4.3 Review

Racial and ethnic differences in emotion regulation: A systematic review

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY
卷 78, 期 5, 页码 785-808

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jclp.23284

关键词

cognitive reappraisal; emotion dysregulation; emotion regulation; ethnic differences; expressive suppression; racial differences; systematic review

资金

  1. National Institute on Drug Abuse [K23DA039327]
  2. National Institute of General Medical Sciences [P20GM125507]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study summarizes existing literature on racial and ethnic differences in emotion regulation, finding that there are differences in emotion regulation strategies and potential between racial/ethnic groups, with ethnoracial minorities generally exhibiting greater use of emotion regulation strategies but also lower emotion regulation potential.
Objective Emotion regulation is a transdiagnostic mechanism with relevance to the etiology, maintenance, and treatment of a wide range of clinically relevant outcomes. This study applied systematic review methods to summarize the existing literature examining racial and ethnic differences in emotion regulation. Methods We systematically searched four electronic databases (PsycINFO, Embase, MEDLINE, and CINAHL Plus) using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Results Of the initial 1253 articles, 25 met the inclusion criteria. Findings for emotion regulation strategies generally provide evidence for racial/ethnic differences (71% of reviewed studies), with ethnoracial minorities largely exhibiting greater use of emotion regulation strategies. Whereas the results for emotion regulation potential were slightly more mixed (63% of reviewed studies found racial/ethnic differences), ethnoracial minorities were also largely found to report lower emotion regulation potential. Conclusion This review advances the literature by providing additional support for racial and ethnic differences in emotion regulation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据