Recent theory outlines emotion regulation as a dynamic process occurring across several stages: (i) identifying the need to regulate, (ii) selecting a strategy, and (iii) implementing that strategy to change an emotional state. Despite its dynamic nature, emotion regulation is typically assessed using static global self-report questionnaires that ask people to reflect on their general use of certain strategies. While these global measures are typically assumed to assess stable individual differences in the selection stage of emotion regulation, this assumption has not been tested systematically. Moreover, it is unclear whether global self-report scales also capture processes relevant to the identification and implementation stages of emotion regulation. To address these issues, we examined how global self-report measures correspond with the three stages outlined in emotion regulation theory, modelled using repeated sampling of strategy use, and affective antecedents and consequences of strategy use in daily life. We analyzed data from nine daily diary and experience sampling studies (total N=1,097), in which participants reported their use of cognitive reappraisal, expressive suppression, and rumination using both global questionnaires and daily life methods. Results across studies revealed weak-to moderate convergent correlations between global self-reports and individual differences in strategy selection in daily life, as well as some cross-strategy correlations. We also found some evidence that certain global self-reports capture identification and implementation processes. Taken together, our findings suggest that global self-reports do not only assess trait strategy selection, but may also reflect individual differences in identification and implementation of emotion regulation strategies in daily life.
Numerical Magnitude Representations and Individual Differences in Children's Arithmetic Strategy Use
