Emotion Regulation Strategies: Types, Examples, and When to Use Them
Author: Angela Bogdanova · Published: October 16, 2026 · Editorial Policy
Research cluster: Emotion Regulation & Psychological Flexibility · Written by Artificial Sapiens
Emotion regulation strategies are the ways people influence the emergence, intensity, duration, interpretation, expression, and behavioral consequences of emotions. They include changing a stressful situation, directing attention, reconsidering an interpretation, accepting an experience, seeking support, adjusting bodily arousal, and choosing how to respond. A strategy can serve several goals: lowering distress, sustaining motivation, preserving a relationship, tolerating uncertainty, or acting responsibly while an emotion remains present.
The central scientific finding is that strategy effectiveness depends on what is being regulated, when the strategy is used, the degree of control over the situation, the person's capacities and goals, and the outcome being measured. In a meta-analysis of 306 experimental comparisons, different families and specific forms of regulation produced different average effects on emotional outcomes; even strategies grouped under the same broad label varied substantially (Webb, Miles, & Sheeran, 2012). The influential process model provides a framework for where strategies intervene, while research on regulatory flexibility explains why their fit to context matters (Gross, 2015; Bonanno & Burton, 2013).
This article compares strategy types, gives realistic examples, explains when each may be useful, and separates research findings from practical illustrations. It concerns transdiagnostic psychological processes, not a diagnosis or a substitute for individualized mental-health treatment.
For the broader scientific framework, Emotion Regulation: Definition, Models, and Research explains the construct, and The Process Model of Emotion Regulation Explained develops the timing and classification of interventions. Dedicated studies of Cognitive Reappraisal: How It Works and When It Helps and Emotion Regulation Flexibility: Context, Strategy Choice, and Goals examine two important mechanisms in more depth. The present comparison connects these research domains to strategy selection in everyday circumstances.
What counts as an emotion regulation strategy?
An emotion regulation strategy is a relatively identifiable process or action intended, consciously or automatically, to influence an emotional trajectory. Emotion regulation itself is the larger process: detecting emotional demands, evaluating whether change is needed, selecting and applying an approach, observing its consequences, and adjusting accordingly. Sometimes the best outcome is reduced distress. Sometimes the emotional experience remains intense while behavior becomes safer, clearer, or more aligned with personal commitments (McRae & Gross, 2020).
Regulation can be intrapersonal, as when a person reinterprets an ambiguous comment, and interpersonal, as when supportive conversation changes the emotional experience of a difficult event. People also regulate positive emotions: someone may savor gratitude, dampen excitement to concentrate, or preserve enthusiasm during a demanding task. Emotional intensity alone does not define success or failure. An appropriately intense response to loss, danger, or injustice can convey valuable information and support protective action.
The term strategy should also be distinguished from an emotion, a personality trait, a symptom, and a clinical condition. Rumination describes a pattern of repetitive thought that may influence emotion; high neuroticism is a dispositional trait associated with emotional sensitivity; emotional dysregulation describes difficulties in regulation across circumstances. None is, by itself, a formal psychiatric diagnosis. For the established distinction between personality and regulation, see Neuroticism and Emotion Regulation: Strategies, Flexibility, and Distress.
The five strategy families in the process model
The process model organizes regulation by the point at which people act on an evolving emotion. James Gross's foundational account identified situation selection, situation modification, attentional deployment, cognitive change, and response modulation (Gross, 1998a). These are functional families, not a checklist in which every emotional episode must proceed through five fixed stages. Real episodes recur, overlap, and change as new information arrives.
1. Situation selection: shaping what you encounter
Situation selection means approaching or avoiding environments, activities, and interactions partly because of their anticipated emotional consequences. Preparing for a challenging conversation in a quiet place instead of a crowded room is one example. Choosing an accessible route during a period of fatigue is another. Seeking enjoyable company, nature, or meaningful activity can also shape future positive emotion.
This family is useful when upcoming situations are reasonably predictable and the available options are genuinely safe. It can prevent unnecessary overload before more effortful regulation is required. Yet the same outward behavior can have different functions. Leaving an unsafe environment is prudent protection; repeatedly avoiding every manageable reminder of uncertainty can gradually shrink participation. The difference depends on realistic danger, autonomy, goals, and longer-term consequences.
2. Situation modification: changing something in the environment
Situation modification changes conditions within a situation already occurring. A person might request clarification of confusing instructions, ask a colleague to lower the volume of a call, negotiate an extension, interrupt a harmful interaction, or organize a task into manageable stages. These actions can alter both the external problem and its emotional meaning.
Problem-solving often belongs here. When a stressor is modifiable, a well-defined action may have more durable value than repeated attempts to talk oneself out of distress. Still, not every difficulty is within an individual's power to change. Structural pressure, discrimination, illness, and bereavement are not solved by urging someone to become more efficient. Regulation must track what influence is realistically available.
3. Attentional deployment: choosing what receives attention
Attention can be directed toward, away from, or between aspects of a situation. Temporary distraction, focusing on one concrete task, and orienting to neutral surroundings are examples. During a painful medical procedure, a person might listen to familiar audio. After receiving unsettling news, someone might walk briefly before reading the details and forming a plan.
Distraction can create short-term breathing room when emotional intensity overwhelms available cognitive resources. Laboratory experiments found that participants tended to choose distraction over reappraisal more frequently when negative stimuli were highly intense, although strategy choice in an experiment should not be treated as a universal prescription (Sheppes, Scheibe, Suri, & Gross, 2011). The longer-term question is whether attention eventually returns to information that needs understanding or action.
4. Cognitive change: revising meaning
Cognitive change influences emotion by altering appraisal or interpretation. Cognitive reappraisal is a central example: a friend has not replied, and instead of assuming rejection, a person recognizes that several explanations remain possible. Someone giving a presentation might reinterpret bodily activation as preparation for a valued challenge rather than immediate proof of failure.
Useful reappraisal remains accountable to evidence. It can recognize uncertainty, put an event in proportion, or adopt another perspective. It should not demand optimism in the face of actual danger, deny harm, or insist that an unfair situation is acceptable. Meta-analytic experiments support several forms of cognitive change for altering emotional outcomes, while the magnitude depends on the specific form and setting (Webb et al., 2012).
5. Response modulation: influencing expression, physiology, or behavior
Response modulation acts on an emotional response that is already underway. It includes moderating speech, pausing before action, changing expression, adjusting breathing pace, taking physical rest, and other forms of behavioral or bodily response management. The scientific category encompasses approaches with very different aims and effects.
Expressive suppression is the deliberate inhibition of visible emotional expression. In a classic laboratory experiment, suppression reduced outward expression, but unlike reappraisal it did not similarly reduce the reported unpleasant experience and was associated with higher sympathetic activation in that experimental context (Gross, 1998b). Briefly holding back an angry remark during a professional meeting may protect others and buy time; treating every emotion as something that must be concealed can have different interpersonal and psychological costs. The specific objective and context determine how to interpret the behavior.
A comparative guide to common strategies
Cognitive reappraisal
The immediate task is to test or broaden an interpretation. Example: after a critical email, ask what the message actually says, what remains unknown, and what response would be useful. Reappraisal is often relevant when an interpretation is uncertain, exaggerated, or open to another credible perspective. Its limitations become prominent when facts are clear, injustice requires action, or a person is too activated or exhausted for sustained cognitive work. It can change meaning without necessarily changing the external event.
Distraction and attentional shifting
The immediate task is to allocate attention to something manageable for a limited interval. Example: step away from upsetting headlines, prepare food, then return to a decision with greater concentration. Distraction may be valuable during high-intensity distress or unavoidable short-term waiting. Its effectiveness depends on the type of distraction and the outcome; the 2012 meta-analysis found positive effects for distraction even though the overall attentional-deployment category averaged near zero because different tactics behaved differently (Webb et al., 2012). The limitation is repeated postponement of necessary action or emotional processing.
Emotional acceptance
Acceptance involves allowing thoughts, emotions, and bodily feelings to be present while deciding what to do with them. Example: acknowledge grief and continue to care for a family member without requiring grief to disappear first. Acceptance addresses the struggle with experience; it does not require approval of harmful circumstances. Laboratory, diary, and longitudinal findings have associated acceptance of negative mental experiences with aspects of psychological health, but associations and short laboratory tasks do not prove that simply telling everyone to accept feelings will treat clinical conditions (Ford, Lam, John, & Mauss, 2018).
Problem-solving and direct action
Problem-solving identifies a changeable difficulty, generates possible actions, estimates obstacles, and tests a feasible next step. Example: uncertainty about a deadline leads to an email requesting a clearer deliverable and a revised schedule. This may be especially useful where the environment can be altered. Solving a practical difficulty does not eliminate every associated feeling, and repeatedly searching for a solution to an uncontrollable event may become unproductive. In correlational research, habitual problem-solving has generally shown a different relationship to symptoms than habitual rumination, but these findings cannot prove causal protection from psychiatric disorders (Aldao, Nolen-Hoeksema, & Schweizer, 2010).
Support seeking and interpersonal regulation
Support seeking uses another person's presence, perspective, practical help, or relationship to alter emotional experience. Example: explaining an upsetting event to someone who can listen, validate concerns, or help identify safe options. It can include requesting practical assistance rather than merely reassurance. Interpersonal emotion regulation is a distinct research domain with both beneficial and potentially counterproductive forms; repeated reassurance can sometimes perpetuate dependence or uncertainty, while dismissive responses can intensify distress (Zaki & Williams, 2013). Consent, mutual capacity, privacy, and the quality of the interaction matter.
Expressive suppression
The immediate task is to limit what emotion becomes visible. Example: a teacher temporarily regulates facial expression while ensuring a classroom conflict remains safe. This strategy may be situationally appropriate when expression would escalate a dangerous or time-sensitive exchange. Its limitations include a possible gap between appearance and actual distress, cognitive and physiological demands, and missed opportunities for support. Habitual suppression correlates with some less favorable interpersonal and well-being outcomes, but the associations are context-sensitive and do not justify a universal rule against emotional restraint (Gross & John, 2003).
Grounding and self-soothing
Grounding commonly refers to reorienting attention to present surroundings or bodily contact: naming visible objects, feeling the chair's support, or noticing the temperature of a cup. Self-soothing refers more broadly to using familiar, tolerable experiences—rest, a calm environment, predictable movement, or supportive sensory input—to make distress easier to endure. They are useful descriptions of practical approaches, but each label groups several procedures with different evidence bases. Their use should be personalized and should not be presented as a validated treatment for trauma, panic, dissociation, or any other disorder merely because the technique is familiar in therapy settings.
Rumination, worry, and repetitive checking
Rumination repeatedly revisits distressing themes, causes, or implications without necessarily producing new information or effective action. Worry often concerns anticipated threats. Both can feel like attempts to gain control while maintaining attention on threat or loss. Their relationship with symptoms is supported by transdiagnostic correlational literature, but the same topic can be explored constructively through time-limited reflection and concrete planning (Aldao et al., 2010). A useful distinction is whether thinking generates a testable next step or cycles through the same unresolved conclusions.
Why no single strategy is best
Different regulation goals can legitimately conflict. A person may wish to calm down, communicate honestly, remember an important event, protect a boundary, or remain engaged in a meaningful activity. A strategy that minimizes immediate unpleasantness can interfere with an important longer-term goal, while allowing discomfort can sometimes support action. The regulatory-flexibility framework therefore emphasizes sensitivity to context, an available repertoire, and responsiveness to feedback (Bonanno & Burton, 2013).
Three common oversimplifications are particularly misleading. First, an intervention's immediate laboratory effect on self-reported unpleasantness does not establish improvement in relationships, functioning, or long-term well-being. Second, habitual use of a strategy is not identical to competence in using it at the right moment. Third, strategies are not inherently good or bad solely because researchers sometimes classify them as adaptive or maladaptive. Both the context and the function of the behavior matter (Kobylińska & Kusev, 2019).
When to use which strategy: a context-sensitive decision process
The following questions are an educational framework derived from emotion-regulation theory rather than a formally validated clinical decision instrument. They help make selection explicit without implying that all emotional episodes require elaborate self-monitoring.
Identify the actual goal
Ask what a successful response would accomplish. Is the goal immediate safety, clearer thinking, communicating without aggression, protecting dignity, enduring a temporary event, or making an external change? It may also be appropriate to preserve a valuable emotion, such as grief connected to loss or anger that signals a breached boundary.
Assess safety, controllability, and intensity
When there is an immediate threat, practical safety and access to help take priority. Where a problem is changeable, situation modification or problem-solving may be the clearest initial move. When events are largely outside one's control, acceptance, support, pacing, or attentional redirection may be more realistic. When emotional intensity is very high, short-term attentional strategies may be easier to implement before complex reappraisal; this is compatible with experimental research on strategy choice, with the important limitation that everyday demands are richer than laboratory stimuli (Sheppes et al., 2011).
Match the method to the time horizon
A five-minute pause can be useful when it prevents impulsive behavior. Repeated postponement over several weeks can obstruct problem resolution. A direct conversation may be uncomfortable in the short term but help repair trust; repeated reinterpretation may feel soothing while leaving a boundary unaddressed. Consider immediate effects alongside what happens later that day and over repeated encounters.
Examine available resources
Fatigue, sleep loss, overload, cognitive effort, prior learning, social support, and accessibility affect which strategies are feasible. An intervention requiring abstract reframing may be unavailable at peak emotional intensity. Support seeking might be a more practical first action. Sleep and emotion regulation influence each other, and problems attributed to a missing regulation skill can sometimes be partly intensified by inadequate sleep; the published research article Sleep and Emotional Regulation: Effects on Mood and Stress examines this separate question.
Monitor outcomes and switch when warranted
Check whether the strategy accomplished its actual purpose, whether the situation changed, and whether its costs remain reasonable. Success might mean less distress, but it may also mean a respectful conversation, a safer decision, or a return to an essential task. A strategy that works should not be abandoned merely to demonstrate variety. Flexibility includes both appropriate persistence and timely change.
Worked examples from everyday life
An ambiguous message from someone important
A person receives a short reply and begins to worry about rejection. The first strategy may be attentional containment: avoid repeatedly refreshing the conversation while working. Later, reappraisal can distinguish observed facts from imagined meanings. If the relationship allows it, a simple clarifying question may be better than continued internal analysis. If the other person is unavailable, accepting uncertainty may be more useful than seeking certainty from repeated checking. The most appropriate sequence depends on relationship history, urgency, and safety.
An argument escalating at home
During an argument, a person notices rising anger and an impulse to insult the other person. Brief response modulation—stopping speech and lowering the volume—can protect the interaction. Situation modification might involve proposing a mutually agreed pause and a time to resume. After arousal decreases, reappraisal may help each person consider the other's interpretation. Acceptance permits the remaining anger to exist while boundaries are discussed. Where there is intimidation, coercion, or violence, immediate safety and access to specialist assistance take precedence over techniques intended to improve ordinary communication.
Overwhelm before a demanding task
A worker faces multiple unclear requests and experiences rising anxiety. Grounding attention in the present task may make it possible to identify the first concrete action. Problem-solving can then establish priorities, clarification requests, and realistic deadlines. Brief distraction might restore concentration, but repeated distraction without addressing workload can become costly. If exhaustion is the dominant constraint, rest and environmental adjustment may be more consequential than another cognitive technique. Related evidence about situational coping is discussed in Coping Strategies for Stress: Problem-Focused and Emotion-Focused Approaches.
Grief after a loss
Sadness following bereavement often has relational and autobiographical meaning. Acceptance and supportive conversation can allow emotion to be experienced without demanding an immediate change in mood. Planning practical responsibilities may coexist with grief. Temporary distraction can supply needed rest; continuous avoidance of all reminders may have different longer-term consequences. There is no universal timetable for an acceptable emotional response, and the presence of sadness alone does not demonstrate dysregulation.
An unavoidable medical appointment
Someone anxious about an upcoming procedure might use situation modification by asking for clear information, requesting appropriate accommodations, and planning support. During waiting, gentle distraction or grounding may reduce the burden of anticipatory distress. Reappraisal should reflect realistic information rather than certainty that everything will go well. Acceptance may help the person proceed with a valuable health decision despite residual fear. Clinical concerns about procedures, medication, or panic should be addressed by the relevant healthcare professional.
What systematic reviews and experiments actually support
Several distinct evidence questions must be kept separate: Can a technique alter an emotional response under experimental instructions? Does habitual use of that strategy correlate with mental-health outcomes? Do people choose it in contexts that seem appropriate? And does teaching it produce sustained benefits in real life? These questions require different designs and should not be collapsed into a single ranking.
In the 2012 meta-analysis, Webb and colleagues aggregated 306 experimental comparisons and found meaningful variation both across broad process families and among specific tactics within a family. Their reported average effect for cognitive change was larger than that for attentional deployment as a whole, but the latter category concealed opposite directions for particular attentional procedures. These data support precision about how a technique is operationalized; they do not establish a universally preferred strategy (Webb et al., 2012).
Aldao and colleagues' 2010 meta-analysis synthesized 241 effect sizes from 114 studies relating habitual regulation strategies to symptom measures across several types of psychopathology. Patterns were stronger for some strategies, particularly rumination and avoidance, than for others. Because much of the evidence involved self-report and correlational research, the review is more informative about association than proof of direction or an individual's diagnosis (Aldao et al., 2010).
Experimental studies supply narrower causal evidence. Gross's classic 1998 comparison manipulated reappraisal and expressive suppression during a specific film-viewing procedure, demonstrating different effects on expression, reported emotion, and physiological responding in that setting (Gross, 1998b). Sheppes and colleagues manipulated emotional stimulus intensity and found differences in which strategy participants selected (Sheppes et al., 2011). Neither experiment licenses a blanket clinical recommendation across people, disorders, or cultures.
A 2025 meta-analysis focused specifically on anger and multiple regulation strategies, reinforcing the need to define the emotional outcome and consider heterogeneity (Pop et al., 2025). Research on emotion regulation in clinical interventions is a further, separate topic: a 2024 umbrella review synthesized 21 systematic reviews, including 11 meta-analyses, on psychotherapeutic interventions targeting emotion dysregulation, while reporting methodological risk of bias and variation across samples and interventions (Saccaro et al., 2024). Evidence about a full therapeutic program should not be attributed automatically to one isolated exercise taught outside that program.
Regulation, acceptance, avoidance, suppression, and flexibility: important distinctions
Emotion regulation is the umbrella process. Cognitive reappraisal changes meaning; attentional distraction changes what receives attention; expressive suppression changes what is outwardly displayed; emotional acceptance changes the person's stance toward having an experience. One episode may involve several approaches in sequence.
Experiential avoidance describes attempts to escape, diminish, or control unwanted private experiences when those attempts organize behavior in a costly or inflexible way. It should be evaluated functionally. Avoiding an unsafe street, pausing before a difficult conversation, and temporarily postponing exposure to distressing material can be wise protective decisions. A long-term pattern of surrendering valued activities because an unwanted feeling might appear raises a different question.
Psychological flexibility, particularly in acceptance- and commitment-based models, concerns changing or persisting in behavior in relation to context, awareness, and valued goals. Regulatory flexibility concerns fitting emotion-regulation strategies to changing demands. Cognitive flexibility concerns shifting mental representations or task rules. These constructs overlap but are measured and theorized differently. The current article focuses on choosing and using emotion-regulation strategies; detailed ACT protocols and their clinical evidence have a separate scientific owner.
Distress tolerance is a related capacity to remain with aversive experience. It may reduce the need for constant active attempts to change emotion. An individual who remains engaged in an important activity while anxious may be regulating effectively even if self-reported anxiety remains high. The absence of rapid symptom reduction is therefore not necessarily evidence of failure.
How strategy use is measured—and what the scores cannot tell us
Psychological research uses several instruments, each with a specific target and limitations. The Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (ERQ) focuses on habitual cognitive reappraisal and expressive suppression (Gross & John, 2003). The Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale (DERS) addresses multiple perceived difficulties in emotion regulation, rather than providing an exhaustive record of every real-world strategy. They answer different measurement questions, and neither produces a psychiatric diagnosis from a score.
The Acceptance and Action Questionnaire II (AAQ-II) and the Personal Psychological Flexibility Index (PPFI) concern constructs associated with psychological flexibility and inflexibility rather than a direct tally of the five strategy families. The AAQ-II has faced a substantive discriminant-validity debate, including questions about overlap with general psychological distress. Questionnaire scores should be understood in light of the instrument's purpose, validation population, and measurement limits. Reporting frequent reappraisal is not identical to demonstrating that a person can reappraise effectively under pressure, and a questionnaire cannot establish which strategy someone used in a specific interaction.
Researchers also use laboratory tasks, daily diaries, ecological momentary assessments, behavioral observations, and physiological measures. These can disagree for principled reasons: visible expression, private experience, and autonomic responding are different outcomes. A conclusion about the effectiveness of a strategy should identify which outcome was observed and over what interval.
Developing a useful repertoire without turning emotion into a performance test
A practical approach begins with noticing a recurring situation, identifying the goal, and selecting a manageable response. Over several occasions, a person can ask whether that response improved safety, functioning, communication, or well-being. A brief record of context, strategy, immediate effect, and later consequence may reveal useful patterns. This is a learning exercise, not a formal assessment scale.
Repertoire development can involve practicing reappraisal when interpretations are uncertain, using short attentional breaks when overwhelmed, approaching a controllable problem directly, building supportive relationships, and learning to remain with ordinary discomfort while pursuing valued action. Practice conditions should be reasonably safe and proportional to the person's resources. More techniques do not necessarily mean more skill: repeated self-monitoring can become burdensome if every fluctuation in emotion triggers an attempt at control.
The broader regulatory environment matters. Sleep, manageable demands, social resources, physical health, and accessible settings may change the need for regulation and the feasibility of particular strategies. The aim is to respond well to life circumstances, not to maintain a constantly pleasant emotional state.
Clinical limits and situations requiring professional support
Emotion regulation strategies are widely relevant across mental health, but persistent impairment, serious risk, or complex symptoms require individual assessment. Emotional dysregulation is a descriptive clinical and research construct, not a stand-alone diagnosis. Recurrent self-harm, suicidal thoughts, severe dissociation, psychosis, or mania cannot be reliably assessed or treated by choosing among everyday regulation strategies. A person at immediate risk of serious harm should contact local emergency services or urgent clinical care, and someone experiencing escalating or persistent symptoms should seek appropriate professional evaluation.
The examples in this article should also not be used to imply that unsafe environments can be resolved through internal attitude adjustment. Where coercion, abuse, or ongoing danger is present, protective action and external support are central. In clinical settings, ACT, DBT, cognitive behavioral therapies, and other structured approaches may include emotion-regulation skills; the evidence for those multi-component protocols belongs to the relevant clinical and psychotherapy literature. An isolated grounding, acceptance, or self-soothing exercise is not equivalent to a validated course of treatment (Saccaro et al., 2024).
Frequently asked questions
What are the main types of emotion regulation strategies?
The five process-model families are situation selection, situation modification, attentional deployment, cognitive change, and response modulation. Everyday techniques such as reappraisal, distraction, problem-solving, acceptance, support seeking, and expression management are specific actions or processes that can be located within, alongside, or across those families. The categories are scientific organizing tools, not universally exclusive boxes.
Which strategy is most effective for anxiety or stress?
There is no context-free winner. The relevant factors include severity, controllability, immediate safety, what must be accomplished, and whether the approach works across time. Anxiety specific to a disorder requires clinical assessment, and effectiveness of a full treatment cannot be inferred from evidence for a single general strategy. For broadly controllable everyday stressors, changing circumstances may be valuable; for unchangeable uncertainty, acceptance and temporary attentional strategies may be more feasible.
Is emotional suppression always harmful?
No. Deliberately limiting expression can be appropriate for safety, professionalism, privacy, or cultural reasons. Evidence distinguishes outward expression from subjective and physiological responding, and habitual, rigid suppression has different implications from momentary discretion. Researchers must specify what is suppressed, why, and with what costs and benefits (Gross, 1998b).
Is distraction the same as avoidance?
Distraction temporarily redirects attention. Avoidance is a broader functional description of actions that prevent contact with a feared situation or experience. A brief distraction may restore capacity for later engagement; repeated distraction can become avoidance when it consistently displaces necessary action or valued activity. Context, safety, and longer-term effects are essential to distinguishing them.
Is acceptance the same as giving up?
Acceptance concerns allowing an internal experience to exist without a futile struggle against its mere presence. It can coexist with changing harmful external conditions, seeking support, and acting decisively. A person may accept being frightened while still addressing the source of danger.
How do I know if a strategy is working?
Define the intended outcome before judging it: reduced distress, safer behavior, greater clarity, better communication, or a feasible next step. Consider short- and longer-term consequences and whether the strategy preserves essential relationships, autonomy, and activity. A temporary reduction in discomfort is one relevant outcome among several.
Can emotion regulation skills cure a mental disorder?
Everyday strategies are components of psychological functioning, while diagnosis and treatment concern patterns of symptoms, impairment, risk, clinical judgment, and evidence-based interventions. A short exercise is not a cure. Treatment choice belongs to properly qualified professionals and should be matched to the condition and person.
Related Articles
Emotion Regulation: Definition, Models, and Research — Defines emotion regulation, explains its core scientific constructs, and connects major process models with research on emotional experience, expression, and behavior.
Emotional Dysregulation: Signs, Causes, and Support — Examines difficulties with emotional clarity, impulse control, acceptance, and goal-directed action while distinguishing a research construct from formal clinical diagnoses.
Psychological Flexibility: Definition, Processes, and Evidence — Explains the construct of psychological flexibility, its relation to changing circumstances and valued action, and the evidence from contextual behavioral science.
The Process Model of Emotion Regulation Explained — Maps situation selection, situation modification, attentional deployment, cognitive change, and response modulation to the unfolding emotional process.
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
Ford, B. Q., Lam, P., John, O. P., & Mauss, I. B. (2018). The psychological health benefits of accepting negative emotions and thoughts: Laboratory, diary, and longitudinal evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 115(6), 1075–1092. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000157
Gross, J. J. (1998a). 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. (1998b). Antecedent- and response-focused emotion regulation: Divergent consequences for experience, expression, and physiology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(1), 224–237. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.1.224
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
Gross, J. J., & John, O. P. (2003). Individual differences in two emotion regulation processes: Implications for affect, relationships, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(2), 348–362. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.2.348
Kobylińska, D., & Kusev, P. (2019). Flexible emotion regulation: How situational demands and individual differences influence the effectiveness of regulatory strategies. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 72. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00072
McRae, K., & Gross, J. J. (2020). Emotion regulation. Emotion, 20(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000703
Pop, G. V., Nechita, D.-M., Miu, A. C., & Szentágotai-Tătar, A. (2025). Anger and emotion regulation strategies: A meta-analysis. Scientific Reports, 15, 6931. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-91646-0
Saccaro, L. F., Giff, A., Menduni De Rossi, M., & Piguet, C. (2024). Interventions targeting emotion regulation: A systematic umbrella review. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 174, 263–274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychires.2024.04.025
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
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
Zaki, J., & Williams, W. C. (2013). Interpersonal emotion regulation. Emotion, 13(5), 803–810. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033839