Within Your Control? When Problem Solving May Be Most Helpful

Abstract

Emotion regulation strategies have been conceptualized as adaptive or maladaptive, but recent evidence suggests emotion regulation outcomes may be context-dependent. The present study tested whether the adaptiveness of a putatively adaptive emotion regulation strategy—problem solving—varied across contexts of high and low controllability. The present study also tested rumination, suggested to be one of the most putatively maladaptive strategies, which was expected to be associated with negative outcomes regardless of context. Participants completed an in vivo speech task, in which they were randomly assigned to a controllable ( n = 65) or an uncontrollable ( n = 63) condition. Using moderation analyses, we tested whether controllability interacted with emotion regulation use to predict negative affect, avoidance, and perception of performance. Partially consistent with hypotheses, problem solving was associated with certain positive outcomes (i.e., reduced behavioral avoidance) in the controllable (vs. uncontrollable) condition. Consistent with predictions, rumination was associated with negative outcomes (i.e., desired avoidance, negative affect, negative perception of performance) in both conditions. Overall, findings partially support contextual models of emotion regulation, insofar as the data suggest that the effects of problem solving may be more adaptive in controllable contexts for certain outcomes, whereas rumination may be maladaptive regardless of context.