Author Reply: Arousal Reappraisal as an Affect Regulation Strategy

Arousal Reappraisal as Affect Regulation

The primary aims of the arousal reappraisal strategy are to facilitate performance and promote active coping under stress. Thus, one might question whether arousal reappraisal fits the classic definition of affect regulation because of the limited focus on subjective affective experiences (see Tamir, 2018). However, the downstream effects of arousal reappraisal would not be possible without modifying subjective affective processes. To illustrate, the focal mechanisms of arousal reappraisal are stress appraisals, which reflect subjective perceptions of coping resources and situational demands. By shifting appraisals, arousal reappraisal regulates affective responses, and subsequently, can help improve physiological responses and performance. Moreover, research indicates that arousal reappraisal directly impacts subjective reports of anxiety (Jamieson, Peters, Greenwood, & Altose, 2016), affective displays of anxiety and shame (Beltzer, Nock, Peters, & Jamieson, 2014), and attention for emotionally negative cues (Jamieson, Nock, & Mendes, 2013). Thus, we argue that arousal reappraisal conforms to standard definitions of affect regulation, and thus has the potential to inform and be informed by the broader emotion regulation literature.

Addressing the limited focus on subjective outcomes in the extant arousal reappraisal literature, though, is important because understanding the interplay between subjective and objective processes has the potential to inform development of research in this area. However, we caution against overinterpreting subjective reports in stress research because evidence from the embodiment literature suggests information from the body need not be conscious to be able to impact emotional experiences and downstream outcomes (Blascovich & Mendes, 2010).

Given that arousal reappraisal manipulations directly state that stress can be functional and help improve performance (e.g., Jamieson, Nock, & Mendes, 2012; Jamieson et al., 2016; John-Henderson, Rheinschmidt, & Mendoza-Denton, 2015), one might also question whether placebo or self-fulfilling prophecy processes may be driving mechanisms of effects (e.g., Tamir, 2018). We believe this alternative is unlikely because arousal reappraisal has been tested against a face-valid placebo control that advocated ignoring stress so as to remain calm (Jamieson et al., 2012; Jamieson et al., 2016)—pilot testing revealed that the “ignore” placebo and arousal reappraisal materials were rated as similarly effective (Jamieson et al., 2012; see also Brooks, 2014). However, the contributions of positive expectations have not been quantified in research on reappraising stress arousal. An interesting line of future inquiry may seek to disentangle self-fulfilling prophecy and reappraisal processes.

Moderation and Future Directions

Initial research on arousal reappraisal has yielded promising findings, but moderators remain by and large unknown. In what follows we seek to highlight some potentially interesting avenues for future research along these lines.

Interoceptive ability—acuity for perceiving internal visceral states (Katkin, Blascovich, & Goldband, 1981)—predicts intensity of emotional experiences (Barrett, Quigley, Bliss-Moreau, & Aronson, 2004). Thus, effects of affect regulation on subjective experiences may manifest more readily when interoceptive ability is relatively high. However, it is unclear whether individuals with high interoceptive ability would benefit more or less from reappraisal manipulations. For instance, more accurate interoceptors may exhibit greater improvements because of their ability to better perceive arousal (Werner, Duschek, Mattern, & Schandry, 2009). Conversely, lay beliefs suggest that “stress is bad,” so good interoceptors may exhibit more rigid, dysfunctional appraisal patterns and be less inclined to “believe” reappraisal messages.

The idea that affective experiences operate in cycles across time and between people opens up possibilities that regulating affect at one time and place can feed-forward to impact the self and others in future situations (see Gross, 2015, for a review). Appraisals may be one type of mechanism through which affective dynamics effects unfold. For instance, if reappraising stress arousal improves wellbeing, this could feed-forward to improve health by shaping subsequent engagement and coping with similar future stressful situations (Kruse & Sweeny, 2018). That is, potential long(er)-term effects of arousal reappraisal on health may be communicated through wellbeing. However, additional work is needed to elucidate direct effects of arousal reappraisal on wellbeing, and to demonstrate how stress appraisals might shape and be shaped by wellbeing processes in vivo.

Affect regulation methods like arousal reappraisal are most effective in acute stress situations that include outcome uncertainty. If outcomes are known and certain, then there is no reason for individuals to engage. However, outcomes in the motivated-performance situations are rarely, if ever, certain. Even when the probability is very low that active coping efforts will yield positive outcomes—such as losing by 25 points in the third quarter of the Super Bowl—some outcome uncertainty remains. An uncertain outcome leaves open possibilities for adaptive coping to facilitate performance and promote positive outcomes, such as players remaining challenged to overcome the deficit and win the game. Interesting avenues for future research would be to more closely examine the role(s) of contextual moderators, such as outcome uncertainty, when examining effects of stress appraisals.

Conclusion

There is much potential for affect regulation approaches, such as arousal reappraisal, to improve active coping in motivated-performance situations. Given that adaptive stress responses can facilitate coping with future stressors (Dienstbier, 1989), health education might seek to incorporate information about the multifaceted nature and functionality of stress. However, it is important to note that arousal reappraisal (or any other brief social psychological intervention) is not a “silver bullet” for improving outcomes in all stressful situations, nor should this strategy be expected to positively impact all individuals. Substantially more work is needed to better understand how psychological and biological stress processes interact to shape health outcomes.