On the Trait Like Nature of Emotion Regulation Dynamics: Limited Evidence

Abstract

Measuring the variable and flexible use of emotion regulation (ER) has been increasingly viewed as a more nuanced approach to understanding ER than only assessing mean-level strategy use. However, it is unclear to what extent ER variability and flexibility are trait-like individual differences that show longitudinal consistency and validity across time. In the current study, we use data from an experience sampling study that uses a burst design, wherein the same participants were tested twice across an interval of one year (NW1 = 396, NW2 = 175). We test the extent to which ER tendency, variability, flexibility, and responsivity are stable across time and show consistent relationships with outcome measures. Tendency and, to some extent, responsivity showed consistency across time; variability and flexibility did not. Further, the associations with outcomes were inconsistent across time for tendency and few consistent patterns of associations emerged for variability, flexibility, or responsivity. These findings suggest that these dynamic measures of emotion regulation may not be best conceptualized as stable within-person traits.

Why we asked

Researchers who study emotion regulation have started to look beyond how often someone uses a given strategy. They also ask how much that use varies and how flexibly people switch strategies to fit the situation. These dynamic measures are often described as individual differences. We wanted to know whether they behave that way, meaning whether a person who scores high once scores similarly a year later.

What we did

We used data from an experience sampling study with a burst design, in which the same people were tested twice, one year apart (396 people at the first wave and 175 at the second). We computed four measures of emotion regulation for each person: tendency, variability, flexibility, and responsivity. We then asked whether each was stable across the year and whether it showed consistent associations with outcome measures at each wave.

What we found

Tendency, the average use of a strategy, was consistent over time, and responsivity was to some extent. Variability and flexibility were not. The associations with outcomes were inconsistent across the two waves for tendency, and we found few consistent patterns for the other three measures.

What it means

Together, these results suggest that variability and flexibility of emotion regulation may not be best thought of as stable traits of a person. That does not mean they are unimportant. We suspect, but did not test, that these measures describe a stretch of time more than they describe a person.

We recommend caution before treating these dynamics as traits.