emotion regulation model

Currently, the core logic of the emotion regulation model that has been proven effective by both the clinical psychology community and the public’s daily practice can be simplified as “processing physiological arousal first, then processing cognitive interpretation, and finally implementing behavioral adjustments.” However, there is no so-called universal model that is “one-size-fits-all”—a combination of tools that adapts to different personality traits, emotional triggering scenarios, and personal tolerance is the premise for a truly effective model.

It’s interesting to say that when cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) became popular two years ago, many people regarded cognitive adjustment as the only standard answer to emotional regulation. I also encountered this pitfall when I first came into contact with emotional regulation. After an argument with my partner, I sat at my desk and forced myself to write an emotional diary. One by one, I listed "Is the idea just now tending to catastrophize" and "Have I generalized a single incident"? I dropped the pen after writing two lines - at that time, my hands were shaking with anger, and my mind was filled with "Why didn't he discuss it with me in advance?", and I couldn't calm down to do any rational analysis.

Later, when I looked through the literature on embodied cognition, I realized that when the emotional arousal exceeds a certain threshold, such as when the heart rate soars above 100, the palms become sweaty, and you can't help but tremble when you speak, the prefrontal cortex, which is responsible for rational decision-making, has been "hijacked" by the amygdala. If you force yourself to "figure it out" at this time, you are essentially using the requirements of the rational brain to embarrass a down system, which will only become more and more chaotic. Xiao Xia, an Internet operator who came to me for consultation before, is a typical example. She has saved half a cabinet of popular psychology books and knows the ABC theory better than I do. Last time, her boss scolded her in front of the whole team. She hid in the fire escape and forced herself to "don't interpret the boss's criticism as being directed at me." Later, the adjustment plan we gave her was very simple: next time she encounters this kind of emotional situation, first take out the ice mineral water from the bag and put it on her face for 10 seconds, or go to the stairwell to dance for 30 seconds and raise her legs high, and wait for her heartbeat to calm down before thinking about anything else. She told me last week that she was criticized by her boss again last time, so she tried this method and was able to go back and change the plan in less than ten minutes, saving a lot of internal time.

Of course, not everyone agrees with the logic of "dealing with physiology first and then adjusting cognition." Practitioners of Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) have always emphasized that deliberately "regulating" emotions is itself a kind of internal consumption. You must have had this experience. The more you tell yourself "Don't be nervous when you go on stage to give a speech," the more your mind goes blank and the hands shake when you stand on the stage. In essence, you are fighting against your own instinctive reaction. All your energy is spent on pulling. How can you still have the energy to focus on what you want to say? The response logic of ACT is simpler: you can admit frankly, "I am nervous right now. It is normal to have a fast heartbeat and sweaty palms." There is no need to rush to get rid of this feeling, just continue talking with this tension. I have a friend who is a university teacher. He has been nervous lecturing to freshmen for ten years. His heart still beats fast before he goes on stage. He does not regulate his heart rate, so he jokes with the students and says, "You see me being nervous every time in the first class, it means I value you." In fact, it has become his personal characteristic.

To put it bluntly, there is no distinction between different models, only whether they are suitable or not. If you are facing a solvable problem, such as being scolded for a mistake at work, then calming down your physiological state first and then adjusting your cognition can help you get back on the track of solving the problem quickly. ； If you are faced with unchangeable facts, such as the death of a loved one or the failure of a project you have worked hard on for a long time, forcing yourself to "come out" and "don't be sad" will slow down the pace of recovery. At this time, the acceptance idea of ​​ACT is much more effective. Allow yourself to be sad and have negative emotions, and you will be able to get along with these emotions faster.

Oh, by the way, there is another premise that many people get wrong: Emotional regulation is never about "eliminating negative emotions." Last time a reader left me a message, saying that he used a lot of adjustment models and still got angry when encountering unfair things. Am I too useless? I replied to him at that time, if you don't get angry when something unfair happens, then something is really wrong. Emotion itself is your early warning system. Anger helps you keep your boundaries, anxiety helps you avoid risks in advance, and sadness helps you release stress. The role of the regulation model is to help you not be led by emotions to make impulsive decisions that you will regret, such as making naked remarks in a fit of anger, or saying harsh words in a quarrel with your family. It does not allow you to directly dismantle the early warning system.

I only have three or four emotional adjustment tools on hand right now: ice mineral water, 5-4-3-2-1 grounding method, and if I can’t calm down, I go for a couple of runs. I never stock up on those “universal adjustment lists” on the Internet. After all, emotions are inherently different for different people, and the best model is the one you use easily.