(PS10-A21) State, Trait, or Heart Rate?: Examining Emotion Regulation and Affect Variability Using Ecological Momentary Assessment

Background: Psychological well-being has been linked to more adaptive emotion regulation (ER) and less variability in affect across time (Houben et al., 2015; Kraiss et al., 2020). However, research on ER has traditionally adopted a static perspective (e.g., global or trait self-report), possibly failing to capture ER’s dynamic nature. Alternate measures presumed to be more valid indicators of ER include state-based scales and changes in heart rate variability (HRV). These alternate measures have primarily been studied using lab-based paradigms, and few have investigated their relation to actual changes in affect [e.g., using ecological momentary assessment (EMA)]. Moreover, it is crucial to examine ER as it relates to variability in both positive and negative affect, as emerging evidence suggests that negative (vs. positive) affect variability may be uniquely associated with depressive symptoms (Houben et al., 2015).



Aims: To determine whether variability in affect in daily life is predicted by (a) the use of concomitant state ER strategies and (b) experimentally-induced changes in HRV in response to sad mood. Moreover, we seek to identify whether these measures predict variability in affect better than self-reported trait ER.



Methods: Forty-eight adults [mean age = 18.90 (0.91), 56% cisgender female, 44% cisgender male] underwent a lab-based sad mood induction, while HRV was continuously recorded (i.e., during baseline, mood induction, and recovery period). Following this lab visit, affect and state ER were assessed twice per day over a seven-day EMA period.



Results: Higher trait expressive suppression significantly predicted greater variability in negative affect over the EMA period (B = .174, SE = .081, p = .038), while higher trait cognitive reappraisal significantly predicted greater variability in positive affect (B = .175, SE = .177, p = .047). However, vagal HRV reactivity and recovery from sad mood (as assessed in-lab) and daily variability in state ER (as assessed in the EMA period) were not associated with variability in affect over time (ps > .05).



Conclusion: The routine use of expressive suppression may instigate greater negative affect variability in daily life, which may in turn detrimentally impact well-being. By contrast, the tendency to employ cognitive reappraisal may reflect greater positive affect variability. Mood-induced changes in HRV may not be strongly indicative of subsequent affect variability in naturalistic settings. Finally, relevant to an emerging area of research (Koval et. al., 2023), daily variability in state ER may not correspond to concomitant affective variability.