Distress Tolerance vs Emotion Regulation: What Is Different?

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

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

Distress tolerance is the capacity to experience psychological discomfort without automatically escaping it or acting in ways that undermine safety and important goals. Emotion regulation is the broader set of processes through which people influence their emotions, including which emotions arise, when they arise, how intensely they unfold, and how they are experienced or expressed. Distress tolerance is especially relevant when discomfort must be endured for a time; emotion regulation also includes changing the situation, redirecting attention, reinterpreting events, seeking support, and shaping emotional expression. Their functions often overlap, and the same action can serve both processes. Leyro, Zvolensky, and Bernstein (2010); McRae and Gross (2020).

Consider someone waiting for results of a medical test. They may tolerate uncertainty and anxiety while waiting, continue ordinary activities, and refrain from making repeated impulsive calls. That is an example of distress tolerance. They may also speak to a trusted person, reconsider an exaggerated prediction, take care of practical responsibilities, or arrange an appropriate medical follow-up. Those behaviors illustrate several forms of emotion regulation. A person can regulate while still feeling anxious, and can tolerate distress while also trying to influence how it unfolds. The scientific question is what process is being used, for which goal, under which circumstances, and with what consequences.

The central distinction: enduring discomfort and influencing emotion

Distress tolerance addresses a particular challenge: whether a person can remain in contact with an unpleasant internal experience long enough to choose a response consistent with circumstances and goals. The experience might include anxiety, grief, frustration, shame, urges, uncertainty, bodily tension, or another aversive state. Researchers have conceptualized distress tolerance as perceived capacity, actual persistence during aversive tasks, or a family of related but distinguishable capacities. There is no universal test or single operational definition that captures every aspect. Zvolensky, Vujanovic, Bernstein, and Leyro (2010).

Emotion regulation addresses the organization and modification of emotional responses. It can operate before an emotional event, while emotion emerges, or after the response is well established. The classic process model distinguishes situation selection, situation modification, attentional deployment, cognitive change, and response modulation. The extended model considers how people identify a reason to regulate, select an approach, implement it, and monitor the outcome. Regulation may aim to decrease, increase, maintain, or reshape emotion depending on the person's immediate and longer-term objectives. Gross (1998); Gross (2015).

The comparison is therefore partly one of scope. Distress tolerance focuses attention on the individual's response to discomfort and the behavior that follows it. Emotion regulation encompasses a larger system of emotional influence, including changing exposure, appraisal, expression, and interpersonal conditions. Enduring discomfort can itself be part of regulating emotional behavior, especially when tolerating an emotion prevents harmful action and allows a more useful response to develop.

What distress tolerance means in psychological science

The term distress refers to psychological discomfort rather than a particular psychiatric diagnosis. Distress tolerance describes how an individual responds when that discomfort is present or anticipated. A person with greater tolerance may remain engaged in a demanding task, accept some uncertainty, postpone an unnecessary escape response, or ask for help without demanding that uncomfortable feelings disappear first. The outcome is behavioral and contextual: it matters whether the person can act safely and pursue meaningful goals while uncomfortable.

Tolerance also has several components. One is subjective endurance, the person's belief that distress is manageable. Another is the evaluation of distress, such as whether discomfort is experienced as unacceptable or unbearable. A third concerns attention and behavioral control: whether distress captures attention and drives urgent efforts to eliminate it. A fourth concerns persistence in the presence of unpleasant feelings or sensations. The Distress Tolerance Scale developed by Simons and Gaher assesses perceived responses to negative emotional states, including aspects of tolerance, appraisal, absorption, and regulation efforts. Its self-report structure should be interpreted in relation to the specific population and research question. Simons and Gaher (2005).

Some studies instead measure persistence on frustrating, physically uncomfortable, or cognitively demanding tasks. Such procedures may capture task motivation, pain sensitivity, fatigue, incentives, understanding of instructions, and situational demands as well as tolerance. Different measures should not be assumed to assess one identical latent ability. Reviews of distress tolerance research have repeatedly emphasized conceptual heterogeneity and the need for better construct validation. Leyro et al. (2010); Zvolensky et al. (2010).

Distress tolerance is not emotional numbness

Someone can tolerate fear while visibly shaking, tolerate sadness while crying, or tolerate anger while speaking firmly. Distress tolerance involves the capacity to respond during discomfort; it does not require the absence of distress or a calm appearance. Evaluating tolerance by facial expression alone is especially misleading when cultural norms, safety, or interpersonal expectations influence how emotion is displayed.

Tolerance is also compatible with leaving a harmful situation, using medication as prescribed, seeking practical assistance, or changing an unfair environment. The distinction turns on context and function. Remaining in a dangerous situation out of a belief that endurance is always virtuous would be poor judgment. An appropriate response may be immediate protective action rather than persistence.

Is distress tolerance a trait or a skill?

Researchers study both relatively stable between-person differences and variation within the same person over time. A questionnaire may summarize habitual perceptions; a laboratory task measures performance under particular conditions; daily-life sampling examines momentary tolerance and behavior as contexts change. Skills instruction can aim to improve responding to distress, but evidence that an entire treatment program is effective should not be taken as proof that one latent distress-tolerance trait has changed or that a brief exercise independently causes long-term improvement. Larrazabal, Naragon-Gainey, and Conway (2022).

What emotion regulation means in psychological science

Emotion regulation includes processes people use consciously and automatically to influence emotions in themselves and, in interpersonal situations, in other people. Emotions can be shaped by approaching or avoiding situations, changing what happens, selecting what to attend to, revising interpretations, changing outward behavior, and obtaining social support. The model is deliberately broader than calming down: positive feelings may be sustained, useful anger may support a boundary, fear may motivate protective action, and grief may be given room rather than prematurely reduced. McRae and Gross (2020).

The identification stage involves determining whether an emotional response calls for intervention. The selection stage concerns choosing among available strategies. Implementation describes actually carrying out the selected strategy. Monitoring tracks whether that response is serving its intended purpose. Difficulties at any of these stages can produce ineffective regulation even if the person knows the names of many techniques. Gross (2015).

Emotion regulation can alter subjective feeling, outward expression, physiological activation, attentional patterns, action tendencies, and interpersonal behavior, and those outcomes may diverge. A person might remain intensely anxious while successfully resisting an impulsive act; their behavior is regulated while the unpleasant feeling remains. Another person might report temporary relief through avoidance while a practical problem goes unresolved. The intended outcome must be specified before calling an emotional response successful or unsuccessful.

Common forms of regulation

Situation selection involves choosing circumstances that affect the likelihood of certain emotions. Situation modification changes an event while it is unfolding. Attentional deployment shifts attention, including through distraction or focusing deliberately on relevant information. Cognitive change includes reappraisal: reconsidering the meaning of an event. Response modulation influences an emotion after it has developed, including changes in expression or behavior. These categories are analytic tools; actual episodes commonly involve several at once. Gross (1998).

In experimental research, the effectiveness of a specific regulation instruction varies according to what participants are asked to do and how outcomes are measured. A meta-analysis of laboratory-based emotion-regulation strategies found differences among methods and implementation variants; it did not establish a single strategy that is best for all people and all circumstances. Webb, Miles, and Sheeran (2012).

Distress tolerance versus emotion regulation: a detailed comparison

Main question

For distress tolerance, the central question is: Can a person remain engaged and choose a safe response while experiencing an aversive state? For emotion regulation, the question is: How is the emotional episode being influenced, and does that influence serve the person's goals? The first emphasizes response under discomfort; the second covers the processes that change emotional trajectories and their consequences.

Primary outcome

Distress-tolerance research may track willingness to remain in contact with discomfort, perceived capacity to withstand it, or persistence in an aversive task. Emotion-regulation research may track emotional intensity, timing, experience, expression, physiological indicators, behavior, strategy selection, or goal attainment. Both may measure safe behavior, but a decrease in reported distress and an increase in persistence are different outcomes.

Time horizon

Distress tolerance is particularly salient during a high-pressure moment when distress cannot be removed quickly and an immediate response is needed. Emotion regulation operates across an emotional episode and can begin long before an anticipated trigger. Preparation, environmental adjustments, appraisal, and long-term habits are part of the broader regulatory landscape. Neither construct is intrinsically confined to a particular number of minutes; these are emphases, not rigid temporal boundaries.

Relationship to changing feelings

Tolerating distress can mean allowing the feeling to remain while choosing a responsible action. Regulating emotions may involve changing a feeling, letting it unfold, or changing behavior while the feeling continues. Acceptance can therefore be both a distress-tolerance response and an emotion-regulation strategy, depending on how it is defined and measured. Descriptions that equate regulation exclusively with emotional reduction obscure this overlap.

Relationship to danger and problem-solving

Neither concept instructs people to passively endure preventable harm. A person who feels frightened because of a real threat may need to leave, secure assistance, or communicate a boundary. In a solvable situation, changing the stressor may be more useful than extending endurance. A sound psychological formulation asks what is controllable, how urgent the situation is, what resources are available, and whether a response protects the person over more than one time scale.

How each is measured

Distress tolerance can be assessed through self-report scales, persistence tasks, and intensive repeated measures. Emotion regulation can be studied through strategy questionnaires, multidimensional difficulty scales, experiments, behavioral observation, experience sampling, and physiological measures. A distress-tolerance score does not diagnose a disorder, and an emotion-regulation score does not determine how a person will respond in a future specific situation. Simons and Gaher (2005); Gratz and Roemer (2004).

How distress tolerance and emotion regulation work together

The two processes are often sequentially connected. Tolerating an initial wave of anger may prevent an irreversible message, which creates time to reappraise an ambiguous remark, clarify the facts, or address the underlying problem. During a panic-like surge of fear, tolerating the immediate sensations may reduce the urgency to escape, leaving room to attend to the environment or follow an agreed care plan. During grief, accepting that sadness is present may permit a valued social connection rather than compelling emotional control. These are illustrations of possible processes, not evidence that a standardized sequence produces a universal therapeutic outcome.

Tolerating discomfort sometimes reduces the apparent need for active regulation. In a 14-day daily-diary study, Larrazabal, Naragon-Gainey, and Conway assessed 199 university students selected for high neuroticism. Higher distress tolerance was linked to lower use of many stress-related regulation behaviors. Some associations weakened after related variables were taken into account, and within-person findings differed from between-person findings. The result complicates the assumption that more frequent emotion-regulation behavior always means better functioning. It also has clear boundaries: a selected student sample and observational daily reports cannot establish clinical treatment effects or a general causal mechanism. Larrazabal et al. (2022).

Tolerating distress can also fail to improve functioning when it becomes inflexible endurance of conditions that could and should be changed. Likewise, a sophisticated attempt to regulate emotion can be unhelpful when it repeatedly postpones necessary action. What matters is sensitivity to context, the range of available responses, and whether a person notices when a strategy is working. Bonanno and Burton's framework of regulatory flexibility describes context sensitivity, a repertoire of strategies, and responsiveness to feedback. These features help explain why tolerance and regulation are best evaluated as parts of a dynamic behavioral system. Bonanno and Burton (2013).

Five everyday examples

1. A difficult conversation

After receiving criticism, a person notices shame and anger. Distress tolerance is expressed in their capacity to remain present without shouting, retaliating, or fleeing an otherwise safe discussion simply to escape discomfort. Emotion regulation may include slowing the exchange, asking for clarification, reconsidering an interpretation, or communicating an emotion constructively. If the interaction becomes threatening, the appropriate response is to protect oneself and seek support. Endurance is evaluated against safety and the interaction's actual conditions.

2. Waiting through uncertainty

Someone waiting for a job decision experiences intrusive predictions of rejection. Distress tolerance may involve permitting uncertainty without compulsively checking messages. Emotion regulation may involve planning when to check, redirecting attention to meaningful work, discussing realistic possibilities, and taking practical steps about other applications. Success need not mean feeling confident; continuing to function while uncertain can be a worthwhile outcome.

3. Managing frustration at work

A worker encounters a technical failure close to a deadline. Distress tolerance helps them withstand irritation long enough to avoid damaging equipment or blaming others impulsively. Emotion regulation may involve taking a short pause, re-prioritizing tasks, requesting assistance, or changing the work conditions that contribute to the problem. If the demands remain impossible, competent regulation may include stating limits rather than simply tolerating greater strain.

4. Responding to a craving or urge

An urge can increase rapidly and demand immediate relief. Distress tolerance may involve remaining safe during the urge and delaying action while it changes. Emotion regulation may involve reducing exposure to triggering situations, changing attention, seeking support, or applying a plan developed with a qualified professional. Where urges involve self-harm, substance withdrawal, or other acute medical and psychiatric risks, a self-guided technique must not replace timely professional assessment and appropriate crisis care.

5. Living with loss

A bereaved person may allow intense sadness to come and go without judging every wave as a failure. That is compatible with distress tolerance. They may also seek companionship, adjust duties, establish routines, or make space for remembrance, all of which can influence their emotional experience. The goal is responsive functioning through grief, including the ability to feel emotion, rather than enforcing a prescribed emotional timetable.

Distress tolerance, emotional acceptance, and experiential avoidance

Emotional acceptance means making room for the presence of an internal experience without making its immediate elimination a prerequisite for action. It can support tolerating unavoidable discomfort. Acceptance also figures in emotion-regulation research, where it may alter the relationship between appraisal, emotional response, and behavior. Acceptance should be understood in context: accepting that fear is present can coexist with taking practical steps to leave a dangerous setting.

Experiential avoidance describes efforts to escape or control unwanted private experiences, such as emotions, memories, and sensations. Avoidance is sometimes protective and reasonable. Persistent, rigid avoidance becomes clinically relevant when attempts to prevent discomfort narrow life, maintain problems, or interfere with meaningful goals. Distress tolerance may help make a different response possible, while broader emotion regulation provides multiple means of acting within a situation. The function of a particular behavior matters more than whether it superficially resembles acceptance, suppression, distraction, or avoidance. Bonanno and Burton (2013); Zvolensky et al. (2010).

Expressive suppression refers more specifically to inhibiting visible emotional expression. A person can suppress a smile, remain quiet during anger, or conceal anxiety while continuing to feel the emotion. Concealment should not automatically be described as distress tolerance. It may be an interpersonal regulatory strategy shaped by context, role, and safety. Likewise, the fact that a person cries or expresses distress does not demonstrate an inability to tolerate that distress.

Distraction is often useful when attention needs to shift temporarily, particularly during high arousal or while waiting for a safer time to address an issue. It can also become counterproductive when it persistently displaces necessary care or problem-solving. Its scientific classification depends on the attentional operation, behavioral purpose, and time scale. A context-sensitive approach avoids the misleading equation of all distraction with avoidance or of all acceptance with endurance.

Distress tolerance and psychological flexibility

Psychological flexibility concerns adapting attention and behavior to circumstances and personally meaningful goals while navigating internal experiences. Distress tolerance can contribute to this broader capacity, because a person who can remain present with discomfort may have more behavioral options. However, flexibility also requires sensitivity to changing circumstances, access to alternative responses, and willingness to change an approach when it fails. A person may tolerate discomfort for a long time and still respond rigidly to an unhealthy situation. Bonanno and Burton (2013).

The terms also arise in different theoretical traditions. Contextual behavioral accounts often emphasize how responding to private experiences affects committed action, while emotion-regulation theories analyze how emotional episodes arise and change. Distress tolerance is studied in clinical science, behavioral research, and skills-based intervention traditions. The shared vocabulary is useful only when a research design identifies which process and outcome it actually measures.

Why dialectical behavior therapy teaches separate modules

Dialectical behavior therapy, or DBT, organizes skills instruction into distinct but interacting areas, including distress tolerance and emotion regulation. The distress-tolerance material addresses how to navigate painful circumstances and intense emotion when immediate problem resolution is unavailable, with attention to surviving a crisis safely and avoiding behaviors that make conditions worse. Emotion-regulation material addresses understanding and naming emotions, vulnerability factors, changing emotional responses, and maintaining effective behavior. The revised DBT skills manual retains distinct modules for these areas. Linehan (2025).

This practical distinction explains why a person might need one kind of help during an immediate crisis and another for recurring emotional patterns. A temporary strategy that supports safety is different from a longer-term plan to address repeated triggers, sleep disruption, relationship conflict, or environmental demands. Many skills overlap in practice, and classification by module is an instructional organization rather than a claim that human psychological processes are separated into independent compartments.

DBT itself is a structured psychotherapy with a separate clinical evidence base. Research on a complete DBT program involves treatment components, patients, delivery conditions, clinical outcomes, and comparison groups. Learning a distress-tolerance exercise does not constitute receiving a full DBT treatment package, and program-level efficacy cannot establish that a single exercise treats a disorder. The clinical protocol and disorder-specific outcomes are addressed in Dialectical Behavior Therapy for BPD: How DBT Works and Evidence.

What scientific research establishes, and what remains uncertain

Established conceptual distinctions

The emotion-regulation literature supports a broad process-based account of how emotions are influenced. Distress-tolerance research supports multiple related ways of describing how people bear discomfort and respond behaviorally under aversive conditions. These traditions overlap, but the difference in central research questions is meaningful. It is appropriate to describe distress tolerance as relevant to emotion regulation without assuming that tolerance is equivalent to reappraisal ability, expressive control, low negative affect, or the absence of psychiatric symptoms. Gross (2015); Leyro et al. (2010).

Associations with symptoms and functioning

Reviews have reported associations between measures of distress tolerance and various forms of psychological difficulty, including internalizing and substance-related symptoms, although constructs, methods, populations, and effect estimates differ. Similarly, a meta-analysis found links between habitual emotion-regulation strategies and psychopathology across studies. These findings support the scientific importance of the constructs, while associations alone do not identify whether low tolerance or a particular strategy causes a disorder. Leyro et al. (2010); Aldao, Nolen-Hoeksema, and Schweizer (2010).

Limits of self-report and behavioral tasks

A person's report that distress is unbearable and their persistence on a frustrating task answer related but potentially different questions. Questionnaire scores are influenced by interpretation, recall, perceived competence, current mood, response tendencies, and the sample on which a scale was validated. Behavioral tasks introduce different influences, including effort, comprehension, sensory comfort, and incentives. Convergence must be demonstrated rather than assumed, and a single task cannot be used to diagnose a general deficiency in distress tolerance. Simons and Gaher (2005); Zvolensky et al. (2010).

The Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale, or DERS, measures several self-reported dimensions of emotion-regulation difficulty, such as acceptance, clarity, impulse control, goal-directed behavior, and access to strategies. Its conceptual framework includes functioning despite emotional distress, which explains part of the overlap between scales. A high DERS score indicates reported difficulty on measured dimensions; it does not establish a psychiatric diagnosis or provide a complete independent test of distress tolerance. Gratz and Roemer (2004).

Causality and intervention research

The strongest inference about a specific skill requires studies that manipulate or teach that skill, distinguish its proposed mechanism from other components, and track meaningful outcomes over time. Ecological diary evidence captures natural variation but is usually observational. Laboratory experiments can support narrower causal claims about immediate tasks or responses, yet ecological and clinical generalization require additional data. Treatment trials address packages of care; component mechanisms require specific tests. The evidence is stronger for some measures and research contexts than for general promises that increasing distress tolerance by itself will improve every clinical outcome. Larrazabal et al. (2022); Webb et al. (2012).

A context-sensitive way to choose a response

One useful reasoning sequence begins by identifying what is happening, what is felt, and what must be protected. The next question is whether the external situation is safe and changeable. When an immediate threat exists, protecting safety and obtaining support takes precedence. When a problem is genuinely solvable, practical action may reduce distress more effectively than endlessly trying to tolerate it. When waiting, loss, or uncertainty cannot be resolved on demand, allowing some discomfort while remaining safely engaged may help preserve options.

From there, consider the function of a possible response. Briefly shifting attention may create time to think. Checking facts can change a mistaken appraisal. Asking for social support can share the burden. Delaying an impulsive action may prevent harm during an emotional peak. Seeking professional help can be a necessary response when problems are persistent, disabling, or dangerous. These are categories of choices, not a treatment plan or a promise that a specific exercise will produce relief.

Regulatory flexibility means revisiting the outcome. Is the chosen response helping to meet the actual goal? Is it preserving safety, reducing avoidable harm, and supporting functioning over time? Does it need to be modified as information changes? Context sensitivity, a range of options, and adjustment to feedback are central to the flexibility framework. Bonanno and Burton (2013).

Clinical meaning, safety, and when to seek support

Neither low distress tolerance nor emotion dysregulation is a stand-alone psychiatric diagnosis. Both can be used descriptively in research or clinical formulation; their meaning depends on how they are defined and measured. Distress may reflect an understandable response to danger, discrimination, grief, illness, chronic stress, interpersonal harm, or other circumstances. A high emotional intensity does not by itself establish loss of control, and a brief reduction in visible emotion does not by itself establish effective regulation.

When distress contributes to repeated functional impairment, persistent fear or avoidance, harmful substance use, self-injury, or inability to manage essential responsibilities, a qualified clinician can assess the broader pattern and relevant medical or psychological causes. Conditions involving mania, psychosis, or acute suicidal risk require especially careful evaluation; efforts to manage these states by enduring discomfort alone can be unsafe. If there is imminent danger of self-harm or harm to others, contact local emergency services or an available crisis service immediately and seek direct human support. Any coping technique should be considered secondary to urgent safety assessment in those circumstances.

Practice methods such as grounding, paced pauses, comfort routines, and social contact may be useful components of a broader plan. Their effects differ across individuals, and sensory or breathing-oriented exercises can be uncomfortable or counterproductive for some people. In trauma-related presentations, grounding should be adapted to the individual's needs and clinical context; see Grounding Techniques for PTSD: How to Use Them and Their Limits. Skills-based self-help cannot substitute for indicated treatment, and successful care can involve psychotherapy, psychiatric care, environmental changes, or coordinated supports.

Frequently asked questions

Is distress tolerance a type of emotion regulation?

Distress tolerance can function as part of emotional regulation, especially when a person allows a feeling to be present while regulating behavior and preserving options. The constructs retain different emphases and measurement traditions. Emotion regulation covers many additional processes, including modifying situations and emotional appraisals.

Should I tolerate distress or regulate it?

Often both processes are relevant. The decision depends on whether the situation is safe, whether the underlying problem can be changed, whether immediate action is needed, and which response best supports longer-term functioning. In a dangerous situation, protective action takes priority over endurance. In an unavoidable period of uncertainty, tolerating discomfort may be appropriate while practical regulation and support continue.

Does good emotion regulation mean feeling calm?

Effective regulation can involve calm, but it may also involve continuing to feel grief, fear, anger, or excitement while acting appropriately. Goals, behavior, context, and effects over time matter more than a single measurement of calmness. McRae and Gross (2020).

Can I have high distress tolerance and poor emotion regulation?

Yes. Someone may persist through discomfort yet struggle to interpret emotions, change an unhelpful situation, communicate feelings, or revise a rigid strategy. Conversely, a person may use reappraisal effectively in some circumstances while finding particular forms of discomfort difficult to tolerate. Individual capacities are multidimensional.

Is distress tolerance the same as suppressing emotion?

No. Tolerance concerns the response to aversive experience and the ability to function while uncomfortable. Expressive suppression concerns inhibiting visible signs of emotion. One can tolerate distress while openly expressing it, or conceal an emotion without tolerating it well.

Are distress tolerance and emotional resilience the same thing?

Resilience is generally studied in relation to adaptation across adversity or stress over time. Distress tolerance focuses more narrowly on response to aversive internal experience. Depending on a study's model, tolerance might contribute to some adaptive outcomes, but the concepts are not interchangeable and should not share a single score without validation.

Can a questionnaire tell me whether I have emotion dysregulation?

Questionnaires such as the DERS or distress-tolerance scales describe self-reported constructs and potential areas of difficulty. Scores are neither diagnostic criteria nor substitutes for clinical assessment. Interpretation requires attention to the instrument, population, context, and reasons for administering it. Gratz and Roemer (2004).

Why are distress tolerance and emotion regulation separate in DBT?

DBT uses the distinction to organize instruction: navigating high-distress moments safely and developing broader skills for understanding and influencing recurring emotional patterns are related educational tasks. The revised manual includes both modules, while evidence for complete clinical treatment must be assessed separately. Linehan (2025).

Related Articles

Neuroticism and Emotion Regulation: Strategies, Flexibility, and Distress — A trait-specific examination of emotion-regulation patterns, with direct discussion of distress tolerance and a 2022 daily-diary study.

Dialectical Behavior Therapy for BPD: How DBT Works and Evidence — The clinical treatment framework that organizes distress-tolerance and emotion-regulation skills in separate modules.

Grounding Techniques for PTSD: How to Use Them and Their Limits — A condition-specific discussion of grounding, safety, and limits of skills-based self-management.

Emotion Regulation vs Emotional Suppression: Key Differences — Distinguishes the broad process of emotion regulation from one response-focused strategy involving emotional expression.

Psychological Flexibility vs Cognitive Flexibility: Differences and Overlap — Clarifies differences between contextual behavioral adaptation and executive-function set shifting while identifying possible intersections.

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

Bonanno, G. A., & Burton, C. L. (2013). Regulatory flexibility: An individual differences perspective on coping and emotion regulation. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(6), 591–612. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691613504116

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 Behavioral Assessment, 26, 41–54. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JOBA.0000007455.08539.94

Gross, J. J. (1998). The emerging field of emotion regulation: An integrative review. Review of General Psychology, 2(3), 271–299. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.2.3.271

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

Larrazabal, M. A., Naragon-Gainey, K., & Conway, C. C. (2022). Distress tolerance and stress-induced emotion regulation behavior. Journal of Research in Personality, 99, 104243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2022.104243

Leyro, T. M., Zvolensky, M. J., & Bernstein, A. (2010). Distress tolerance and psychopathological symptoms and disorders: A review of the empirical literature among adults. Psychological Bulletin, 136(4), 576–600. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019712

Linehan, M. M. (2025). DBT skills training manual (revised edition). Guilford Press. https://www.guilford.com/books/DBT-Skills-Training-Manual/Marsha-Linehan/9781462556359/contents

McRae, K., & Gross, J. J. (2020). Emotion regulation. Emotion, 20(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000703

Simons, J. S., & Gaher, R. M. (2005). The Distress Tolerance Scale: Development and validation of a self-report measure. Motivation and Emotion, 29, 83–102. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-005-7955-3

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

Zvolensky, M. J., Vujanovic, A. A., Bernstein, A., & Leyro, T. (2010). Distress tolerance: Theory, measurement, and relations to psychopathology. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19(6), 406–410. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721410388642