Scholarlink

Purpose <p>This study aimed to identify emotion regulation (ER) profiles in two age-differentiated samples and examine their association with psychological functioning, while investigating the predictive role of attachment in profile membership.</p> Methods <p>One sample with 384 emerging adults (Mage = 22.66; SD = 3.00; 79% women) and one sample with 216 primarily middle-aged adults (Mage = 45.21; SD = 8.53; 74% women) were used.</p> Results <p>Three profiles were identified within each sample; two profiles were consistent, while one profile differed. In Sample 1, the profiles were (1) ‘<i>Suppressive Regulators’</i>, (2) ‘<i>Mixed Regulators’</i>, and (3) ‘<i>Expressive Regulators’</i>. In Sample 2, an <i>‘Adaptive Regulators’</i> profile replaced the <i>‘Suppressive Regulators’</i> profile. ‘<i>Suppressive Regulators’</i> in Sample 1 and <i>‘Mixed Regulators’</i> in Sample 2 showed higher levels of depression, anxiety, stress, whereas <i>‘Expressive Regulators’</i> demonstrated lower levels of these dimensions. In Sample 1, both attachment significantly predicted profile membership, with higher insecure attachment increasing the likelihood of belonging to the <i>‘Suppressive Regulators’</i> profile. In Sample 2, only attachment avoidance emerged as a significant predictor.</p> Conclusions <p>These findings highlight the importance of identifying unique ER profiles due its impact on psychological functioning, considering developmental stages and underscore the role of attachment dimensions in shaping regulatory patterns.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Emotion Regulation Profiles and Their Association with Psychological Functioning: A Latent Profile Analysis Across Two Age-Differentiated Samples

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年6月27日

查看全文
  • Tânia Brandão

摘要

Purpose

This study aimed to identify emotion regulation (ER) profiles in two age-differentiated samples and examine their association with psychological functioning, while investigating the predictive role of attachment in profile membership.

Methods

One sample with 384 emerging adults (Mage = 22.66; SD = 3.00; 79% women) and one sample with 216 primarily middle-aged adults (Mage = 45.21; SD = 8.53; 74% women) were used.

Results

Three profiles were identified within each sample; two profiles were consistent, while one profile differed. In Sample 1, the profiles were (1) ‘Suppressive Regulators’, (2) ‘Mixed Regulators’, and (3) ‘Expressive Regulators’. In Sample 2, an ‘Adaptive Regulators’ profile replaced the ‘Suppressive Regulators’ profile. ‘Suppressive Regulators’ in Sample 1 and ‘Mixed Regulators’ in Sample 2 showed higher levels of depression, anxiety, stress, whereas ‘Expressive Regulators’ demonstrated lower levels of these dimensions. In Sample 1, both attachment significantly predicted profile membership, with higher insecure attachment increasing the likelihood of belonging to the ‘Suppressive Regulators’ profile. In Sample 2, only attachment avoidance emerged as a significant predictor.

Conclusions

These findings highlight the importance of identifying unique ER profiles due its impact on psychological functioning, considering developmental stages and underscore the role of attachment dimensions in shaping regulatory patterns.