Cited by 72Emotions and Moral BehaviorNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

When there’s a will, there’s a way: Disentangling the effects of goals and means in emotion regulation.

Tamir, Maya, Halperin, Eran, Porat, Roni, Bigman, Yochanan E., Hasson, Yossi·2019·Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

Abstract

Emotion regulation involves activating an emotion goal (e.g., decrease negative emotions) and using an emotion regulation strategy (e.g., cognitive reappraisal) to pursue it. We propose that activating emotion goals and implementing means can independently affect emotion regulation. People are not always motivated to regulate emotions or to regulate them in a prohedonic manner. Therefore, activating prohedonic emotion goals is consequential. Furthermore, merely activating an emotion goal may trigger accessible means, leading to emotional changes. We tested these ideas by disentangling effects of pursuing prohedonic emotion goals and implementing cognitive reappraisal. First, we show that individuals perceive measures and manipulations of cognitive reappraisal as signaling the activation of specific emotion goals (i.e., decrease unpleasant or increase pleasant emotions) and the implementation of specific means (i.e., think differently about emotion-eliciting events). Second, we decomposed a classic measure of cognitive reappraisal to show that previously documented benefits of reappraisal might be because of the frequency of either pursuing prohedonic goals or using cognitive reappraisal. Third, in 2 empirical studies, we separately manipulated prohedonic goals (without specifying the means), cognitive reappraisal (without specifying the goal), and gave classic reappraisal instructions (specifying both the goal and the means). In both studies, activating prohedonic goals was as effective in decreasing negative emotions as was activating prohedonic goals with reappraisal instructions. Thus, activating emotion goals is essential, and sometimes even sufficient, for successful regulation. Finally, we demonstrate that the confound between goals and means is pervasive in the cognitive reappraisal literature, and offer recommendations for avoiding it. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/pspp0000232

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Tamir, M., Halperin, E., Porat, R., Bigman, Y. E., & Hasson, Y.
Affiliations
Hebrew University of Jerusalem (IL)
Venue
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Published
2019-05
Volume
116
Issue
5
Pages
795-816
ISSN
  • 0022-3514 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1315
OpenAlex
W2909707681
Cited by
71
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 5
FWCI
10.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
German-Israeli Foundation (I-324-105.1-2012)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Emotions and Moral Behavior
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Keywords
emotion regulation, means-ends reasoning, cognitive reappraisal
MeSH terms
Self-Control, Adult, Cognition, Electromyography, Emotions, Female, Goals, Humans, Israel, Male, Motivation, Students, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review