Abstract
In the present article, we present a review of the current status of the art with regard to the construct of regulatory emotional self-efficacy beliefs. We start with the definition of the psychological construct of regulatory emotional self-efficacy beliefs, presenting its theoretical status within the broader theory of self-efficacy, in the social-cognitive theory. Then, we offer a broad perspective on the evaluation of the construct, by introducing the Regulatory Emotional Self-Efficacy (RESE) scale. This instrument assesses two broad factors, self-efficacy in managing negative emotions (NEG) and self-efficacy beliefs in expressing positive emotions (POS). We review studies attesting to the reliability of the instrument and reporting gender differences in NEG and POS self-efficacy beliefs. Developmental trajectories of POS and NEG self-efficacy beliefs are also presented, and their pervasiveness is demonstrated with reference to results of several empirical studies. We also discuss differences between regulatory emotional self-efficacy beliefs and constructs classically associated to self-regulation. A critical evaluation of the field of research on regulatory emotional self-efficacy beliefs and suggestions on how to move the field forward is offered.
Keywords
Social-cognitive theorists conceive individual’s personality as a cognitive affective system resulting from the concerted action of functionally distinct structures, which gradually take form over the course of development (Bandura, 1986). Social-cognitive approaches, in particular, have addressed the psychological mechanisms that enable people to interact effectively with the environment, to assign personal meaning to their actions, and to plan and execute the course of actions in accordance with their personal goals and standards (Bandura, 1986). This emphasis has led to focus on the unique properties of human agency such as self-reflection and self-regulation that enable people to capitalize upon their own and others’ experience, to select and change the environments in which they live, and to contribute to charting the course of their life (Bandura, 2001).
Among psychological structures attesting to individuals’ agentic power, none has proved to exert a more pervasive influence over thought, motivation, and action than self-efficacy beliefs, namely, judgments people hold about their capacity to cope effectively with specific challenges and to face demanding situations (Bandura, 1986, 1997). As has been widely documented, people have little incentive to undertake activities or to persevere in the face of difficulties unless they believe to be able to attain desired results (Bandura, 1986, 1997). Moreover, the self-assurance with which people approach and manage difficult tasks determines whether they make good or poor use of their competencies. As attested by empirical studies, a strong sense of personal efficacy can overrule insidious self-doubt and sustain the development of both various competencies and the regulation of action (Bandura, 2001; Murray, Holmes, Griffin, Bellavia, & Rose, 2001).
Regulatory Emotional Self-Efficacy Beliefs
Over the years, the substantial influence of self-efficacy beliefs on individual functioning and behavior has been largely confirmed by several empirical studies, as has their relevance in understanding developmental processes related to diversified spheres of individual functioning (see Bandura, 1997, for a review). Traditionally, self-efficacy beliefs have been conceptualized as reflecting highly contextualized knowledge that affects appraisal processes, which in turn guide actions. This view has led researchers to emphasize self-efficacy on specific tasks and to pursue a multifaceted approach to the study of the various expressions of self-efficacy across diverse situations. Recently, theoretical and empirical efforts were made to assess perceived self-efficacy on a broader level than the task-specific level commonly used in prior analyses of self-efficacy beliefs (Caprara, 2002). As people reflect on their experiences in specific settings, they may construct beliefs about their capabilities in various domains of functioning, including “clusters” of interrelated circumstances and situations such as self-efficacy beliefs associated, for example, with the domains of emotional regulation.
In particular, following the common distinction between positive and negative affect (Russell & Carroll, 1999; Watson & Tellegen, 1985), Caprara et al. (2008) have suggested the importance for adjustment of distinct self-efficacy beliefs in overruling or modulating the expression of negative affect and impulsivity, and in appropriately experiencing and expressing positive affect, especially in difficult situations (Bandura, Caprara, Barbaranelli, Gerbino, & Pastorelli, 2003; Caprara, 2002). As a matter of fact, in the face of provocative circumstances and stressors, people who cannot sufficiently modulate their strong negative emotions may externalize negative feelings inappropriately (Eisenberg et al., 2001), such as anger and irritation (Olson, Schilling, & Bates, 1999), or may be overwhelmed by fear, anxiety, or depression (Flett, Blankstein, & Obertinsky, 1996). In contrast, experiencing positive affect can enhance cognitive functioning, buffer the perturbing effects of aversive experiences, facilitate adaptive coping (Folkman & Moskowitz, 2000), and lead to rewarding and enriching social exchanges and experiences (Fredrickson & Joiner, 2002).
To be sure, regulatory emotional self-efficacy beliefs entail a subjective self-appraisal of one’s own emotional competence in the domain of emotion regulation. Thus, measures of regulatory emotional self-efficacy beliefs are expected to relate moderately to measures of positive and negative states (and they actually are in the range of about .30, see Caprara et al., 2008), because the perception of one’s own abilities is substantively different from the assessment of one’s own emotional state.
Assessment
After preliminary studies (Caprara & Gerbino, 2001; Caprara et al., 1999), a first version of the Regulatory Emotional Self-Efficacy (RESE) scale was developed (Bandura et al., 2003) and then refined (Caprara et al., 2008). The RESE scale assesses self-efficacy in expressing positive emotions (POS) and self-efficacy in managing negative emotions (NEG). POS self-efficacy, assessed by four items, is defined as the perceived capability “to experience and to allow oneself to express positive emotions such as joy, enthusiasm and pride in response to success or pleasant events” (Caprara et al., 2008, p. 228). NEG self-efficacy, assessed by eight items, refers to the perceived “capability to ameliorate negative emotional states once they are aroused in response to adversity or frustrating events and to avoid being overcome by emotions such as anger, irritation, despondency, and discouragement” (Caprara et al., 2008, p. 228). POS self-efficacy constitutes a first-order factor, whereas NEG self-efficacy constitutes a second-order factor represented by two first-order factors: self-efficacy in managing despondency/distress (four items) and self-efficacy in managing anger/irritation (four items). Confirmatory factor analyses have supported this structure in Italian, Bolivian, and U.S. samples (Caprara et al., 2008). Caprara et al. (2008) documented positive associations of the RESE subscales with indicators of well-being in an Italian sample. Gunzenhauser et al. (2013) further corroborated the psychometric properties of the RESE in Germany and reported a negative association of POS self-efficacy with suppression, a (dysfunctional) strategy of regulating emotional expression (see Gross & John, 2003). All in all, psychometric findings point to the validity of the RESE scale as a measure of regulatory emotional self-efficacy beliefs. 1
Relations With Similar Constructs
Whereas the concept of regulatory emotional self-efficacy shares some similarities with that of effortful regulation (Derryberry & Rothbart, 1997; Rothbart, Ahadi, & Evans, 2000), it is important to recognize the conceptual distinction between actually being able to self-regulate and feeling competent to do so. From a theoretical point of view, these constructs draw upon different scientific traditions and address different aspects of personality. In principle, they can be mutually informative. Emotion-related self-regulation refers to
the process of initiating, avoiding, inhibiting, maintaining, or modulating the occurrence, intensity, or duration of internal feelings, states, emotion-related physiological, attention processes, motivational states and/or the behavioral concomitants of emotion in the service of accomplishing affect-related biological or social adaptation or achieving individual goals. (Eisenberg & Spinrad, 2004, p. 338)
Regulatory emotional self-efficacy is not identical to emotion-related self-regulation in that it reflects a person’s perceived abilities to self-regulate, which may not always reflect entirely their true level of self-regulation. Some individuals may not fully recognize their own competence, whereas others overestimate their own abilities.
Another construct that has been often associated with regulatory emotional self-efficacy beliefs is that of ego-resiliency (Block & Block, 1980). The construct of ego-resiliency refers to an individual characteristic “reflecting general resourcefulness, sturdiness of character, and flexibility of functioning in response to varying environmental circumstances” (Luthar, Cicchetti, & Becker, 2000, p. 546). Specifically, ego-resiliency is often viewed as closely associated with self-regulation and reflects the ability to flexibly modulate the level of emotional control in contexts and, hence, to deal well with negative emotions and to express positive emotions when appropriate (see Derryberry & Rothbart, 1997). The overlap, and the direction of influence between ego-resiliency and regulatory emotional self-efficacy beliefs have been recently examined in a longitudinal study (Alessandri, Vecchione, Eisenberg, Milioni, & Caprara, 2014; Milioni, Alessandri, Eisenberg, Castellani, Zuffianò, Vecchione, & Caprara, 2014). Findings from this study revealed that (a) regulatory emotional self-efficacy beliefs and ego-resiliency are distinct constructs, moderately correlated; (b) the relations among NEG and POS and ego-resiliency were in fact reciprocal over time.
Finally, regulatory emotional self-efficacy is distinct from the construct of emotional intelligence (EI). In the definition of Mayer and Salovey (1997), EI reflects a capacity to reason about emotions and to use emotions to enhance thinking. Whereas individuals high in EI are expected to be able to reflectively regulate emotions (Mayer & Salovey, 1997), regulatory emotional self-efficacy is more concerned with the individual’s belief about being able to manage specific kinds of emotions. In sum, EI is concerned with actual competence, regulatory emotional self-efficacy beliefs—with perceived competence. Speculatively, one might argue that regulatory emotional self-efficacy may represent an antecedent of broader abilities such as those captured by the definition of EI. Indeed, unless people believe they can attain desired results from their actions, they have little incentive to undertake activities or to persevere in the face of difficulties. For example, the self-assurance with which people approach the management of the more distressing negative emotions may determine whether they make good or poor use of their emotional competencies. Thus, a strong sense of personal efficacy would overrule insidious self-doubt and sustain the development of appropriate competencies and the regulation of emotions (Bandura, 1986). Anyway, these claims are in need of empirical verification, and, in this regard, studies addressing the concurrent and longitudinal relations between EI and regulatory emotional self-efficacy are welcome. Other conceptualizations of EI in the literature focus on a definition of EI conceived like a trait that encompasses behavioral dispositions and self perceived abilities and is measured through self report (Petrides & Furnham, 2001), or like a combination of competencies and personality dispositions (Goleman, 1998). Regulatory emotional self-efficacy focuses on agentic properties of individuals (Bandura, 1997) that can be differentiated from the more static nature of self-reported traits. Despite that, the degree of empirical overlap between regulatory emotional self-efficacy and the various operationalizations of EI is far from being known, and, again, we urge researchers to gather reliable empirical data useful to solve these unknowns. All in all, our speculation might likely serve as a basis for future investigations.
Gender and Age Differences
Age and gender differences in regulatory emotional self-efficacy were first assessed in a convenience sample of the Italian population (Caprara, Caprara, & Steca, 2003). On one hand, men appeared to enter adulthood with a more robust sense of NEG self-efficacy than did women, but at older ages, they exhibited a weaker sense of NEG self-efficacy. On the other hand, women’s sense of NEG self-efficacy improved from early adulthood to elderly age. Both men’s and women’s sense of POS self-efficacy declined across age groups. Since then, several studies have attested the existence of consistent gender differences in regulatory emotional self-efficacy beliefs (Alessandri, Caprara, Eisenberg, & Steca, 2009; Caprara, Alessandri, Barbaranelli, & Vecchione, 2013; Caprara et al., 2008; Caprara & Steca, 2005, 2007; Caprara, Vecchione, Barbaranelli, & Alessandri, 2013). Female adolescents and young adults stably reported higher POS self-efficacy beliefs than did their male counterparts. In contrast, men scored higher than women on NEG self-efficacy beliefs.
These results are open to different interpretations. Perhaps males and females are differentially motivated to rate themselves in accordance with the perceived stereotypic gender roles. In fact, Western societies tend to view empathy, higher (but, of course, appropriate) expression of positive emotion, expression of internalizing negative emotions, such as anxiety, sadness, and depression, and prosociality as typical feminine traits (see Eisenberg, Martin, & Fabes, 1996; Else-Quest, Hyde, Goldsmith, & Van Hulle, 2006). The masculine role, by contrast, is often associated with impulsivity and high level of externalizing emotions, such as anger, and high intensity of positive emotion (see Eisenberg et al., 1996; Else-Quest et al., 2006).
Alternatively, one could argue that, due to gender-role socialization, most females develop relatively high levels of positive interpersonal abilities, such as empathy or prosocial behavior and a modulated expression of positive emotion (Else-Quest et al., 2006), whereas males tend to be high in the ability to manage the expression of negative emotions, in accordance with the masculine role. In light of the observed across-studies consistencies of gender differences and based on previous meta-analyses showing a stable difference between males and females in positive emotions, often moderated by the social context (Hall, 1984; Hall & Halberstadt, 1986; LaFrance, Hecht, & Paluck, 2003), we lean toward the latter interpretation (although both might affect above-referenced results).
Developmental Trajectory
The longitudinal relation between POS and NEG self-efficacy beliefs was investigated in three studies. Alessandri et al. (2009), for example, found that NEG self-efficacy beliefs were predicted by POS self-efficacy beliefs uniquely during the transition from late adolescence to young adulthood. The opposite direct effect (i.e., from NEG self-efficacy beliefs to POS self-efficacy beliefs), instead, was found to be not significant (Alessandri et al., 2009). However, these effects were not replicated by Caprara, Vecchione, et al. (2013) or by Caprara, Alessandri, et al. (2013), and thus their relevance is not clear. In sum, while cross-sectional studies have generally reported a low-to-moderate degree of association between POS and NEG self-efficacy beliefs, longitudinal studies posited these factors as generally independent.
Two studies (Caprara, Alessandri, et al., 2013; Caprara, Vecchione, et al., 2013) investigated the longitudinal developmental trajectory of regulatory emotional self-efficacy beliefs from late adolescence to emerging adulthood, covering an age span ranging from 14 to 25 years. Latent growth model analysis (Meredith & Tisak, 1990) revealed that POS and NEG self-efficacy beliefs showed an opposite trend over time. POS self-efficacy beliefs increased over time; by contrast, NEG self-efficacy beliefs decreased over time. Likely adolescents improve their capacity to express positive emotions over time, but this is not sufficient to compensate for their higher vulnerability in managing negative emotions in face of the challenges of young adulthood. Females, in particular, seem less equipped than males to manage negative emotions. This concurs with previous findings demonstrating the higher emotional vulnerability of females in comparison with males (Alessandri et al., 2009; Bandura et al., 2003; Caprara, Alessandri, & Barbaranelli, 2010) and is in line with the above-referenced effects of normative pressure to conform with gender-based social expectations (Gilligan, 1982).
Effects Across Spheres of Human Functioning
Previous research has clarified the paths of influence through which perceived self-efficacy in managing negative affect and in expressing positive affect operates in governing diverse forms of adaptation. As adaptive functioning requires discriminative regulation of affect, POS self-efficacy beliefs mostly contributed to promoting prosocial behavior (Caprara & Steca, 2005). In a longitudinal study that covered 4 years of late adolescent development, Alessandri et al. (2009) found that both POS and NEG self-efficacy beliefs longitudinally influenced prosociality through the mediation of empathic self-efficacy beliefs. Bandura et al. (2003) found that NEG self-efficacy was associated to lower levels of depressive symptoms.
Other findings point to perceived self-efficacy in managing one’s own affective life as the vessel through which one can address the change of basic dispositions, like emotional stability (Caprara, Vecchione, et al., 2013), namely, the trait that has been most frequently associated with mental health (Kotov, Gamez, Schmidt, & Watson, 2010). Caprara et al. (2010) reported findings suggesting that the promotion of regulatory emotional self-efficacy beliefs may contribute to the development of self-esteem. In another study, Caprara, Alessandri, et al. (2013) demonstrated that both NEG and POS self-efficacy beliefs predicted self-esteem over an 8-year time span. During this period, mean-level changes in self-esteem were also closely related to mean-level changes in both emotional self-efficacy beliefs. These results point to regulatory emotional self-efficacy beliefs as one of the key components of human agency in the field of behavioral regulation.
Final Overview and Directions for Future Research
Emotional experiences are heavily embedded in interpersonal transactions. In maneuvering through emotionally arousing situations, people have to take charge of their inner emotional life and regulate their expressive behavior and strategically manage their modes of adaptation (Bandura, 1997). Thus, a lot of work remains to be done before the value and the contribution of regulatory emotional self-efficacy beliefs to the regulation of the action could be understood completely. To reach this aim, researchers should be courageous, and take steps to solve limitations in the research program reviewed in this article.
First of all, many of the above-referenced studies were focused on the effects of regulatory emotional self-efficacy beliefs at a very general level, and thus potentially missed the role of the social context in moderating their appropriate expression. Although control is more central to negative affect and expression is more central to positive affect in socializing emotion, effective social functioning requires discriminative regulation of expressions of affect. There are times and circumstances when expression of negative affect, such as indignation over unjust practices, has a positive functional value, whereas indiscriminate displays of positive affect are socially out of place. Indeed, it is well known that expressing affection, liking, and joyfulness indiscriminately across all of the contexts can elicit negative reactions from others (Shiota, Campos, Keltner, & Hertensetein, 2004). On a related side, there is no doubt that expressing negative emotions may be useful in certain situations, for example, by promoting interpersonal relations (Graham, Huang, Clark, & Helgeson, 2008). Future studies should go further and adopt a contextualized perspective to investigate the value of regulatory emotional self-efficacy beliefs within specific real-life contexts. In this regard, the daily diary studies and momentary assessment procedures deserve attention, because they allow the online assessment of individual’s beliefs, coupling them with the external characteristics of the context in which the individual is embedded.
Moreover, the fact that the study of regulatory emotional self-efficacy beliefs has comported with a narrowing of attention on the gathering of self-report data may be viewed, in part, as another limitation. Of course, one should recognize that none can report about one’s own feelings and self-efficacy better than the individuals themselves. However, the fact that people can fake (or distort) or simply may be inaccurate in reporting their abilities has long made attitude researchers wary of taking people’s self-reports at face value, particularly when the topics being considered are closely related to the concept of one’s self (see Vecchione & Alessandri, 2013). We believe that other methods of assessment should be experienced along with self-report, for example, clinical interview or implicit methods, such as the Implicit Association Test (IAT; Greenwald, McGhee, & Schwartz, 1998). Alternatively, one may try to complement the information drawn by the self-report of individuals with others’ reports, obtained by close and significant people in the life of the individual. Furthermore, we recognize the need to submit the RESE scale to more stringent test of discriminant validity, by administering it along with measures of close constructs (i.e., EI). The use of clinical samples might contribute to unraveling the relations of regulatory emotional self-efficacy beliefs with health and adjustment.
From a theoretical point of view, we are pursuing a research program aimed to build an overarching theoretical framework, linking together trait theory and social-cognitive theory. Traits and self-efficacy beliefs are different constructs that address different aspects of personality that can be mutually informative on its functioning (Caprara, Vecchione, et al., 2013). Whereas basic traits point to endogenous structures that set the potential of what people may become along few and broad dimensions, self-efficacy beliefs point to self-regulatory processes and mechanisms that allow people to reflect upon themselves, to learn from one’s own and others’ experience, and to accord their behavior to their own pursuits and standards. Evidence accumulated until now (Caprara, Vecchione, Alessandri, Gerbino, & Barbaranelli, 2011; Caprara, Vecchione, et al., 2013) seems to point to regulatory emotional self-efficacy beliefs as the key to connecting basic traits to behavior and also, under certain circumstances, to producing significant changes in traits. More research efforts are necessary in these areas to corroborate previous findings and to put their significance in larger theoretical framework. Finally, more cross-cultural findings would be desirable to ascertain the extent to which the same relations, and the same recommendations, hold across different cultural contexts.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.