依恋对情绪调节过程的影响
Abstract
Previous studies based on attachment theory have proved the influence of attachment on emotion regulation. These influences can be manifested in many aspects, such as the choice of emotion regulation strategies, the effect of emotion regulation, and some cognitive processing related to emotion regulation. However, these studies ignore the complexity and diversity of emotion regulation as a process, and therefore cannot answer how attachment can affect emotion regulation. The extended process model divides emotion regulation into three stages, and clearly describes the process of emotion regulation and the relationship between various factors in the process. Combining the extended process model and the attachment theory to look back to previous studies is helpful to find out the relationship among these studies and expand new research directions. From the perspective of the extended process model, it can be found that there are individual differences related to attachment in all the three stages of emotional regulation. Specifically, in the recognition stage, the influence of attachment on emotion regulation is mainly reflected in the cognitive processing related to emotions. Both higher attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance are related to lower emotion recognition ability. At the same time, higher attachment avoidance is related to lower emotion recognition ability, and higher attachment anxiety is related to lower emotion regulation self-efficacy. In the selection stage, individuals with different attachment styles have different preferences for the choice of emotion regulation strategies. Most studies have found that individuals with secure attachment prefer to use highly adaptable and efficient strategies (such as cognitive reappraisal), and individuals with insecure attachment styles prefer to use strategies which are less adaptable and efficient(such as hypo-regulation or hyper-regulation). In the implementation stage, most studies have found that both attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance are significantly positively correlated with emotion regulation difficulties or disorders, but in some studies, high attachment avoidance individuals may not have problem with emotion regulation. In general, many factors are influenced by attachment in the process of emotion regulation, and the extended process model provides a theoretical framework for describing the sequence and causal relationship between these factors. However, there are still many key issues that have not yet been resolved. Future research can be expanded from the following aspects: The influence of attachment on emotional regulation should be explored while paying attention to the impact of environmental factors; New experimental paradigms need to be designed to confirm the continuity of the three stages and explore the reasons why attachment could affect emotional regulation. It is necessary to explore the influence of attachment on the emotion regulation flexibility. In addition, future intervention studies should design more targeted interventions to improve the emotion regulation of insecurely attached individuals.
Keywords：attachment;emotion regulation;the extended process model;anxious attachment;avoidant attachment
1 引言
依恋是个体与生俱来的一种形成和保持亲密关系的倾向(Bowlby, 1969)。依恋理论认为, 个体在生命早期和看护者的互动过程中会形成自己的内部工作模型(Internal Working Model, IWM), IWM不仅是早期依恋经验的内部表征, 还会在个体成长中人际交往的某些特定环境中激活, 并影响个体在交往互动中的心理和行为。不同的互动经验会使得个体形成不同类型的IWM, 从而表现为不同的依恋风格。假如看护者能够敏锐的觉察到婴儿的心理或生理需求并及时满足, 婴儿就会形成积极的IWM和安全型依恋风格; 当婴儿的需求总是被拒绝或忽视, 则会形成消极的IWM和非安全型依恋风格(焦虑型依恋和回避型依恋), 这些依恋风格可能会伴随个体终生(Bowlby, 1969)。依恋理论为研究者们理解不同个体之间心理和行为的差异提供了一个可靠的理论框架(Bowlby, 1969, 1973, 1980)。在Bowlby试图用依恋理论解释的诸多心理和行为中, 情绪和情绪调节的核心地位显而易见。有研究者认为依恋理论本质上就是一种情绪调节的理论(例如: Feeney & Noller, 1996; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2016)。因此从依恋理论提出至今, 已有数量可观的研究探索了依恋对情绪调节的影响。
情绪调节(Emotion regulation)是个体试图改变自己拥有何种情绪、何时拥有情绪以及如何体验和表达情绪的过程(Gross, 2002, 2015)。有关依恋影响情绪调节的研究主要关注两个方向。一方面, 研究者致力于回答依恋对情绪调节产生了何种影响?这一类研究尝试区分不同依恋类型的个体在情绪调节策略选择和调节效果上存在何种差异。另一方面, 研究者致力于在依恋和情绪调节的基础上建立多因素模型, 以探索依恋影响情绪调节的潜在机制, 或揭示情绪调节在依恋与其他心理和行为之间扮演着何种角色(例如: Kokkinos et al., 2019; Liese et al., 2020; Panfile & Laible, 2012)。行为和神经科学研究已证明, 不同依恋类型的个体在情绪调节策略偏好和调节效果上存在差异, 并且与依恋有关的个体差异在情绪觉察、情绪识别、情绪注意力、情绪记忆等一系列与情绪有关的认知加工过程中也有所体现(Mikulincer & Shaver, 2019)。虽然这些认知加工过程可能与依恋影响情绪调节的潜在机制有关, 但以往研究并没有明确上述过程如何参与了依恋对情绪调节的影响。总的来说, 以往有关依恋与情绪调节的研究多数以依恋理论为中心, 而缺乏描述情绪调节具体过程的理论框架, 忽略了情绪调节的过程性、多样性和复杂性, 导致难以进一步挖掘依恋影响情绪调节的潜在机制。因此, 为解决上述问题, 更深入地理解依恋与情绪调节的关系, 研究需要结合情绪调节领域的理论模型来揭示情绪调节的具体过程。
在情绪调节领域, Gross (2002)提出的情绪调节经典过程模型是最常被引用的一个理论模型。该模型认为, 情绪调节是一个伴随着情绪产生全过程的连续动态过程。但经典过程模型本质上描述的是情绪产生的而非情绪调节的过程, 在该模型中, 情绪调节只是以策略的形式出现在情绪产生的不同阶段。因此, Gross于2015年在经典过程模型的基础上提出了扩展过程模型(extended process model)。扩展过程模型认为, 由于情绪调节是个体试图引发、改变或保持情绪状态的目标导向过程, 在此过程中需要不断评价当前状态与目标状态之间的差距, 因此情绪调节涉及到一系列评价系统(Valuation system)的激活(Gross, 2015)。扩展过程模型将情绪调节描述为一个与情绪产生过程(一级评价系统)进行交互的二级评价系统, 并指出这个二级评价系统作为一个动态过程, 会随时间推移会反复发生。该模型将情绪调节分为三个阶段: 识别阶段(Identification stage), 选择阶段(Selection stage)和实施阶段(Implementation stage)。并且该模型认为, 上述的三个阶段先后发生且相互影响, 在现实的情绪调节过程中, 往往需要重复进行三个阶段以达到调节目标。
扩展过程模型将情绪调节以过程的形式展现, 并指出每个阶段与情绪有关的关键因素。该模型的提出, 为探索情绪调节中与依恋相关的个体差异提供了新的视角; 也能够弥补以往研究中忽略了情绪调节的过程性、多样性和复杂性的不足。因此, 本文将结合依恋理论与Gross (2015)提出的扩展过程模型所划分的情绪调节三阶段, 回顾在情绪调节三阶段中与依恋有关的个体差异及特征, 在扩展过程模型的视角下, 为进一步探索依恋对情绪调节的影响挖掘新视角和新方向。
2 依恋对情绪的认知加工的影响
当环境中某个要素激活个体情绪产生的评价系统后, 个体需要对情绪进行评价(消极或积极), 并且决定是否需要调节以及向着何种方向(向上或是向下)调节, 从而确定具体的行动目标。上述过程就是扩展过程模型中的识别阶段。
在识别阶段, 与依恋有关的个体差异已经在许多研究中有所体现。高依恋回避个体在识别阶段表现出的主要特征是较弱的情绪觉察能力, 他们往往难以觉察到自己或他人的情绪变化(例如: Fantini-Hauwel et al., 2012; Stevens, 2014; Monti & Rudolph, 2014); 而高依恋焦虑个体在这一阶段则会表现出情绪调节自我效能感较低的特征(Altan- Atalay & Sohtorik Lkmen, 2020), 他们对自我能否成功调节情绪保有怀疑且消极的信念。此外, 相比于安全依恋的个体, 非安全依恋的个体在情绪识别能力上也存在明显缺陷, 即使他们能够觉察到情绪的变化, 但难以识别和描述自我或他人的情绪, 并且他们对自我或伴侣的情绪效价和强度会作出错误的评估(Esposito et al., 2014; Overall et al., 2015; Stevens, 2014), 对面孔和语音所表达的某些特定情绪的识别准确率较低(Huang et al., 2019; Irak et al., 2020)。
高依恋回避个体和高依恋焦虑个体在识别阶段表现出了一部分相似的特征, 即较低的情绪识别能力, 这可能与他们情绪记忆能力有关。回避型依恋个体惯用的抑制策略会抑制与依恋相关信息或事件的加工, 从而导致他们情绪性记忆能力较差(例如: Dykas, et al., 2014), 因此他们在识别情绪中可能缺乏可靠的记忆作为判断的参考标准。而焦虑型依恋个体惯用的过度激活策略虽然使得他们更容易提取情绪性记忆, 但有研究表明, 焦虑型依恋个体的情绪记忆是混乱的, 他们在回忆过程中对焦点情绪(例如悲伤回忆中的悲伤情绪)和非焦点情绪(例如悲伤回忆中的愤怒情绪)体验都十分强烈(Mikulincer & Orbach, 1995), 因此在识别情绪的过程中, 多种情绪杂糅在一起的记忆可能会扰乱他们对当前情绪的识别。
同时, 依恋回避得分高的个体和依恋焦虑得分高的个体在识别阶段表现出的特征也存在一定的差异。首先, 只有依恋回避得分高的个体普遍存在情绪觉察能力较低的特征, 这可能是由于不同依恋个体对情绪性刺激的注意力投入存在差异。回避型依恋个体试图阻止或抑制任何与保持依恋需要有关或与抑制目标不一致的情绪状态(Mikulincer & Shaver, 2019)。因此他们对情绪性刺激表现出一系列排斥行为, 例如回避型依恋个体对情绪性刺激反应慢于安全型个体(Liu et al., 2017); 在Stroop任务中受到情绪性语义的干扰程度更低(Andriopoulos & Kafetsios, 2015); 或是在观看情绪刺激时, 大脑激活表现出自发的抑制过程(Ran & Zhang, 2018)。这些排斥行为可能会降低回避型依恋个体对情绪的敏感度。而对于焦虑型依恋个体, 他们惯用的过度激活策略会使得他们对情绪性刺激十分敏感。例如对情绪性刺激投入更多注意力, 并且容易在其他认知任务过程中受到情绪性刺激的干扰(Silva et al., 2012), 因此他们对情绪变化也更为敏感。但依恋焦虑对情绪觉察的影响可能还受到其他因素的调节(例如年龄, 性别), 因此导致部分研究出现了不一致的结果。此外, 只有依恋焦虑得分高的个体存在低情绪调节自我效能感的情况。这一现象符合依恋领域的心理动力学模型的假设, 该模型认为焦虑型依恋的个体对应对威胁和调节痛苦情绪的效能感最低, 并且对自身处理事件的能力和技巧持有最严重的怀疑(Mikulincer & Shaver, 2003)。而回避型个体虽然保有对自身应对威胁和情绪调节能力的积极信念, 但他们的自我效能感依旧低于安全性依恋个体, 并且似乎会随着威胁的背景特征而发生改变(Mikulincer & Shaver, 2003)。
总的来说, 上述研究表明, 依恋对情绪调节的识别阶段带来了显著影响。非安全依恋个体在这一阶段表现出的特征可能是导致他们后续情绪调节策略选择和最终情绪调节效果出现差异的原因。同时不同类型的非安全依恋个体在识别阶段的主要特征也有所差异, 这可能说明不同依恋风格的个体表现出情绪调节策略偏好和情绪调节效果差异的原因有所不同。此外, 值得注意的是, 在探索依恋对情绪调节的影响时应重视识别阶段表现出的个体差异。例如, 回避型依恋的个体较差的情绪觉察能力会导致他们在情绪调节的任务中受到刺激带来的情绪变化更小, 哪怕他们和安全型依恋、焦虑型依恋的个体浏览相同的诱发材料。如果不同依恋风格个体受到刺激诱发的情绪调节的“起点”不同, 那么对比情绪调节的“终点”也就没有意义。事实上在一些实验研究中, 这种“起点”的差异已经有所体现, 例如, 杨青青等人(2018)的研究中发现, 自由观看的条件下, 安全型依恋的女性对有关恋人亲密情景图片带来的愉悦度评分显著高于回避型依恋女性的评分。
3 依恋对情绪调节策略选择的影响
个体确定情绪调节目标后, 进入选择阶段。个体会感知到许多潜在的调节策略, 并根据各种环境因素(例如: 可用的认知、生理资源和情绪的类型强度)对每种策略的可行性进行评估, 最终选择一种特定的策略。情绪调节的扩展过程模型认为, 在这一阶段中, 个体感知到的策略数量过少, 对环境因素的错误评估, 或是对某种特定策略的过度依赖等, 都是可能导致情绪调节失败的潜在原因。
由于情绪调节策略种类多样, 因此目前大部分研究多选择两种区别明显的调节策略进行研究, 例如重新评估和反应抑制。研究者们较为一致地认为, 回避型依恋个体更偏爱反应抑制策略, 而较少使用认知重评策略(Troyer & Greitemeyer, 2017; Vrtička et al., 2012)。但关于焦虑型依恋个体更倾向采用何种调节策略还存在一定争议, Vrtička等人(2012)发现依恋焦虑得分高的个体更倾向于使用认知重评策略, 而Troyer和Greitemeyer (2017)发现这一群体更倾向于使用反应抑制策略。上述这类研究由于仅仅关注两种调节策略, 因此能更好地进行对比, 较容易总结出不同依恋类型个体对情绪调节策略的偏好, 但也存在一定局限性。首先, 这类研究忽视了很多常用的策略(例如分心), 使得研究结果过于片面; 其次, 这类研究常将认知重评视为适应性的情绪调节策略, 而反应抑制视为不适应性的情绪调节策略, 但认知重评并非在任何情况下都是最有效最健康的策略(Sheppes et al., 2009; Troy et al., 2013), 因此先入为主的对策略进行适应性的划分并不可行。
因此有部分研究将策略的选择拓宽, 并尝试以分类的方式来囊括更多的情绪调节策略。例如Wei等人(2005)发现焦虑型依恋个体更常采用情绪回应(Emotional reactivity)的调节策略, 而回避型依恋个体更常采用情绪切断(Emotional cutoff)的调节策略, 并且调节策略的使用频率中介了依恋与消极情绪变化之间的关系。Pascuzzo等人(2013)发现焦虑型依恋个体会采用更多情绪导向的策略(Emotion-oriented strategies, 例如监控情绪), 回避型依恋个体寻求支持(Support-seeking)的频率更少。Kim等人(2014)的研究在青少年群体中发现, 与父母的依恋安全感越高的个体, 自我报告积极调节策略的使用频率更高, 但消极调节策略的使用与依恋安全感没有显著相关。Goodall (2015)发现, 在面对积极情绪的事件时, 依恋焦虑和依恋回避的得分均与抑制(dampening)策略得分存在中等程度正相关, 而与享受(savouring)策略存在显著负相关。Mikulincer和Shaver (2019)曾在综述中总结到: 安全型依恋个体倾向于采用更具建设性和有效性的策略(例如: 重新评估, 寻求支持); 回避型依恋个体更依靠保持认知距离和情感疏离等方式; 焦虑型依恋个体更容易陷入诱发情绪的情景中, 从而加剧反省或是灾难化的思考。
此外, 依恋对情绪调节策略选择的影响也得到了一部分纵向研究证据的支持, 研究者发现未成年时期的依恋安全感可以预测成年时期的情绪调节策略选择。例如Pascuzzo等人(2013)发现, 在青少年时期对父母和同伴的依恋安全感较低的个体, 成年后更倾向于采用情绪导向的策略。近期的一项研究表明, 相比于稳定安全型依恋的婴儿(Stable secure infants), 稳定非安全型依恋的婴儿(Stable insecure infants)在成年期面对关系危机时, 采用了更多的过度抑制策略(Hypo-regulation strategies, 例如压抑, 疏远), 和更少的平衡策略(Balanced-regulation, 例如开放, 协作); 而不稳定非安全型依恋的婴儿(Unstable insecure infants)采用了更多的过度夸大策略(Hyper-regulation strategies, 例如夸大情绪表达, 反省) (Girme et al., 2021)。
总的来说, 依恋对情绪调节选择阶段的影响主要体现为不同依恋类型的个体存在对情绪调节策略的选择偏好。但这些研究由于对情绪调节策略的分类的不同, 相互之间缺乏可比性, 使得此类研究结果显得有些混乱。同时, 扩展过程模型认为, 情绪调节策略的选择与个体感知到的环境因素有关(例如情绪强度、策略的认知复杂性等, Gross, 2015)。而以往关注依恋与情绪调节策略选择的研究没有重视环境因素对情绪调节可能产生的影响。因此, 关于依恋对情绪调节选择阶段的影响仍有许多问题值得研究者们继续探索。
4 依恋对情绪调节实施效果的影响
当个体选择了特定的情绪调节策略后, 就进入了实施阶段。在这一阶段个体需要根据情绪调节目标和所选策略, 制定出实施策略达成目标的具体行为和认知计划, 并最终付诸实践。以往关于依恋对情绪调节效果有何影响的研究, 实质上都是在关注这一阶段。
已有研究表明, 安全型依恋个体的情绪调节障碍或困难水平相对较低(Marganska et al., 2013; Clear & Zimmer-Gembeck, 2017; Panfile & Laible, 2012; Pallini et al., 2016); 而高依恋焦虑和高依恋回避的个体, 情绪调节障碍程度或困难程度相对更高(Goodall et al., 2012; Liu & Ma, 2019; Owens et al., 2018; Stroud et al., 2016)。与此同时, 依恋对情绪调节效果的影响已经得到了一些神经证据的支撑。例如Diamond和Hicks (2005)发现, 年轻男性的迷走神经张力(Vagal tone, 一种反应情绪调节效果的生理指标, 该指标越高, 表明情绪调节的效果越好)与依恋焦虑得分呈显著负相关, 并且依恋安全感更高的个体能更好地从实验室诱发的愤怒情绪中恢复。VrtičKa等人(2012)的研究中发现, 个体在对社交场景有关的消极情绪图片进行认知重评的过程中, 依恋回避得分与双侧杏仁核活动呈正相关, 即抑制杏仁核激活相对失败, 该结果可能意味着回避型依恋个体使用重新评价策略时相对低效。在Lenzi等人(2013)的研究中, 尽管实验任务没有涉及情绪调节, 但研究者认为回避型依恋的年轻女性在观看婴儿情绪图片过程中, 边缘区和镜像区的大脑过度激活也可能反映了她们的情绪调节障碍。
但也有研究发现, 情绪调节困难的现象在焦虑型依恋的群体中更为明显, 而在回避型依恋的群体中情绪调节效果起伏不定。例如, Vrtička等人(2012)发现, 依恋回避分数对个体使用认知重评和反应抑制两种策略的效果没有显著相关, 但低依恋焦虑的个体, 在观看与社会场景无关的积极情绪图片时, 使用反应抑制策略的调节效果更好。McDonald等人(2016)发现, 依恋焦虑得分与情绪调节困难得分存在中等程度的正相关, 而依恋回避得分与情绪调节困难得分存在微小但显著的正相关。Craig等人(2020)发现, 在相隔2年的两个时间点上, 青少年的依恋焦虑得分与情绪调节障碍得分均存在显著正相关, 但依恋回避得分与两个时间点的情绪调节障碍均没有显著的关系。同样在成瘾患者群体中, 依恋焦虑得分越高的患者, 情绪调节也越困难, 而依恋回避得分与情绪调节困难没有显著相关(Tekin et al., 2020)。
综上所述, 依恋对情绪调节的实施阶段存在显著影响, 主要表现为不同依恋个体情绪调节效果存在显著差异。焦虑型依恋的个体普遍存在情绪调节困难或者障碍的现象。回避型依恋的个体情绪调节效果起伏不定, 这可能与他们长期采用抑制策略而对依恋有关的刺激产生防御机制有关。回避型依恋的个体会对情绪相关的材料产生“防御性排斥”(Mikulincer & Shaver, 2019), 这可能使得他们更习惯下调自己的情绪。但这种防御机制会占用一定认知资源, 在高认知负荷的情况下会瓦解(Kohn et al., 2012)。因此他们在低认知负荷的情况下抑制自己的情绪, 效果可能跟安全型依恋的个体一样好; 而在高认知负荷的情况下, 或是进行的上调情绪时, 他们可能很容易出现情绪调节困难或障碍的情况。
5 未来研究方向
在扩展过程模型的视角下, 将情绪调节的过程分为三个阶段后, 依恋对情绪调节的影响也可分为三个部分: 对情绪认知加工的影响, 对情绪调节策略选择的影响, 以及对情绪调节效果的影响(见图1)。与此同时, 扩展过程模型对情绪调节的过程进行了详细地描述, 为探索依恋影响情绪调节的潜在机制提供了新思路。因此, 未来可以从以下几点进行进一步的研究。
图1
5.1 依恋和环境因素对情绪调节产生的交互 作用
依恋对情绪调节的影响已经得到了大量研究的证明, 但在某些问题上还存在部分分歧, 例如回避型依恋的个体是否存在情绪调节困难。此外, 虽然研究者们一直强调情绪调节是一种个体与环境交互的过程, 该过程因个人特质而表现出差异的同时也会受到环境因素的影响。但以往研究在关注依恋对情绪调节的影响的同时并未重视环境因素可能带来的影响。扩展过程模型在描述情绪调节过程的同时, 同样强调了环境因素的重要性(Gross, 2015)。已有研究证明, 情绪强度、对策略的熟悉程度、感知到的策略的丰富程度、认知资源以及奖赏等因素都会影响个体对情绪调节策略的选择(Sheppes et al., 2011; Sheppes et al., 2014)。与此同时, 非安全依恋个体的次级依恋策略(抑制或过度激活策略)可能导致他们对某些情绪调节策略的熟悉程度不同, 以及在情绪调节过程中可用的认知资源有差异(例如回避型依恋的防御机制会占用认知资源)。而这些个体上的差异可能会与环境因素共同对情绪调节产生交互作用。因此, 在探索依恋对情绪调节策略选择的同时, 环境因素对于情绪调节策略选择可能产生的影响理应受到重视。未来研究应结合依恋理论和扩展过程模型, 在实验研究中操控环境变量, 观察不同依恋类型的个体在不同环境条件下, 对情绪调节策略的选择是否存在差异。
5.2 依恋对情绪调节产生影响的原因
Gross (2015)认为, 情绪调节的三个阶段先后发生并且存在先因后果的关系, 因此依恋对情绪调节早期阶段带来的影响可能是导致后期阶段策略选择和调节效果产生差异的原因。以往研究分别证明了三个阶段的独立存在, 且均受到依恋的影响, 但仍缺少研究证明三阶段的整体性和连续性, 三阶段之间的因果关系以及依恋对于整个连续过程的动态影响。此外, 以往的研究者认为, 情绪调节既包含有意识的显性过程, 也包含无意识(自动的)隐性过程(Aldao et al., 2015; Gyurak et al., 2011)。扩展过程模型虽然描述的是一个显性的情绪调节过程, 但依恋对这个过程的影响可能会导致个别阶段自动化。例如回避型依恋的个体可能对反应抑制策略存在高度依赖, 而在情绪调节过程中跳过了选择阶段。因此, 为了寻找依恋影响情绪调节的原因, 未来的研究首先应通过新的实验范式结合ERP等高时间精度的测量手段以证明三阶段的顺序/因果关系, 再进一步探索依恋对情绪调节产生影响的原因, 与此同时还应关注不同依恋类型的个体是否在各阶段存在无意识化或自动化的现象。
5.3 依恋对情绪调节灵活性的影响
在已有的实验范式中, 研究者往往只考察单一情绪调节策略的使用。而现实生活中, 个体为了达成情绪调节的目标, 往往需要进行多次的情绪调节, 在此过充足, 个体意识到某种情绪调节策略并不能有效完成目标时, 需要及时地转换调节策略, 才能达到最好的调节效果。例如, 在处理高度紧张的情绪情境时, 最好先分散注意力, 降低情绪强度, 然后再进行重新评估(Gross, 2015)。因此, 情绪调节灵活性(emotion regulation flexibility)对于实际生活中个体能否实施有效的情绪调节十分重要。但以往关注依恋与情绪调节的研究中, 尚未涉及到策略转换和情绪调节灵活性的问题。根据依恋的心理动力学模型, 安全型依恋个体基于安全的依恋策略, 能够更灵活的调整应对方式(Mikulincer & Shaver, 2003)。而焦虑型依恋和回避型依恋的个体可能由于对某种策略或目标的长期依赖, 导致他们很难在应对威胁时转换策略(Mikulincer & Shaver, 2003)。当非安全依恋类型的个体在情绪调节过程中感知到某种策略并不能达到情绪调节的目标时, 可能仍会坚持采用低效的策略, 而不进行转换调整(例如回避型个体坚持低效的反应抑制)。因此, 依恋对情绪调节灵活性的影响是一个值得研究者们关注的重点问题, 应引用测量情绪调节灵活性的实验范式对这一问题进行探讨。
5.4 制定更有效的干预措施
回顾以往的研究可以发现, 依恋焦虑和依恋回避对情绪调节的识别阶段和选择阶段带来的影响并不完全相同, 这预示着不同类型的非安全依恋的个体产生情绪调节困难或障碍的原因并不相同。与此同时, 以往针对非安全依恋的个体的干预研究也发现, 安全启动往往也只在焦虑型依恋的个体身上有较好的效果。因此未来旨在提升非安全依恋个体情绪调节效果的干预研究中, 应针对两种类型不同依恋策略的特点, 以及产生情绪调节困难的不同原因, 制定不同的更有针对性的干预措施。例如Gross (2015)认为, 正念可以通过提升情绪觉察能力来改善情绪调节。而针对依恋回避类型个体低情绪觉察的特点, 安全启动搭配正念的干预措施可能更适合用于改善依恋回避类型个体的情绪调节。
参考文献
[1]
杨青青, 胡娜, 陈旭, 牛娟, 翟晶. (2018).
恋人亲密情景下的回避型与安全型依恋个体情绪调节电生理差异
心理学报, 50(3), 306-316[本文引用: 1]
[3]
Altan-Atalay, A., & Sohtorik İlkmen, Y. (2020).
Attachment and psychological distress: The mediator role of negative mood regulation expectancies
Journal of Clinical Psychology, 76(4), 778-786.DOI:10.1002/jclp.22913 PMID:31853993 [本文引用: 1]
The current study aims to examine the relation between different dimensions of attachment with psychological distress, by specifically focusing on the mediator role of Negative Mood Regulation Expectancies (NMRE), which are considered as a form of coping self-efficacy. There is ample evidence showing the role of emotion regulation strategies predicting the relationship between attachment and psychological disorders. However, little is known about how NMRE might mediate the relationship between attachment dimensions and psychological distress.Four hundred and two (318 women) individuals between ages 18 and 62 (mean = 29.65; standard deviation [SD] = 8.96) completed measures of NMRE, attachment dimensions, and psychological distress.NMRE mediated the relationship between anxious attachment dimension and all dimensions of psychological distress (e.g., anxiety, depression, stress). However, NMRE mediated the relationship of avoidant attachment only with stress.Distinct mechanisms explain the relationship between two dimensions of attachment with NMRE and different forms of psychological distress.© 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
[4]
Andriopoulos, P., & Kafetsios, K. (2015).
Avoidant attachment and the processing of emotion information: Selective attention or cognitive avoidance?
Journal of Relationships Research, 6, 12.[本文引用: 1]
[5]
Bowlby, J. M. (1969). Attachment and loss: Attachment (vol. 1).
New York:
Basic Books.
[本文引用: 3]
[6]
Bowlby, J. M. (1973). Attachment and loss: Separation Anxiety and Anger (vol. 2).
New York:
Basic Books.
[本文引用: 1]
[7]
Bowlby, J. M. (1980). Attachment and Loss: Sadness and Depression (vol. 3).
New York:
Basic Books.
[本文引用: 1]
[8]
Clear, S. J., & Zimmer-Gembeck, M. J. (2017).
Associations between attachment and emotion-specific emotion regulation with and without relationship insecurity priming
International Journal of Behavioral Development, 41(1), 64-73.DOI:10.1177/0165025415620057 URL [本文引用: 1]
[9]
Craig, S. G., Sierra Hernandez, C., Moretti, M. M., & Pepler, D. J. (2020).
The mediational effect of affect dysregulation on the association between attachment to parents and oppositional defiant disorder symptoms in adolescents
Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 52, 818-828.DOI:10.1007/s10578-020-01059-5 URL [本文引用: 1]
[10]
Diamond, L. M., & Hicks, A. M. (2005).
Attachment style, current relationship security, and negative emotions: The mediating role of physiological regulation
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22(4), 499-518.DOI:10.1177/0265407505054520 URL [本文引用: 1]
[11]
Dykas, M. J., Woodhouse, S. S., Jones, J. D., & Cassidy, J. (2014).
Attachment-related biases in adolescents’ memory
Child Development, 85(6), 2185-2201.[本文引用: 1]
[12]
Esposito, A., Palumbo, D., & Troncone, A. (2014).
The influence of the attachment style on the decoding accuracy of emotional vocal expressions
Cognitive Computation, 6(4), 699-707.DOI:10.1007/s12559-014-9292-x URL [本文引用: 1]
[13]
Fantini-Hauwel, C., Boudoukha, A. H., & Arciszewski, T. (2012).
Adult attachment and emotional awareness impairment: A multimethod assessment
Socioaffective Neuroence & Psychology, 2, 10744.[本文引用: 1]
[14]
Feeney, J., & Noller, P. (1996). Adult attachment.
Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
[本文引用: 1]
[15]
Girme, Y. U., Jones, R. E., Fleck, C., Simpson, J. A., & Overall, N. C. (2021).
Infants’ attachment insecurity predicts attachment-relevant emotion regulation strategies in adulthood
Emotion, 21(2), 260-272.DOI:10.1037/emo0000721 URL [本文引用: 1]
[16]
Goodall, K. (2015).
Individual differences in the regulation of positive emotion: The role of attachment and self esteem
Personality and Individual Differences, 74, 208-213.DOI:10.1016/j.paid.2014.10.033 URL [本文引用: 1]
[17]
Goodall, K., Trejnowska, A., & Darling, S. (2012).
The relationship between dispositional mindfulness, attachment security and emotion regulation
Personality & Individual Differences, 52(5), 622-626.[本文引用: 1]
[20]
Gyurak, A., Gross, J. J., & Etkin, A. (2011).
Explicit and implicit emotion regulation: A dual-process framework
Cognition and Emotion, 25(3), 400-412.DOI:10.1080/02699931.2010.544160 PMID:21432682 [本文引用: 1]
It is widely acknowledged that emotions can be regulated in an astonishing variety of ways. Most research to date has focused on explicit (effortful) forms of emotion regulation. However, there is growing research interest in implicit (automatic) forms of emotion regulation. To organise emerging findings, we present a dual-process framework that integrates explicit and implicit forms of emotion regulation, and argue that both forms of regulation are necessary for well-being. In the first section of this review, we provide a broad overview of the construct of emotion regulation, with an emphasis on explicit and implicit processes. In the second section, we focus on explicit emotion regulation, considering both neural mechanisms that are associated with these processes and their experiential and physiological consequences. In the third section, we turn to several forms of implicit emotion regulation, and integrate the burgeoning literature in this area. We conclude by outlining open questions and areas for future research.© 2011 Psychology Press, an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an Informa business
[21]
Huang, Y.-L., Chen, S.-H., & Tseng, H.-H. (2019).
Attachment avoidance and fearful prosodic emotion recognition predict depression maintenance
Psychiatry Research, 272, 649-654.DOI:10.1016/j.psychres.2018.12.119 URL [本文引用: 1]
[22]
Irak, M., Soylu, C., & Güler, B. (2020).
Investigating the role of attachment orientation during emotional face recognition: An event-related potential study
Biological Psychology, 156, 12.[本文引用: 1]
[23]
Kim, S., Sharp, C., & Carbone, C. (2014).
The protective role of attachment security for adolescent borderline personality disorder features via enhanced positive emotion regulation strategies
Personality Disorders, 5(2), 125-136.DOI:10.1037/per0000038 URL [本文引用: 1]
[24]
Kohn, J. L., Rholes, W. S., & Schmeichel, B. J. (2012).
Self- regulatory depletion and attachment avoidance: Increasing the accessibility of negative attachment-related memories
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(1), 375-378.DOI:10.1016/j.jesp.2011.06.020 URL [本文引用: 1]
[25]
Kokkinos, C. M., Algiovanoglou, I., & Voulgaridou, I. (2019).
Emotion regulation and relational aggression in adolescents: Parental attachment as moderator
Journal of Child and Family Studies, 28(11), 3146-3160.DOI:10.1007/s10826-019-01491-9 URL [本文引用: 1]
[26]
Lenzi, D., Trentini, C., Pantano, P., Macaluso, E., Lenzi, G. L., & Ammaniti, M. (2013).
Attachment models affect brain responses in areas related to emotions and empathy in nulliparous women
Human Brain Mapping, 34(6), 1399-1414.DOI:10.1002/hbm.v34.6 URL [本文引用: 1]
[27]
Liese, B. S., Kim, H. S., & Hodgins, D. C. (2020).
Insecure attachment and addiction: Testing the mediating role of emotion dysregulation in four potentially addictive behaviors
Addictive Behaviors, 107, 7.[本文引用: 1]
[28]
Liu, C., & Ma, J. (2019).
Adult attachment style, emotion regulation, and social networking sites addiction
Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 7.DOI:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00007 URL [本文引用: 1]
[29]
Liu, Y., Ding, Y., Lu, L., & Chen, X. (2017).
Attention bias of avoidant individuals to attachment emotion pictures
Scientific Reports, 7, 41631.DOI:10.1038/srep41631 URL [本文引用: 1]
[30]
Marganska, A., Gallagher, M., & Miranda, R. (2013).
Adult attachment, emotion dysregulation, and symptoms of depression and generalized anxiety disorder
American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 83(1), 131-141.DOI:10.1111/ajop.12001 URL [本文引用: 1]
[31]
McDonald, H. M., Sherman, K. A., Petocz, P., Kangas, M., Grant, K., & Kasparian, N. A. (2016).
Mindfulness and the experience of psychological distress: The mediating effects of emotion regulation and attachment anxiety
Mindfulness, 7(4), 799-808.DOI:10.1007/s12671-016-0517-9 URL [本文引用: 1]
[32]
Mikulincer, M., & Orbach, I. (1995).
Attachment styles and repressive defensiveness: The accessibility and architecture of affective memories
Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 68(5), 917-25.[本文引用: 1]
[33]
Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2003).
The Attachment Behavioral System in Adulthood: Activation, Psychodynamics, and Interpersonal Processes
In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, Vol. 35; Advances in experimental social psychology (pp.53-152).Elsevier Academic Press, San Diego,
CA.
[本文引用: 4]
[34]
Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2016). Attachment in adulthood: structure, dynamics, and change. (2 ed.).
New York, NY:
The Guilford Press.
[本文引用: 1]
[35]
Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2019).
Attachment orientations and emotion regulation
Current Opinion in Psychology, 25, 6-10.DOI:S2352-250X(18)30007-1 PMID:29494853 [本文引用: 4]
According to attachment theory, individual differences in the availability and responsiveness of close relationship partners, beginning in infancy, and the resulting formation of fairly stable attachment orientations are crucial for understanding the ways people experience and regulate emotions. In this article, we review what has been learned during the last decade about attachment-related individual differences in emotion regulation. We begin with a brief account of the hypothesized links between different forms of attachment insecurity (anxiety, avoidance) and strategies people use in regulating distress and coping with threatening events. We then review findings from correlational and experimental studies showing that individual differences in attachment orientation are reflected in cognitive, behavioral, and neural patterns of emotion regulation.Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
[36]
Monti, J. D., & Rudolph, K. D. (2014).
Emotional awareness as a pathway linking adult attachment to subsequent depression
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 61(3), 374-382.DOI:10.1037/cou0000016 URL [本文引用: 1]
[37]
Overall, N. C., Fletcher, G. J. O., Simpson, J. A., & Fillo, J. (2015).
Attachment insecurity, biased perceptions of romantic partners’ negative emotions, and hostile relationship behavior
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 108(5), 730-749.DOI:10.1037/a0038987 URL [本文引用: 1]
[38]
Owens, G. P., Held, P., Hamrick, L., & Keller, E. (2018).
The indirect effects of emotion regulation on the association between attachment style, depression, and meaning made among undergraduates who experienced stressful events
Motivation and Emotion, 42(3), 429-437.DOI:10.1007/s11031-018-9688-0 URL [本文引用: 1]
[39]
Pallini, S., Baiocco, R., Baumgartner, E., Bellucci, M. T., & Laghi, F. (2016).
Attachment in childcare centers: Is it related to toddlers' emotion regulation and attentive behavior?
Child Indicators Research, 10(1), 1-16.DOI:10.1007/s12187-016-9376-0 URL [本文引用: 1]
[40]
Panfile, T. M., & Laible, D. J. (2012).
Attachment security and child's empathy: The mediating role of emotion regulation
Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 58(1), 1-21.DOI:10.1353/mpq.2012.0003 URL [本文引用: 2]
[41]
Pascuzzo, K., Cyr, C., & Moss, E. (2013).
Longitudinal association between adolescent attachment, adult romantic attachment, and emotion regulation strategies
Attachment & Human Development, 15(1), 83-103.[本文引用: 2]
[42]
Ran, G., & Zhang, Q. (2018).
The neural correlates of attachment style during emotional processing: An activation likelihood estimation meta-analysis
Attachment & Human Development, 20(6), 626-633.[本文引用: 1]
[43]
Sheppes, G., Catran, E., & Meiran, N. (2009).
Reappraisal (but not distraction) is going to make you sweat: Physiological evidence for self-control effort
International Journal of Psychophysiology, 71(2), 91-96.DOI:10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2008.06.006 PMID:18625273 [本文引用: 1]
Previous studies of emotion regulation suggested that reappraisal (construing an emotional event in non-emotional terms) has no cognitive or physiological consequences, but in all these studies, reappraisal was instructed ahead of an emotional situation. The authors' recent work, using behavioral indices, showed that inhibitory self-control resources are challenged when reappraisal starts late during an emotional situation relative to late instruction of distraction (diverting attention through producing neutral thoughts). The present study provides converging physiological evidence in showing that instructing to use reappraisal but not distraction late in a sadness inducing film involved increased skin conductance and decreased finger temperature. Both of these results are indicative of increased sympathetic activation that has been previously found to accompany inhibitory self-control effort.
[44]
Sheppes, G., Scheibe, S., Suri, G., & Gross, J. J. (2011).
Emotion-regulation choice
Psychological Science, 22(11), 1391-1396.DOI:10.1177/0956797611418350 PMID:21960251 [本文引用: 1]
Despite centuries of speculation about how to manage negative emotions, little is actually known about which emotion-regulation strategies people choose to use when confronted with negative situations of varying intensity. On the basis of a new process conception of emotion regulation, we hypothesized that in low-intensity negative situations, people would show a relative preference to choose to regulate emotions by engagement reappraisal, which allows emotional processing. However, we expected people in high-intensity negative situations to show a relative preference to choose to regulate emotions by disengagement distraction, which blocks emotional processing at an early stage before it gathers force. In three experiments, we created emotional contexts that varied in intensity, using either emotional pictures (Experiments 1 and 2) or unpredictable electric stimulation (Experiment 3). In response to these emotional contexts, participants chose between using either reappraisal or distraction as an emotion-regulation strategy. Results in all experiments supported our hypothesis. This pattern in the choice of emotion-regulation strategies has important implications for the understanding of healthy adaptation.
[45]
Sheppes, G., Scheibe, S., Suri, G., Radu, P., Blechert, J., & Gross, J. J. (2014).
Emotion regulation choice: A conceptual framework and supporting evidence
Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(1), 163-181.DOI:10.1037/a0030831 URL [本文引用: 1]
[46]
Silva, C., Soares, I. & Esteves, F. (2012).
Attachment insecurity and strategies for regulation: When emotion triggers attention
Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 53(1), 9-16.DOI:10.1111/j.1467-9450.2011.00924.x URL [本文引用: 1]
[47]
Stevens, F. L. (2014).
Affect regulation styles in avoidant and anxious attachment
Individual Differences Research, 12(3), 123-130.[本文引用: 2]
[48]
Stroud, C. B., Hershenberg, R., Cardenas, S., Greiter, E., & Richmond, M. (2016).
U.S. college students' sexual activity: The unique and interactive effects of emotion regulation difficulties and attachment style
International Journal of Sexual Health, 28(1), 37-49.DOI:10.1080/19317611.2015.1073824 URL [本文引用: 1]
[49]
Tekin, M. S., Özdemir, N., & Şahin, Ş. K. (2020).
Effect of attachment styles, emotional regulation difficulty and mindful attention levels on treatment motivation in patients with substance use disorder
Journal of Substance Use, 26(4), 441-448.DOI:10.1080/14659891.2020.1846807 URL [本文引用: 1]
[50]
Troy, A. S., Shallcross, A. J., & Mauss, I. B. (2013).
A person-by-situation approach to emotion regulation: Cognitive reappraisal can either help or hurt, depending on the context
Psychological Science, 24(12), 2505-2514.DOI:10.1177/0956797613496434 URL [本文引用: 1]
[51]
Vrtička, P., Bondolfi, G., Sander, D., & Vuilleumier, P. (2012).
The neural substrates of social emotion perception and regulation are modulated by adult attachment style
Social Neuroscience, 7(5), 473-493.DOI:10.1080/17470919.2011.647410 PMID:22217336 [本文引用: 4]
Adult attachment style (AAS) refers to individual differences in the way people experience and regulate their social relationships and corresponding emotions. Based on developmental and psychological research, it has been hypothesized that avoidant attachment style (AV) entails deactivating strategies in social contexts, whereas anxious attachment style (AX) involves hyper vigilance and up-regulation mechanisms. However, the neural substrates of differences in social emotion regulation associated with AAS have not been systematically investigated. Here we used fMRI in 19 healthy adults to investigate the effect of AAS on the processing of pleasant or unpleasant social and nonsocial scenes. Participants were asked either to naturally attend (NAT), cognitively reappraise (REAP), or behaviorally suppress (ESUP) their emotional responses. Avoidantly attached participants showed increased prefrontal and anterior cingulate activation to social negative scenes when making spontaneous emotion judgments. They also exhibited persistent increases in dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and left amygdala activity for the same stimuli during reappraisal, as well as additional activation in supplementary motor area and ventral caudate during the suppression of social positive emotions. These results suggest that AV may imply less efficient reappraisal strategies to regulate social negative emotions, and lead to higher conflict or effortful control when suppression cannot be employed. In contrast, anxiously attached participants showed differential increases in the right amygdala and left parahippocampal cortex for social negative and positive stimuli, respectively, but only when making spontaneous emotion judgments. No effect of AX was found during down-regulation conditions. This suggests heightened arousal to negative information without difficulty in down-regulating emotions through cognitive re-evaluation or suppression. Taken together, these findings reveal for the first time the neural underpinnings of attachment-related differences in social emotion regulation.
[52]
Wei, M., Vogel, D. L., Ku, T. Y., & Zakalik, R. A. (2005).
Adult attachment, affect regulation, negative mood, and interpersonal problems: the mediating roles of emotional reactivity and emotional cutoff
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(1), 14-24.DOI:10.1037/0022-0167.52.1.14 URL [本文引用: 1]
相关知识
个体依恋对焦虑状态的影响：宠物依恋的调节作用
大学生宠物依恋与社交焦虑的关系:有调节的中介模型
了解食物对情绪的影响以及如何通过饮食调节情绪
儿童对宠物的依恋与社会性发展的关系，宠物对儿童的心理影响
基于社交媒体的拟态宠物依恋行为的动机影响：网络社会支持的中介作用
心理学：情绪调节的策略及其应用
团体心理辅导对大学生网络成瘾的影响研究
情绪管理对应对压力和焦虑有何影响？如何调节情绪以提升心理健康
青少年乐观对抑郁的影响:心理韧性的中介作用
亲子依恋与初中生亲社会行为：有调节的中介效应
网址: 依恋对情绪调节过程的影响 https://m.mcbbbk.com/newsview400827.html
| 上一篇: 宠物依恋量表（LAPS） |
下一篇: 小学高年级儿童宠物依恋对亲社会行 |
