1
2
3
4 Effects of affective ambiguity on emotion regulation through affect
5 labeling
6
7
8 Miyu Matsuguma1*, Mariko Shirai2, Makoto Miyatani1¶, Takashi Nakao1¶
9
10
11 1 Graduate School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Hiroshima University, Hiroshima,
12 Japan
13
14 2 Department of Psychology, Doshisha University, Kyoto, Japan
15
16
17 * Corresponding author
18 E-mail: [email protected] (MM)
19
1
20 Abstract
21 Putting feelings into words, called affect labeling, has been shown to attenuate
22 emotional responses. However, labeling ambiguous emotional states may reduce the emotion
23 regulation effect because it is difficult to categorize such feelings. Conversely, it may prove
24 more effective by reducing feelings of uncertainty. The current study aimed to investigate how
25 affect labeling in affective ambiguity influences emotion regulation effects on the subjective
26 intensity of feelings, skin conductance level, and skin conductance response. Participants were
27 asked to rate the intensity of their feelings after being presented with images of clear facial
28 expressions for the prototypical condition and morphed facial expressions for the ambiguous
29 condition. In addition, participants assigned to the labeling group selected the emotion word
30 that best matched their own feelings during the stimulus presentation. As a result, affect labeling
31 increased skin conductance responses during presentation only in the prototypical condition,
32 suggesting the possibility of different effects according to affective ambiguity. However, both
33 subjective and physiological responses did not decline, contrary to previous research. We
34 discuss the consequences and the experimental characteristics, and propose a direction for
35 future research.
36
37 Introduction
38 When people experience negative emotions, they often try to reduce or control the
39 harmful effects by avoiding thoughts about their feelings or by talking about their feelings to
40 someone else. The attempt to influence emotions in our selves or others is called emotion
41 regulation [1]. Various emotion regulation strategies have been the subject of past research,
2
42 such as reappraisal, suppression, or distraction [2, 3]. More recently, there has been growing
43 research on putting feelings into words, called affect labeling, as an incidental emotion
44 regulation strategy [4]. Affect labeling is central to psychotherapies, and previous research
45 demonstrates that talking or writing about emotions is effective for improving physical and
46 mental health [5].
47 Researchers have studied various forms of affect labeling and have revealed its effects.
48 One study showed that choosing the semantically appropriate word to describe a negative
49 emotional image, such as “crying” or “bomb”, resulted in lower self-reported distress, compared
50 to passive watching [4]. Furthermore, verbalizing emotional experiences (e.g., “I do feel
51 something”) relative to verbalizing facts (e.g., “I do see someone”) decreased skin conductance
52 responses (SCRs) [6]. Moreover, when tasked with selecting the appropriate label from
53 “pleasant,” “unpleasant,” or “neutral,” test participants’ SCRs showed more reduction during
54 objective labeling of the stimuli than subjective labeling of their own emotional states [7].
55 However, the labels semantically relevant to stimuli such as “bomb” refer to image contents
56 instead of emotions, and the labels “something” or “unpleasant” are vague when considering
57 the names of emotions that people usually use (e.g., “angry” or “sad”).
58 One of the most common ways of affect labeling in research is to select the specific
59 emotion word that is congruent with the participant’s own feelings, or the emotion contained in
60 the stimulus, from a list of options. A neuroimaging study indicated that affect labeling a target
61 stimulus increased activity in the right ventrolateral prefrontal cortex, thereby diminishing
62 activity in the amygdala [8], which is the core region of driving emotion responses [9]. Another
63 experiment using aversive stimuli showed similar neural consequences when participants chose
64 the emotion word that best matched their own emotion and revealed a reduction in self-reported
3
65 distress [10]. Additionally, selecting the name of the emotion diminished the physical symptoms,
66 as well as the self-reported experience of emotion reported after viewing an unpleasant picture
67 [11].
68 In contrast, affect labeling in the manner of self-generating the label did not immediately
69 downregulate the emotion. Subjective emotional intensity and SCR did not decline when
70 participants self-generated labels to match their own emotions [12], and occasionally, subjective
71 responses increased [13]. One study showed that arachnophobes in the affect labeling group,
72 who were tasked with creating sentences using negative words, did not differ from the exposure-
73 only group for immediate change in self-reported fear and SCR [14]. These results suggest that
74 choice labeling (i.e. choosing a label from a list of options) is more effective than self-
75 generating the label for diminishing emotional responses. This may be because choice labeling
76 is far easier than trying to self-generate the label [15].
77 However, it can be difficult for people to categorize ambiguous emotions and to select
78 the label which properly represents their feelings. Some emotion theories [16, 17] postulate the
79 prototype theory [18] in the categorization of emotions; which proposes that categorical
80 judgments are made based on resemblance to the prototypes that represent the clearest cases of
81 category membership. Thus, it is easy to categorize prototypical affective states, but it is
82 difficult to categorize ambiguous states that are distant from the prototype (i.e. that do not have
83 enough common attributes of the category or have more attributes in common with members of
84 contrasting categories). Furthermore, the selected label may not exactly match the internal state
85 in such ambiguous conditions. For these reasons, emotion regulation effects of affect labeling
86 could be less for ambiguous feelings.
87 On the other hand, emotion words play a role in transforming ambiguous affective
4
88 sensations into experiences of certain discrete emotions, and reduction of uncertainty is thought
89 to be one of the ways in which affect labeling operates emotion regulation [15, 19, 20]. In this
90 regard, labeling ambiguous states is more effective than prototypical states because of the
91 reduction of its greater uncertainty. Thus, remains unclear how affective ambiguity influences
92 the emotion regulation effects of affect labeling.
93 The current study aimed to investigate the influence of affective ambiguity on the emotion
94 regulation effects of affect labeling in terms of subjective affective experiences and
95 physiological responses. For physiological responses, we measured skin conductance levels
96 (SCLs) and SCRs as indicators of sympathetic nervous system activity. SCL is a measure of
97 relatively long-term tonic electrodermal activity, and SCR refers to phasic activation [21].
98 Choice labeling was adopted as the labeling method, which has been shown in previous studies
99 to have immediate effects on emotion regulation [4, 10]. In addition, to manipulate the
100 ambiguity of the affective states, we used facial images as stimuli which were specifically
101 designed to evoke ambiguous emotions by morphing them. However, it is of concern that facial
102 images do not produce meaningful levels of subjective distress [4]. Therefore, to evoke stronger
103 feelings, we instructed participants to emulate the same affective state as expressed by the
104 model. We expected that a reduction would be observed in both the subjective and physiological
105 responses in prototypical conditions. However, the effect for ambiguous conditions was
106 exploratively examined because it was unclear whether labeling ambiguous states was more or
107 less effective due to the difficulty of categorization and the reduction of uncertainty.
108
109 Materials and methods
5
110 Participants
111 The sample comprised 49 undergraduate students (19 male, 29 female, 1 other);
112 ranging in age from 18 to 23 years (M = 20.08, SD = 1.07). The experimental protocol was
113 approved by the Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Psychology at Doshisha University. Written
114 informed consent was obtained from each participant prior to the experiment. All participants
115 received a bookstore gift card valued at 1,000 Japanese yen (approximately $10) for their
116 participation.
117 Design
118 The independent variables consisted of labeling (two levels: view and labeling) as a
119 between-subject factor and ambiguity (two levels: prototypical and ambiguous) as a within-
120 subject factor. Participants were randomly assigned to either the view (N = 24) or labeling (N
121 = 25) group and completed the task in both prototypical and ambiguous conditions. Dependent
122 variables included the subjective intensity ratings, skin conductance levels (SCLs), and skin
123 conductance responses (SCRs).
124 Stimuli
125 Images were taken from the facial expression database [22]. We selected 12 frontal
126 face images of four Japanese models (two male, two female) depicting three different
127 expressions; namely anger with closed mouth, disgust with closed mouth, and sadness. To create
128 intermediate facial expressions between anger-disgust, anger-sadness, and disgust-sadness, we
129 morphed the original images by two expressions of each model using computer morphing
130 software (Sqirlz Morph ver.2.1, Xiberpix). For the prototypical condition, 12 original images
6
131 were used, and 12 morphed images were used for the ambiguous condition.
132 Task
133 The stimuli were presented using software (SuperLab ver.5.0, Cedrus) on a computer
134 (dynabook RX73, TOSHIBA).
135 Participants were instructed to emulate the same affective state as the model expressed
136 when a facial image was presented. Each trial began with the instruction being displayed on the
137 screen for 10 seconds, followed by a facial stimulus which was presented for eight seconds.
138 During the view trials, only a facial image was presented. During the labeling trials, participants
139 were asked to select the most appropriate label for their own affective experience from three
140 emotion words (anger, disgust, and sadness), which appeared below the stimulus. The reaction
141 time for each choice was recorded during the labeling trials. After each image presentation,
142 regardless of the condition, participants rated the intensity of their affective experience. The
143 next trial immediately followed the intensity rating. Fig 1 below depicts an example of each
144 trial.
145 All participants initially completed 24 view trials in two blocks (12 prototypical, 12
146 ambiguous) to establish the baseline. Subsequently, for the test phase, participants in the view
147 group performed the view trials again, while those in the labeling group performed twenty-four
148 labeling trials. The trials in each block were presented in a randomized order, and the order of
149 the blocks was counterbalanced across participants.
7
150
151 Fig 1. An example of each trial. The figure shows an example of view and labeling trials. First,
152 the instruction appeared on the screen for 10 seconds. Then, a facial expression image was
153 presented for eight seconds. In this phase, during the labeling trials, participants chose the label
154 that was best matched to their affective experience. At the end of a trial, participants rated the
155 intensity of their affective experience.
156 Self-report measure
157 After each image presentation, participants were asked to rate the intensity of their
158 feelings on a scale from 1 (extremely weak) to 9 (extremely intense).
159 Physiological measures
160 We recorded SCLs and SCRs continuously during the experiment (in µSiemens). These
161 were recorded using a constant-voltage device maintained at 0.5 V (DA2, Vega Systems), with
162 two disposable electrodes (TEAC, PPS-EDA) attached to the index and middle fingers of the
163 participant’s non-dominant hand. Signals were sampled using a digital converter system
8
164 (MP150, BIOPAC Systems) set at 500 Hz and recorded on a computer (dynabook R734/M,
165 TOSHIBA).
166 Procedure
167 Participants sat comfortably on a chair in a shielded room. After agreeing to take part
168 in the experiment, electrodes were attached to the participant’s fingers, and the participants
169 were asked to try to remain still. Prior to the main baseline experimental trials, participants
170 completed a practice view trial to become familiar with the task. The facial stimuli used in the
171 practice trial were different from those used in the experimental trials. The experimenter
172 confirmed that they understood the requirements and initiated the baseline trials. Participants
173 in the view group were instructed to complete the task once again, while those in the labeling
174 group performed another practice trial (labeling trial). After a break, participants started the
175 main trials in the test phase. Once all trials had been completed, the attached electrodes were
176 removed.
177 Skin conductance data analysis
178 Due to equipment malfunction, five individuals (one from the view group, four in the
179 labeling group) were removed from the analysis. We analyzed the mean SCL and the SCR peak-
180 to-peak amplitude for the eight second stimulus presentation using AcqKnowledge software
181 (AcqKnowledge ver. 4.4, BIOPAC Systems).
182 Statistical analyses
183 We calculated the average reaction times recorded from the presentation of the stimulus
9
184 to the choice of label in the labeling trials, and conducted paired t-test with prototypical and
185 ambiguous conditions. One individual was excluded from the analysis due to recording trouble;
186 therefore 24 participants in the labeling group were included in this analysis.
187 Skin conductance data were standardized on a within-subject basis to eliminate between-
188 subjects variability. In both self-report and physiological data, we calculated the change score
189 for each stimulus by subtracting the baseline score from the test. The baseline and change scores
190 were averaged, respectively, by condition. Then, they were statistically analyzed using a two-
191 way repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) in SPSS with labeling and ambiguity.
192 A p-value < .05 indicated statistical significance.
193
194 Results
195 Choice reaction times
196 To confirm whether we could manipulate the affective ambiguity, the choice reaction
197 times were analyzed using a paired t-test. The reaction time was longer on ambiguous trials (M
198 = 6428 ms) than in the prototypical (M = 5759 ms) trials (t(23) = −2.323, p = .029).
199 Self-report data
200 Fig 2 shows subjective intensity ratings in the respective labeling and ambiguity
201 conditions during the baseline and test phase. First, we analyzed baseline scores to confirm that
202 there were no differences between conditions at baseline. Results of a two-way ANOVA
203 revealed a significant main effect of ambiguity (F(1, 47) = 16.640, p = .000), indicating that
204 the scores in the prototypical condition were higher than in the ambiguous condition. The main
10
205 effect of labeling (F(1, 47) = 1.203, p = .278) and the interaction between labeling and
206 ambiguity (F(1, 47) = .147, p = .703) were not significant.
207
208 Fig 2. Subjective intensity ratings by the respective conditions. The figure shows subjective
209 intensity ratings according to phase (baseline and test), affective ambiguity (prototypical and
210 ambiguous), and the presence of labeling (view or labeling). The error bars represent standard
211 error.
212 Next, we analyzed change scores to compare the magnitude of the change caused by
213 labeling. A two-way ANOVA was conducted to assess the effect of labeling and ambiguity on
214 the change scores of subjective intensity ratings. There were no significant main effects of
215 labeling (F(1, 47) = .028, p = .868) or ambiguity (F(1, 47) = .259, p = .614), and no
216 interaction between labeling and ambiguity (F(1, 47) = .865, p = .357).
217 Skin conductance levels
218 Fig 3 shows standardized SCLs by the respective conditions during the baseline and test
219 phase. First, we analyzed baseline scores using a two-way ANOVA, and no significant
220 differences were found between the conditions (the main effect of labeling: F(1, 42) = 1.216,
11
221 p = .277; the main effect of ambiguity: F(1, 42) = .351, p = .557; the interaction between
222 labeling and ambiguity: F(1, 42) = .001, p = .978).
223
224 Fig 3. Standardized SCLs by the respective conditions. The figure shows standardized SCLs
225 according to phase (baseline and test), affective ambiguity (prototypical and ambiguous), and
226 the presence of labeling (view or labeling). The error bars represent standard error.
227 Then, a two-way ANOVA was conducted to assess the effect of labeling and ambiguity
228 on the change scores of SCLs. None of the main effects of labeling (F(1, 42) = 1.211, p
229 = .277), or of ambiguity (F(1, 42) = .027, p = .869), and the interaction between labeling
230 and ambiguity (F(1, 42) = 1.333, p = .255) were significant.
231 Skin conductance responses
232 Fig 4 shows standardized SCRs by the respective conditions during the baseline and test
233 phase. A two-way ANOVA test on baseline scores indicated no differences between the
234 conditions (the main effect of labeling: F(1, 42) = 2.272, p = .139; the main effect of
235 ambiguity: F(1, 42) = .067, p = .797; the interaction between labeling and ambiguity: F(1,
236 42) = 2.154, p = .150).
12
237
238 Fig 4. Standardized SCRs by the respective conditions. The figure shows standardized SCRs
239 according to phase (baseline and test), affective ambiguity (prototypical and ambiguous), and
240 the presence of labeling (view or labeling). The error bars represent standard error.
241 A two-way ANOVA was conducted to assess the effect of labeling and ambiguity on the
242 change scores of SCRs. There was a marginally significant interaction between labeling and
243 ambiguity (F(1, 42) = 3.997, p = .053), but not on the main effect of labeling (F(1, 42) =
244 2.270, p = .139) nor ambiguity (F(1, 42) = .015, p = .904). Post hoc analyses revealed that,
245 under prototypical conditions, the change scores of SCRs in the labeling group were
246 significantly higher than in the view group (F(1, 84) = 5.868, p = .018). No other simple
247 main effects were significant (the simple main effect of labeling under ambiguous conditions:
248 F(1, 84) = .005, p = .945; ambiguity at view group: F(1, 42) = 1.754, p = .193; ambiguity
249 at labeling group: F(1, 42) = 2.237, p = .142).
250
251 Discussion
252 The current study examined how affective ambiguity influences the emotion regulation
253 effects of affect labeling on subjective intensity of feelings, SCL, and SCR. The data indicated
13
254 that none of the emotion responses were attenuated through affect labeling, regardless of
255 affective ambiguity. Moreover, affect labeling heightened SCRs in prototypical conditions.
256 The choice reaction time was longer in the ambiguous condition than in the prototypical
257 condition. The prototype theory supposes that the categorical judgment is faster for more
258 prototypical objects [18]. Therefore, manipulation of affective ambiguity was successful in the
259 present study.
260 Affect labeling did not decrease self-reported affective experience, contrary to the
261 findings of previous studies that found emotion regulation effects with choice labeling [10]. A
262 possible reason for this finding is that requiring the participants to emulate the affective state
263 of the stimulus may have made it difficult for participants to psychologically distance
264 themselves from their feelings. Analyzing feelings from a self-distanced perspective has been
265 indicated to reduce negative feelings [23]. Choice labeling may allow individuals to more easily
266 distance themselves from their feelings because it does not require scrutinizing their internal
267 states. However, this was not observed in the present study, possibly due to the requirements of
268 the task in which participants consciously enter an affective state. Another consideration is that
269 the question “How intense are your feelings?” could be interpreted in multiple ways. For
270 instance, some participants may have rated the intensity of ambiguous feelings, whereas others
271 may have rated the intensity of a specific emotion they had identified. These differences may
272 have influenced the variability of the direction or magnitude of the change among individuals.
273 The instruction requiring the participants to emulate the affective state may also have
274 influenced the result of physiological responses, which did not show response reduction. A
275 previous study indicated that as the duration of exposure to stimuli increased, SCRs increased
276 when participants labeled their own affective state, while SCRs decreased when they labeled
14
277 the stimuli [7]. This result suggests the possibility that affect labeling, which requires
278 individuals to be more conscious of their own feelings, does not show an emotion regulation
279 effect.
280 A remarkable finding is that affect labeling resulted in greater SCRs only in the
281 prototypical condition. The congruency between the affective state and the label may have
282 contributed to the result. In the prototypical condition, participants were able to select the label
283 that was congruent with their affective state, and thus their feelings could be identified by the
284 label. Previous research has indicated that individuals’ awareness of their affective state
285 produces a stress response consistent with cognition [24]. Therefore, it is assumed that
286 identifying the affective state and thereby experiencing more specific emotion s resulted in
287 increased SCRs as a stress response. Conversely, in the ambiguous condition, the participant’s
288 feelings could not be definitively identified because the selected label was not fully congruent
289 with their affective state. As a result, participants may not have experienced any specific
290 emotions, and no change in SCRs occurred. Since this is still one possibility, further research
291 should investigate the impact of the degree of congruence between the affective state and the
292 selected label on the emotion regulation effect.
293 In contrast, SCLs did not show such a difference between conditions. SCL is a measure
294 of the relatively long-term activity of the sympathetic nervous system, while SCR refers to
295 phasic activation [21]. Hence, the results of the present study suggest that the increased
296 sympathetic nervous system activity caused by affect labeling is a momentary response. In
297 addition, a prior study has shown that participants who talked about their emotional reaction to
298 a stressful stimulus showed lower arousal of the autonomic nervous system when they viewed
299 the same stimulus for a second time 48 hours later, whereas they exhibited more arousal when
15
300 exposed to the stimulus for the second time shortly after talking [25]. These results suggest
301 that the effect of affect labeling on autonomic responses is not constant. For future research,
302 measuring the concept multiple times or observing the changes over time can be helpful in
303 gaining a deeper understanding of the emotion regulation effect through affect labeling.
304 The finding that SCRs increased only in the prototypical condition suggests that the effect
305 of affect labeling differs according to affective ambiguity. This implies that the efficacy of
306 affect labeling or its benefits may vary with the situation. For example, in a complex situation
307 where individuals experience multiple feelings, minimal labeling can be more beneficial than
308 exhaustive labeling with more specific emotion words [26]. Furthermore, the findings form the
309 basis for future studies by implying that the effect of affect labeling depends on personality
310 traits. It is difficult to identify or verbalize ambiguous affective states, which seem to overlap
311 with some personality traits like alexithymia, referring to a condition where individuals
312 experience difficulty in identifying and describing their own emotions [27]. Therefore,
313 investigating the effect of affect labeling on ambiguous feelings, and exploring which method
314 is more effective for emotion regulation, might be applied to intervention for individuals with
315 alexithymia. In addition, future research should be carried out to investigate personality factors
316 and what manner of affect labeling is effective for each individual.
317 There are some limitations to the present study. First, it should be noted that the intensity
318 of the evoked feelings differed between the prototypical and ambiguous conditions, indicating
319 higher subjective ratings at baseline in the prototypical condition. Previous research suggests
320 that the emotion regulation effect of affect labeling differed depending on the intensity or degree
321 of arousal caused by the evocative stimuli [4, 13]. Thus, we need to use stimuli which have
322 different levels of ambiguity but equal intensity to properly compare the effect of affective
16
323 ambiguity.
324 Second, it is undeniable that the affect labeling or intensity ratings could have been based
325 on the presented facial expression rather than on the participant’s own feelings, if participants
326 did not really try to engage in the task. Finally, the way to induce affective states had less
327 ecological validity. We used images of facial expressions to manipulate affective ambiguity, but
328 future research should attempt other methods to evoke ambiguous affective states more naturally.
329 For instance, vignettes eliciting multiple emotions at once could be usable [26].
330 It is still unclear whether affect labeling would increase or decrease emotion responses
331 in prototypical or ambiguous affective states. Unlike previous studies, the current study showed
332 a partial increment of SCRs and no reduction in any measures through affect labeling. However,
333 labeling that requires participants to be less conscious of their internal states or from a long-
334 term perspective might be able to diminish emotion responses in keeping with prior research.
335 Further studies are necessary to precisely reveal the effect of affect labeling.
336 In conclusion, the current study suggests that affective ambiguity influences the emotion
337 regulation effect of affect labeling, although no reduction could be observed. This study has
338 significance in proposing the direction of future research. That is, further research could
339 examine the effect of affect labeling on ambiguous feelings using other ways of affective
340 induction, over an extended period of time. Furthermore, various manners of labeling should be
341 employed and the degree of feeling-label congruence should be carefully considered to develop
342 a deeper understanding on the topic.
343
344 References
17
345 1. McRae K, Gross JJ. Emotion regulation. Emotion. 2020;20(1): 1-9.
346 2. Gross JJ. Antecedent-and response-focused emotion regulation: divergent consequences
347 for experience, expression, and physiology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
348 1998;74(1): 224-237.
349 3. Sheppes G, Scheibe S, Suri G, Gross JJ. Emotion-regulation choice. Psychological
350 Science. 2011;22(11): 1391-1396.
351 4. Lieberman MD, Inagaki TK, Tabibnia G, Crockett MJ. Subjective responses to emotional
352 stimuli during labeling, reappraisal, and distraction. Emotion. 2011;11: 468-480.
353 5. Pennebaker JW. Writing about emotional experiences as a therapeutic process.
354 Psychological Science. 1997;8: 162-166.
355 6. Matejka MM, Kazzer P, Seehausen M, Bajbouj M, Klann-Delius G, Margrit G, et al.
356 Talking about emotion: prosody and skin conductance indicate emotion regulation.
357 Frontiers in Psychology. 2013;4: 260. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00260
358 7. McRae K, Taitano EK, Lane RD. The effects of verbal labelling on psychophysiology:
359 Objective but not subjective emotion labelling reduces skin-conductance responses to
360 briefly presented pictures. Cognition and Emotion. 2010;24: 829-839.
361 8. Lieberman MD, Eisenberger NI, Crockett MJ, Tom SM, Pfeifer JH, Way BM. Putting
362 feelings into words. Psychological Science. 2007;18: 421-428.
363 9. Ohira H. Neural basis of emotion regulation: Control of prefrontal cortex over amygdala
364 activity. Japanese Psychological Review. 2004;47(1): 93-118.
365 10. Burklund LJ, Creswell JD, Irwin M, Lieberman M. The common and distinct neural bases
366 of affect labeling and reappraisal in healthy adults. Frontiers in Psychology. 2014;5: 221.
367 doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00221
18
368 11. Constantinou E, Van Den Houte M, Bogaerts K, Van Diest I, Van den Bergh O. Can words
369 heal? Using affect labeling to reduce the effects of unpleasant cues on symptom reporting.
370 Frontiers in Psychology. 2014;5: 807. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00807
371 12. Fitzpatrick S, Ip J, Krantz L, Zeifman R, Kuo JR. Use your words: The role of emotion
372 labeling in regulating emotion in borderline personality disorder. Behaviour Research and
373 Therapy. 2019;120: 103447.
374 13. Ortner CN. Divergent effects of reappraisal and labeling internal affective feelings on
375 subjective emotional experience. Motivation and Emotion. 2015;39: 563-570.
376 14. Kircanski K, Lieberman MD, Craske MG. Feelings into words: contributions of language
377 to exposure therapy. Psychological Science. 2012;23(10): 1086-1091.
378 15. Torre JB, Lieberman MD. Putting feelings into words: Affect labeling as implicit emotion
379 regulation. Emotion Review. 2018;10: 116-124.
380 16. Russell JA. Core affect and the psychological construction of emotion. Psychological
381 Review. 2003;110(1): 145.
382 17. Scherer KR. The dynamic architecture of emotion: Evidence for the component process
383 model. Cognition and Emotion. 2009;23(7): 1307-1351.
384 18. Rosch E. Principles of categorization. In: Rosch E, Lloyd BB, editors. Cognition and
385 Categorization. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1978. pp. 27-48.
386 19. Brooks JA, Shablack H, Gendron M, Satpute AB, Parrish MH, Lindquist KA. The role of
387 language in the experience and perception of emotion: A neuroimaging meta-analysis.
388 Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience. 2017;12(2): 169-183.
389 20. Lindquist KA, Satpute AB, Gendron M. Does language do more than communicate
390 emotion? Current Directions in Psychological Science. 2015;24(2): 99-108.
19
391 21. Boucsein W, Fowles DC, Grimnes S, Ben-Shakhar G, Roth WT, Dawson ME, et al. Society
392 for psychophysiological research ad hoc committee on electrodermal measures.
393 Publication recommendations for electrodermal measurements. Psychophysiology.
394 2012;49: 1017-1034.
395 22. Fujimura T, Umemura H. Development and validation of a facial expression database based
396 on the dimensional and categorical model of emotions. Cognition and Emotion.
397 2018;32(8): 1663-1670.
398 23. Mischkowski D, Kross E, Bushman BJ. Flies on the wall are less aggressive: Self -
399 distancing “in the heat of the moment” reduces aggressive thoughts, angry feelings and
400 aggressive behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 2012;48: 1187 -1191.
401 24. Kassam KS, Mendes WB. The effects of measuring emotion: Physiological reactions to
402 emotional situations depend on whether someone is asking. PLoS ONE. 2013;8: e64959.
403 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0064959
404 25. Mendolia M, Kleck RE. Effects of talking about a stressful event on arousal: Does what
405 we talk about make a difference? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1993;64:
406 283-292.
407 26. Vine V, Bernstein EE, Nolen-Hoeksema S. Less is more? Effects of exhaustive vs. minimal
408 emotion labelling on emotion regulation strategy planning. Cognition and Emotion.
409 2018;33(4): 855-862.
410 27. Moriguchi Y. Alexithymia and psychosomatic disorders: Problem of emotional awareness
411 and the body-mind relationship. Japanese Psychological Review. 2014;57(1): 77-92.
412
413 Supporting information
20
414 S1 Data for Analysis. Reaction time, intensity rating, SCL, and SCR for each participant.
415
21