Kate Petrova’s research while affiliated with Stanford University and other places

Past research shows that social networks get smaller with age. But not all types of relationships may shrink at the same rate or for similar reasons. In the present study, we used a unique data set from a sample of 235 men who were followed longitudinally for 71 years to examine how the general pattern of network shrinkage documented in previous research generalizes to the number of emotional support providers in people’s networks. We additionally examined early-life predictors of the size of later-life support network. Growth curve analyses revealed that, mirroring the more general pattern of network shrinkage, emotional support networks shrink by as much as 50% between the ages of 30 and 90, reflecting an average reduction from two to one support providers. Examining the associations between prospectively collected measures of childhood family environment and later-life emotional support, we also found that men who grew up in warmer family environments had larger support networks in adulthood. In contrast, childhood family socioeconomic status was not connected to the size of emotional support networks later in life. The generalizability of this work is limited by the use of an archival all-male sample from the United States. Despite this limitation, these findings make important contributions to our understanding of adult socioemotional development and underscore the importance of prospectively collected longitudinal data in developmental research. Additional research is needed to examine the consequences of changing emotional support across the lifespan for health and well-being.

Affective responses during stressful, high-stakes situations can play an important role in shaping performance. For example, feeling shaky and nervous at a job interview can undermine performance, whereas feeling excited during that same interview can optimize performance. Thus, affect regulation—the way people influence their affective responses—might play a key role in determining high-stakes outcomes. To test this idea, we adapted a synergistic mindsets intervention (SMI) (Yeager et al. 2022 Nature 607, 512–520 (doi:10.1038/s41586-022-04907-7)) to a high-stakes esports context. Our approach was motivated by the idea that (i) mindsets both about situations and one’s stress responses to situations can be shaped to help optimize stress responses, and (ii) challenge versus threat stress responses will be associated with improved outcomes. After a baseline performance task, we randomly assigned gamers (n = 300) either to SMI or a control condition in which they learned brain facts. After two weeks of daily gaming, gamers competed in a cash-prize tournament. We measured affective experiences before the matches and cardiovascular responses before and throughout the matches. Contrary to predictions, gamers did not experience negative affect (including feeling stressed), thus limiting the capacity for the intervention to regulate physiological responses and optimize performance. Compared with the control participants, synergistic mindsets participants did not show greater challenge responses or improved performance outcomes. Though our adaptation of Yeager et al.’s SMI did not optimize esports performance, our findings point to important considerations regarding the suitability of an intervention such as this to different performance contexts of varying degrees of stressfulness.

Background: Alexithymia is an important transdiagnostic risk factor for emotion-based psychopathologies. However, it remains unclear whether alexithymia questionnaires actually measure alexithymia, or whether they measure emotional distress. Our aim here was to address this discriminant validity concern via exploratory factor analysis (EFA) of the 20-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20) and the Perth Alexithymia Questionnaire (PAQ). Method: United States general community adults (N = 508) completed the TAS-20, PAQ, and the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales-21 (DASS-21). EFA was used to examine the latent dimensions underlying these measures’ scores. Results: Our EFA extracted two higher-order factors, an “alexithymia” factor and a “general distress” factor (i.e., depression, anxiety, stress). All PAQ scores loaded cleanly on the alexithymia factor, with no cross-loadings on the distress factor. However, for the TAS-20, Difficulty Identifying Feelings (DIF) facet scores cross-loaded highly on the distress factor. Limitations: Our sample consisted of general community adults; future work in clinical settings will be useful. Conclusions: Our data indicate that the PAQ has good discriminant validity. However, the TAS-20 appears to have significant discriminant validity problems, in that much of the variance in its DIF facet reflects people’s current levels of distress, rather than alexithymia. The TAS-20, which has traditionally been the most widely used alexithymia questionnaire, may therefore not be the optimal alexithymia tool. Our findings add to the body of evidence supporting the validity and utility of the PAQ and suggest that, moving forward, it is a superior option to the TAS-20 for alexithymia assessments.

Whether and how people regulate their negative emotions matters a great deal. However, it is not yet clear why people regulate as they do. One promising idea is that people’s beliefs shape their emotion regulation choices, and initial evidence indicates that individuals’ dispositional beliefs about emotions are indeed associated with general patterns of emotion regulation. The present study extends prior work on emotion beliefs to better understand how occurrent (i.e., momentary) beliefs about helpfulness, controllability, and justification of specific emotions shape whether and how people regulate negative emotions in everyday life. Participants (N = 143; U.S. community college students recruited in 2022; 76% female; age = 18–60) completed a 7-day experience-sampling protocol in which they were pinged three times per day to describe their most recent negative experiences and answer questions about their emotions, occurrent beliefs about emotions, and emotion regulation. With respect to whether people regulate their emotions, results reveal that people regulate their emotions more when they perceive them to be less helpful. Exploratory analyses additionally show that people regulate negative emotions more when they perceive them to be more controllable and when emotional intensity is relatively high. In terms of how people regulate their emotions, people are more likely to use reappraisal when emotions are seen as more helpful, more controllable, and less justified; and more likely to use distraction when emotions are seen as less helpful and more justified. These findings contribute to a more fine-grained understanding of how beliefs shape emotion regulation in everyday life.

Emotion Regulation and Parenting provides a state-of-the-art account of research conducted on emotion regulation in parenting. After describing the conceptual foundations of parenthood and emotion regulation, the book reviews the influence of parents' emotion regulation on parenting, how and to what extent emotion regulation influences child development, cross-cultural perspectives on emotion regulation, and highlights current and future directions. Drawing on contributions from renowned experts from all over the world, chapters cover the most important topics at the intersection of parenting and emotion regulation. Essentials are explored, as well as current, topical, and controversial issues, pointing both to what is known and what requires further research. This title is part of the Flip it Open Programme and may also be available Open Access. Check our website Cambridge Core for details.

Over the past few decades, emotion regulation research has matured into a vibrant and rapidly growing field (in 2022 alone, more than 30 thousand papers were published on emotion regulation). Taking stock of our progress, we ask “What does the future hold?” In this manuscript, we offer a roadmap for the next generation of research on emotion regulation. We begin by painting a picture of the field’s journey so far. We then outline a forward-looking agenda for broadening our field of view along three key dimensions: (1) increasing our resolution to see how regulatory strategies are flexibly and dynamically translated into tactics; (2) widening our viewing angle to embrace interpersonal emotion regulation; and (3) extending the timescale of emotion regulation research to examine how regulatory efforts are fine-tuned across the regulatory cycle and in the context of a broader range of affective experiences. In doing so, we highlight empirical studies that exemplify these three areas of focus and discuss the opportunities that lie before us. We close by offering a set of concrete practical and methodological recommendations for how the field can accomplish the goals we have outlined.

The Emotion Regulation Questionnaire-Short Form (ERQ-S; Preece, Petrova, Mehta, & Gross, 2023) is the official short form of the Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (Gross & John, 2003), the most widely used measure of emotion regulation. The ERQ-S is a 6-item self-report measure of two common emotion regulation strategies: cognitive reappraisal (i.e., changing the way one is thinking about a situation in order to change its emotional impact) and expressive suppression (i.e., inhibiting behavioral expression of emotion). Copyright 2023 - Stanford Psychophysiology Laboratory.

Background: Emotion regulation plays a crucial role in affective functioning. One of the most commonly used measures of emotion regulation is the Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (ERQ), a 10-item self-report measure assessing frequency of use of two common emotion regulation strategies: cognitive reappraisal and expressive suppression. In this study, we aimed to optimize the utility of the ERQ for time-pressured settings by introducing and validating a 6-item short form called the Emotion Regulation Questionnaire-Short Form (ERQ-S). Method: General community (N = 508) and college student (N = 245) samples from the United States completed online surveys containing a range of psychometric self-report measures. For each sample, we examined the factor structure, internal consistency, and concurrent validity of the ERQ-S. Results: Our confirmatory factor analyses supported the intended 2-factor structure of the ERQ-S (cognitive reappraisal and expressive suppression factors), with all items loading well on their intended factor in both samples. As expected, the ERQ-S correlated highly with the ERQ. A profile of low cognitive reappraisal use and high expressive suppression use on the ERQ-S was significantly associated with higher levels of emotion regulation difficulties, alexithymia, and affective symptoms. Limitations: We did not examine psychometric performance in a clinical sample, or other cultural groups outside the US. All concurrent validity markers were self-report questionnaires. Conclusions: Our data suggest that the ERQ-S successfully retains the psychometric strengths of the ERQ. The shorter format of the ERQ-S should therefore help to optimize the measurement of emotion regulation in time-pressured settings.