endless scrolling may also serve emotion management while displacing desired activity. For a narrower discussion of habits and impairment related to devices, see Problematic Smartphone Use: Signs, Risk Factors, and What Research Shows. This article retains the scientific focus on distraction as a general attentional regulation process.

Regulatory Flexibility: Choosing, Monitoring, and Switching Strategies

A flexible approach begins with identifying what the situation calls for. The person assesses intensity, urgency, controllability, available support, current cognitive resources, and the value of staying engaged with the emotional material. Next comes selection: redirect attention, reappraise, solve a problem, accept an internal response, ask for support, or combine approaches. Implementation involves carrying out the chosen action. Monitoring concerns whether the strategy produces the intended effects and whether circumstances have changed.

This sequence follows the logic of Gross's extended process model and the broader literature on regulatory flexibility. It is a conceptual framework for thinking through choices; the field has not established one standardized algorithm that reliably selects a strategy for every person and circumstance. Gross (2015); Kobylińska and Kusev (2019).

A practical illustration is a difficult conversation. A person notices that anger is intense and wants to avoid speaking impulsively. They agree to pause, undertake a short neutral task or walk, and return at a defined time. They then engage the disagreement and evaluate whether the pause supported communication. If the pause repeatedly becomes indefinite withdrawal, the same attentional behavior is no longer serving the initial interpersonal goal. Duration, return, and consequences make the difference visible.

Practical Ways to Use Distraction Deliberately

A research-informed application starts with a clear purpose. Identify whether the immediate goal is to reduce overwhelming intensity, tolerate waiting, interrupt rumination, or sustain a necessary activity. Select an accessible and safe attentional target that requires enough engagement to redirect attention without introducing additional problems. Examples include describing details of the physical environment, organizing a small task, reading a few pages, listening to an engaging discussion, walking in a safe location, or performing a brief structured mental task. These are plausible application examples, not equivalently tested clinical interventions.

Set a flexible endpoint: the completion of a short task, arrival of information, a scheduled return to the conversation, or a natural change in emotional intensity. Evaluate the result by asking whether attention became easier to direct, whether distress changed, and whether the technique helped with the next relevant action. Emotional intensity does not need to reach zero for a strategy to serve its purpose. When distraction is ineffective, consider adjusting demands, seeking social support, engaging in problem-solving, or consulting a qualified professional where the context warrants it.

Avoid treating attention control as a personal test of willpower. Severe stress, sleep loss, pain, neurodevelopmental differences, environmental threat, and competing demands can all affect what is feasible. For broad stress-related coping and the difference between emotion-focused and problem-focused approaches, the related encyclopedia discussion is Coping Strategies for Stress: What Helps.

Measurement and Research Methods

Researchers assess distraction through self-reported habitual tendencies, daily diaries, experimental instructions, choices between strategy options, behavioral attention tasks, and emotional outcomes during and after regulation. These approaches measure different aspects of behavior. A person may believe they often use distraction but be unable to redirect attention effectively in a particular task; conversely, someone may use the technique rarely yet deploy it successfully when needed. Reports of habitual use, strategy choice, and actual effectiveness should be interpreted separately.

Experimental measures include changes in ratings of unpleasantness, time spent processing stimuli, task performance, facial behavior, and psychophysiological or electrophysiological indices. The late positive potential used in some studies is a research measure whose interpretation depends on the experimental design. It is not an individualized diagnostic test. Nor does a questionnaire score for emotion regulation, distress, or psychological flexibility diagnose a mental disorder. Construct-specific instruments such as the ERQ and DERS assess other defined dimensions and cannot be repurposed as universal distraction-efficiency tests.

Evidence quality improves when studies distinguish strategy instruction from spontaneous selection, record baseline intensity, characterize the alternative task, measure more than one outcome, and follow behavior beyond the immediate experimental interval. A causal effect on short-term negative affect may be well identified even when later recovery, learning, relationship functioning, and symptom course remain unmeasured.

Clinical Boundaries and Safety

Distraction can be one component of ordinary coping or a professionally guided plan. It should not be presented as a standalone treatment for depression, anxiety disorders, posttraumatic stress disorder, psychosis, bipolar mania, or self-harm risk. When distress persists, creates substantial functional impairment, or follows a pattern that interferes with essential activities, a qualified mental-health professional can help assess the underlying problem and develop appropriate support. The comparative effectiveness of structured clinical protocols is a separate evidence question from the short-term attentional mechanism examined here.

When someone faces imminent self-harm or suicide risk, rapidly escalating mania, severe confusion or psychosis, or inability to remain safe, immediate evaluation and support take priority over self-directed distraction exercises. Contact local emergency services or an urgent mental-health resource, and involve a trusted person when it is safe to do so. Attentional tasks may occasionally be used while help is mobilized, but they do not replace risk assessment or urgent intervention.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is distraction an emotion regulation strategy?

Yes. When a person intentionally changes the focus of attention to influence an emotional response, the action is classified as attentional deployment within emotion regulation research. Ordinary unintentional distraction can occur without a regulatory goal. Gross (2015).

Does distraction reduce anxiety or sadness?

Some forms can reduce immediate negative affect in experimental conditions, including moments of distress and repetitive negative thinking. The effect depends on the task and context. Studies of momentary emotional change do not establish long-term treatment efficacy for an anxiety or depressive disorder. Webb et al. (2012); Nolen-Hoeksema et al. (2008).

Is distraction always a form of avoidance?

No. The psychological function depends on the episode. Attention shifting may make difficult waiting manageable or help a person recover before returning to an important task. It may also sustain avoidance when it becomes rigid and repeatedly displaces necessary action. Flexibility and consequences determine the interpretation. Kobylińska and Kusev (2019).

Is distraction better than cognitive reappraisal?

Experiments suggest that participants often prefer distraction under high negative intensity and reappraisal under lower intensity. Researchers have also found immediate effects of the two procedures can vary with intensity. This supports matching strategy to circumstances rather than ranking one as the single best method. Sheppes et al. (2011); the implementation study.

How long should a distraction break last?

There is no scientifically established duration that works for everyone. A useful break is linked to a purpose and followed by reassessment: Is the situation safer or more manageable, and is it time to return to necessary action? Long breaks may be appropriate as genuine rest; brief intervals may work for immediate attentional shifts. The evidence does not justify a fixed-minute prescription.

Can distraction help with rumination?

Purposeful engagement with another activity can interrupt a repetitive train of negative thinking and may improve mood in the short term. Experimental mood benefits should be kept distinct from longer-term associations with depressive symptoms. Nolen-Hoeksema et al. (2008).

Does frequent distraction mean a person has emotional dysregulation?

Frequency alone cannot establish dysregulation, impairment, or any clinical diagnosis. Assessment would consider why distraction is used, what happens afterward, available alternatives, environmental demands, and the person's overall functioning. Emotion dysregulation is a research and clinical construct, not a standalone diagnosis.

Conclusion

Distraction is a well-established attentional route through which people can influence emotional responding in the short term. Its scientific importance lies in the timing of attention, competing processing demands, emotional intensity, and the decision to engage or disengage from meaningful material. Experimental and meta-analytic evidence supports specific short-term benefits while revealing substantial variation across tasks and outcomes. Effective use is context-sensitive: attention is redirected for a reason, its consequences are monitored, and engagement resumes when the situation calls for understanding, communication, or action.

Related Articles

Emotional Intensity: Why Feelings Vary in Strength — Explains the intensity dimension that influences selection of distraction and reappraisal.

Coping Strategies for Stress: What Helps — Places temporary distraction within wider coping and problem-solving choices.

Neuroticism and Emotion Regulation: Strategies, Flexibility, and Distress — Reviews individual-difference research without treating any single strategy as a personality diagnosis.

Emotion Regulation Strategies: Types, Examples, and When to Use Them — Surveys major strategy families, illustrates their mechanisms, and compares their usefulness across situations and outcomes.

Cognitive Reappraisal: How It Works and When It Helps — Explains reinterpretation of emotional events, experimental reappraisal procedures, possible benefits, and contextual limits.

Expressive Suppression: What Research Says About Emotional Effects — Distinguishes concealing outward expression from changing inner emotional experience and reviews effects on affect and relationships.

Problem-Solving as an Emotion Regulation Strategy — Studies how changing modifiable circumstances can alter emotional responses and how this approach interacts with acceptance and reappraisal.

References

Aldao, A., Nolen-Hoeksema, S., & Schweizer, S. (2010). Emotion-regulation strategies across psychopathology: A meta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 30(2), 217–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2009.11.004

Gross, J. J. (2015). Emotion regulation: Current status and future prospects. Psychological Inquiry, 26(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2014.940781

Kobylińska, D., & Kusev, P. (2019). Flexible emotion regulation: How situational demands and individual differences influence the effectiveness of regulatory strategies. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, Article 72. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00072

Nolen-Hoeksema, S., Wisco, B. E., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2008). Rethinking rumination. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3(5), 400–424. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2008.00088.x

Scheibe, S., Sheppes, G., & Staudinger, U. M. (2015). Distract or reappraise? Age-related differences in emotion-regulation choice. Emotion, 15(6), 677–681. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039246

Sheppes, G., Brady, W. J., & Samson, A. C. (2014). In (visual) search for a new distraction: The efficiency of a novel attentional deployment versus semantic meaning regulation strategies. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, Article 346. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00346

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), 163–181. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030831

Sheppes, G., Suri, G., & Gross, J. J. (2015). Emotion regulation and psychopathology. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 11, 379–405. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032814-112739

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(4), 775–808. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027600