高特质焦虑个体内隐与外显情绪调节的行为学特点分析  

Behavioral characteristics of implicit and explicit emotion regulation in high trait anxiety

作　　者：王小雪 黄俊 尹旦旭 邓宇豪 郑祖盛 伍芳慧 汪涛[1] WANG Xiaoxue;HUANG Jun;YIN Danxu;DENG Yuhao;ZHENG Zusheng;WU Fanghui;WANG Tao(Faculty of Medical Psychology,Battalion 3,College of Basic Medical Sciences,Army Medical University(Third Military Medical University),Chongqing,China;Squadron 9,Battalion 3,College of Basic Medical Sciences,Army Medical University(Third Military Medical University),Chongqing,China)

机构地区：[1]陆军军医大学(第三军医大学)医学心理系,重庆 [2]陆军军医大学(第三军医大学)基础医学院三大队九队,重庆

出　　处：《陆军军医大学学报》2025年第7期742-748,F0003,共8页Journal of Army Medical University

基　　金：重庆市自然科学基金面上项目(cstc2021jcyj-msxmX0902);陆军军医大学人文社科基金一般项目(2021XRW06)。

摘　　要：目的探究高特质焦虑个体认知重评和表达抑制的使用习惯及其在内隐/外显条件下使用2种情绪调节策略的特点。方法于2023年6月至2023年7月招募57名某军医大学非心理学专业本科生或研究生被试。采用特质焦虑量表(Trait form of Spielberger’s State-Trait Anxiety Inventory,STAI-T)和情绪调节问卷(Emotion Regulation Questionnaire,ERQ)对其焦虑水平以及认知重评和表达抑制2种策略的使用习惯进行调查。按照STAI-T得分将其分为高特质焦虑(high trait anxiety,HTA)和低特质焦虑(low trait anxiety,LTA)2组,其中HTA组28例,LTA组29例,并采用内隐和外显情绪调节任务分析比较2种策略对负性情绪愉悦度和唤醒度的改善效果,以及外显条件下2种策略的难度和成功度差异。结果①2组均习惯于使用认知重评,而较少使用表达抑制[t(27)=3.94,P<0.001;t(28)=11.33,P<0.001];相较于LTA个体,HTA个体表达抑制的使用频率更高[t(55)=3.02,P<0.01],而认知重评的使用频率较低[t(55)=-2.20,P=0.02];②内隐条件下,相对于中性启动,认知重评(愉悦度:2.56±0.11 vs 2.73±0.12,P<0.01;唤醒度:6.68±0.18 vs 6.51±0.20,P<0.05)和表达抑制启动(愉悦度:2.56±0.11 vs 2.86±0.11,P<0.001;唤醒度:6.68±0.18 vs 6.30±0.20,P<0.001)都可改善2组被试的负性情绪体验,且表达抑制的效果更好(愉悦度:P<0.001,唤醒度:P<0.001)。③外显条件下,认知重评(愉悦度:2.92±0.12 vs 5.09±0.09,P<0.001;唤醒度:6.43±0.20 vs 4.33±0.21,P<0.001)和表达抑制(愉悦度:2.92±0.12 vs 4.34±0.09,P<0.001;唤醒度:6.43±0.20 vs 4.22±0.22,P<0.001)均可显著改善HTA和LTA个体的负性情绪体验,且认知重评对愉悦度的提升优于表达抑制(P<0.001);不同特质焦虑水平间比较显示HTA个体对两种情绪调节策略的使用均显得更为困难[认知重评:t(55)=2.16,P=0.02;表达抑制:t(55)=2.92,P<0.01],且表达抑制的情绪调节成功度更低[t(55)=-1.88,P=0.03];对HTA个体自身而言,使用表达抑制的Objective To explore the behavioral characteristics of using cognitive reappraisal(CR)and expressive suppression(ES)in high trait anxiety individuals under both explicit and implicit conditions.Methods A total of 57 non-psychology undergraduates and postgraduates were recruited in a military medical university from June to July in 2023.All the participants were surveyed with Trait Form of Spielberger’s State-Trait Anxiety Inventory(STAI-T)and Emotion Regulation Questionnaire(ERQ)to investigate their level of anxiety and usage habits of CR and ES strategies.According to the STAI-T results,they were divided to a high trait anxiety(HTA)group(n=28)and a low trait anxiety(LTA)group(n=29).Then the implicit and explicit emotion regulation(ER)tasks were used to analyze and compare 2 strategies on improving negative emotional pleasure and arousal,and the differences in difficulty and success of using CR and ES under the explicit condition.Results①Both the HTA and LTA individuals showed a higher use of CR and less use of ES[t(27)=3.94,P<0.001;t(28)=11.33,P<0.001],while the HTA individuals used more ES[t(55)=3.02,P<0.01]and less CR than the LTA individuals[t(55)=-2.20,P=0.02].②Compared with implicit neutral priming,both implicit CR(Pleasure:2.56±0.11 vs 2.73±0.12,P<0.01;Arousal:6.68±0.18 vs 6.51±0.20,P<0.05)and implicit ES priming(Pleasure:2.56±0.11 vs 2.86±0.11,P<0.001;Arousal:6.68±0.18 vs 6.30±0.20,P<0.001)improved the negative emotional experiences of both HTA and LTA groups,and ES showed better effect(Pleasure:P<0.001;Arousal:P<0.001).③Explicit CR(Pleasure:2.92±0.12 vs 5.09±0.09,P<0.001;Arousal:6.43±0.20 vs 4.33±0.21,P<0.001)and explicit ES(Pleasure:2.92±0.12 vs 4.34±0.09,P<0.001;Arousal:6.43±0.20 vs 4.22±0.22,P<0.001)ameliorated the negative feelings in the HTA and LTA individuals,and the effect of explicit CR on improving pleasure was superior than that of explicit ES(P<0.001).For the HTA individuals,it is more difficult to implement CR and ES[CR:t(55)=2.16,P=0.02;ES:t(55)=2.92,P<0.01],and ES w

关 键 词：内隐/外显情绪调节 认知重评 表达抑制 特质焦虑 

分 类 号：R395.1[哲学宗教—心理学] R395.6[医药卫生—医学心理学] R749.72[医药卫生—基础医学]