Effects of Emotion Regulation on Risk Aversion

This paper is on sensation order and Decision Making nether Risk and Uncertainty by Mircea Miclea, Andrei C. Miu, Renata M. Heilman, Liviu G. Crisan from Babes-Bolyai University, in Cluj-Napoca, Romania and Daniel Ho riding habitr from George Mason University in Virginia, USA. The body of work was print in the American Psychological Association, 2010, Vol. 10, no 2. It deals with feeling dominion (ER) tactics such(prenominal) as cognitive follow-up and style suppression and their effects on run a try aversion and decision making. Reappraisal involves reformulating the meat of the situation.Suppression involves inhibiting the responses and behaviors associated with perceptions, such as facial expressions, point-blank tonality or body langu while. The researchers hypothesized that participants victimisation reappraisal would portray lower venture aversion (increased risk taking) than subjects using suppression. They bring forth banish emotions of fear and disgust on t heir participants through short movie clips and and then rated how they did on tests that mea surely risk-taking based on the ER tactic that they were previously instructed to use. (Heilman, Crisan, Houser, Miclea & Miu, 2010, p. 58). Our text edition defines an seek as a scientific method of research in which some(prenominal) factors called independent variables atomic number 18 modified to define their effects on the dependent variable. This enables researchers to father cause and effect between disparate variables because they will observe if changes in 1 variable causes changes in the other (Baron, Byrne, Branscombe, & Fritzley, 2010, p. 19). For the purposes of this paper, focalise will be on study 1 which looked at the effects of negative emotions such as fear or disgust.The sample was of sixty participants (56 women mean age 21. 45 years) from the Babes-Bolyai University campus. They were randomly distributed in 6 groups based on the emotion see (either fear or di sgust) and the ER system active (cognitive reappraisal, expressive suppression, or inhibit/no ER instructions). The independent variables in this sample were the ER strategy bring on and the emotion experienced by the subjects. The emotion was measured using PANAS-X (posttest).The participants then accomplished the Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (ERQ) to confirm that they employed the instructed ER strategy. The dependant variable was the risk taking behaviour of the subjects, measured with bar one and only(a)t and IGT tests. Results showed that reappraisers, but not suppressors, showed significantly fall fear and disgust. Findings reveal that cognitive reappraisal increases risk taking by cut back the experience of negative emotions, while expressive suppression does not because it is ineffective in reducing negative emotions (Heilman et al. , 2010, p. 258-61).The textbook deals with the publication of emotion and cognitive edict by addressing the topics of thought supp ression, excise and cognition and emotion formula. First, thought suppression is the effort we hold up to prevent certain thoughts from entering our consciousness. It is voluminous in 2 steps the initiatory is an automatic process which detects unwanted thoughts, and the assist is a conscious process by which we decide to not think or so the unpleasant thoughts and concentrate on something else. When we are too tired, the conscious process cannot go a mood and the unwanted thoughts become stronger.We engage in though suppression to condition our feelings and behaviour (Baron et al. , 2010, p. 47-48). Second, the textbook looks at the make for of affect on cognition. Research indicates that our mood influences the expression we see the world and our interactions with it. The textbook states that nurture of affective nature is processed other than than standard information, and as such it is some impossible to ignore it once it has been introduced into a situation. Peopl e in a darling mood are encouraged in heuristic rule thinking, and to a greater extent apparent to buy up facts. Baron et al. , 2010, p. 50-53). Lastly, the textbook defines emotion regulation as a cognitive machine by which we use our thoughts to regulate and control our feelings. A study by Tykocinski key outs two ER techniques counterfactual thinking, when people array their thoughts about negative events to make them search unavoidable and less distressing, which reduces negative affect, and handsome in to temptation, which involves doing things that are potentially mediocre for us but pleasant in order to improve our mood (Baron et al. 2010, p. 54-55). close to similarities can be traced between the experiment and the textbook. They both agree that our mood has an influence on our cognition. In particular, the textbook tells us that people in a rock-steady mood engage in heuristic thinking, that is employing mental shortcuts, and that they are more likely to accept hardly a(prenominal)er arguments as exhibit in the study by Ruder and sign on (2003). The experiment by Heilman et al. (2010) shows us that the ER technique one uses can minify our risk aversion.The textbook does discuss forms of ER techniques that are similar as the one present in Heilmans study. ruling suppression, as discussed in the textbook, has a a few(prenominal) similarities with expressive suppression, in that they both endeavour to inhibit something. Cognitive reappraisal is in truth similar to Tykocinskis counterfactual thinking. In terms of the research done for the experiment and the textbook, no similarities could be found.This translates in the unlike names given to the emotion regulation techniques (i. e. reappraisal vs. counterfactual thinking) in between the two. The study certainly has a separate more detailed information on the topic of emotion regulation than the textbook. The latter(prenominal) approaches the topic in a more general way, not surprisingly so since it is a college level manual. A hypercritical look at the journal bind reveals that, overall they did a good job, as yet there are a few things that are not good.The independent and dependant variables were chosen properly and they took great reverence to measure the effects using a variety of tests and statistical analyses. They made sure that fear and disgust was felt and that ER strategies were employed. However, further specification on the way they instructed their participants over which ER strategy to use would be welcome. The study does not list any further information on that topic, other than the participants were given the Emotion Regulation Questionnaire at the end to determine if they followed the charge instructions.The conclusions seem to follow the results in a coherent and logical fashion. The main job with this study is their sampling. First of all, it is not actually large, and second, it is not representative, as it consists almost only if of yo ung women (56) from the campus. This does not allow for generalization. come along experiments with a larger, more representative sample would shed more light on the exact effects of emotion regulation on decision making at a lower place risk.