Emotion regulation variability and flexibility in daily life show distinct associations with well-being, age, and executive functions.

de la Fuente D; Karbach J; Basten U; Glombiewski, JA; In-Albon T; Lischetzke T; Mema C; Rammensee, RA; Schmitt, MC; Könen T · 2026 · PubMed Central

DOI: 10.1038/s41598-026-57813-7

archive: archived pipeline: cataloged verified

Get this paper ↗ (DOI — opens at the source; we link to it, we don't host it)

Summary

This study investigates the distinct roles of emotion regulation (ER) variability and flexibility in daily life, examining their associations with executive functions (EF), affective well-being, and age. Motivated by the limitations of global self-reports and laboratory settings in capturing dynamic, context-dependent regulation, the authors sought to clarify whether adaptive ER relies on greater cognitive control, variability, or flexibility. The research addresses the theoretical distinction between ER variability (the extent of strategy variation) and ER flexibility (the joint fluctuation of strategy use and contextual changes), testing whether these constructs show linear or nonlinear relationships with mental health outcomes. The study employed a multi-method design involving 161 participants aged 14–78 from the general population. Executive functions were assessed via six online cognitive tasks measuring shifting, inhibition, and updating. ER variability and flexibility were measured using a 14-day ambulatory assessment, where participants reported daily emotional experiences and strategy use via mobile applications. The analysis focused on component-specific EF associations with ER variability and tested for U-shaped (quadratic) associations between ER flexibility and affective outcomes, including unpleasant mood and depressive symptoms. Results indicated that EF performance declined with increasing age across shifting, inhibition, and updating domains. Older age was robustly associated with lower within- and between-strategy ER variability, whereas ER flexibility remained stable across adulthood. Contrary to expectations, individual differences in EF were not associated with everyday ER variability, suggesting that cognitive control capacity does not account for regulatory dispersion in daily life. Regarding well-being, ER flexibility showed specific nonlinear associations: within-strategy flexibility based on situational valence and social context demonstrated U-shaped relations with unpleasant mood, indicating that both low and high context sensitivity were linked to elevated negative affect. Flexibility indices were unrelated to between-strategy variability or depressive symptoms. The findings challenge the assumption that adaptive ER is simply a function of greater executive control or higher variability/flexibility. Instead, the study underscores the importance of distinguishing variability from flexibility and suggests that the adaptiveness of ER depends more on the appropriateness of strategy–context matches than on general patterns of strategy use. The results imply that optimal regulation involves a balance between stability and flexibility, with intermediate levels of context sensitivity potentially being most beneficial for emotional well-being.

Provenance

The full processing record for this entry. Every stage of this paper's journey through the pipeline is logged — what ran, with which tool and model, how many attempts it took, and when it last completed.

Summary generated by qwen3.6-27b-prismaquant on 2026-06-25; verification: verified.

Topics

Ranked by relevance to this paper. Hover a topic for its definition.

• executive function