Social Support and Adaptive Emotion Regulation: Links Between Social Network Measures, Emotion Regulation Strategy Use, and Health
社会支持和适应性情绪调节：社交网络测量、情绪调节策略使用和健康之间的联系

Keywords: social support, emotion regulation, health, strategies, egocentric analysis
Supplemental materials: https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0001242.supp

Social connections are among the most important factors that contribute to human beings’ health and well-being (Berkman & Glass, 2000; Holt-Lunstad, 2021; Holt-Lunstad et al., 2015; Kawachi & Berkman, 2001; Uchino, 2009). One critical stage to form interpersonal bonds is during the transition to college, when individuals engage in self-discovery and identity formation and can especially benefit from social support as they leave their households and begin navigating new friendship networks (Azmitia et al., 2013).
社会联系是影响人类健康和福祉的最重要因素之一（Berkman & Glass， 2000;Holt-Lunstad，2021 年;Holt-Lunstad等人，2015 年;Kawachi & Berkman， 2001;Uchino，2009 年）。形成人际关系的一个关键阶段是在过渡到大学期间，当个人进行自我发现和身份形成时，当他们离开家庭并开始探索新的友谊网络时，尤其可以从社会支持中受益（Azmitia et al.， 2013）。

College students often turn to peers in their community for emotional support (Williams et al., 2018); and those who receive support from others are better able to regulate their own emotions and cope with stressors (Bolger & Eckenrode, 1991; S. Cohen & Wills, 1985; Wilcox et al., 2005). Importantly, perceived external support is strongly associated with stress coping, appraisal, and mental health (Bolger et al., 2000; Kawachi & Berkman, 2001; Uchino, 2009). Furthermore, having a source of external support can serve as a buffer against patterns of negative affect and dysphoria that put college-aged individuals at higher risk for affective disorders, which are often diagnosed when people are in their early or mid-20s (de Lijster et al., 2017; Zisook et al., 2007).
大学生经常向社区中的同龄人寻求情感支持（Williams et al.， 2018）;而那些从他人那里获得支持的人更能调节自己的情绪并应对压力源（Bolger & Eckenrode， 1991; S. Cohen & Wills， 1985;Wilcox et al.， 2005）。重要的是，感知到的外部支持与压力应对、评估和心理健康密切相关（Bolger 等人，2000 年;Kawachi & Berkman， 2001;Uchino，2009 年）。此外，拥有外部支持来源可以作为缓冲，防止负面影响和烦躁不安模式使大学年龄的人患情感障碍的风险更高，这些疾病通常在人们 20 岁出头或中期被诊断出来（de Lijster 等人，2017 年;Zisook et al.， 2007）。

Having a greater number of social connections buffers mental health from the impacts of stress (Bolger & Eckenrode, 1991). Students who identify more supportive connections within their community (i.e., outdegree) experience less psychological distress and greater life satisfaction (Courtney et al., 2021). This relationship between social connections and health may occur via psychosocial mechanisms, including social support and coping effectiveness (Berkman & Glass, 2000). Larger social networks also permit more flexible emotional responses (Bonanno & Burton, 2013), as they provide more outlets for emotional expression. Indeed, prior research has related the use of expressive suppression, an emotion regulation strategy in which one inhibits their outward expression of emotions, to weaker social relationships (English et al., 2012; Gross & John, 2003). By contrast, those who lean on others for emotional support are likely to
拥有更多的社会联系可以缓冲心理健康免受压力的影响（Bolger & Eckenrode，1991）。在社区内找到更多支持性联系（即 outdegree）的学生的心理困扰更少，生活满意度更高（Courtney et al.， 2021）。这种社会联系和健康之间的关系可能通过社会心理机制发生，包括社会支持和应对效果（Berkman & Glass，2000）。更大的社交网络也允许更灵活的情绪反应（Bonanno & Burton，2013），因为它们为情绪表达提供了更多的出口。事实上，先前的研究已经将表达抑制的使用（一种情绪调节策略，其中一个人抑制情绪的外在表达）与较弱的社会关系联系起来（English et al.， 2012;Gross & John， 2003）。相比之下，那些依赖他人获得情感支持的人可能会
increase the size of their social networks (Niven et al., 2015; Williams et al., 2018).
增加他们社交网络的规模（Niven et al.， 2015;Williams et al.， 2018）。

Emotion regulation is essential to everyday functioning and wellbeing in its own right ( N . Cohen & Ochsner, 2018; Gross, 2015). Previous research has indicated that use of specific emotion regulation strategies such as cognitive reappraisal, which involves reframing a stimulus or situation in order to alter its emotional impact, has been associated with greater positive affect, reduced negative affect, and better overall health and well-being (Gross & John, 2003; Hu et al., 2014; Lopez & Denny, 2019). By contrast, research has shown that expressive suppression, which involves modulation of the outward expression of an emotion (e.g., stifling a grimace), is less adaptive (Gross, 2002; Ochsner & Gross, 2005). Indeed, some research has revealed a negative relationship between expressive suppression and outcomes related to socio-emotional functioning and well-being (Butler et al., 2003; English et al., 2012; Hu et al., 2014). The differences in adaptiveness observed may be the result of where these strategies fall along the emotion-generative process (Gross, 1998; Gross & John, 2003). Antecedent-focused emotion regulation strategies (e.g., distraction or cognitive reappraisal) intervene on the appraisal and impact of an emotion before an emotional response is generated, whereas response-focused strategies (e.g., expressive suppression) intervene on the emotional response after an emotion has already been generated (Gross & John, 2003). Thus, expressive suppression may be less adaptive than other strategies because it does not alter the emotion or its impacts. Furthermore, while strategies such as cognitive reappraisal initially require more cognitive resources to enact, subsequent emotional impacts of reappraisal are less cognitively taxing (i.e., more naturally result from the initial reappraisal), whereas expressive suppression requires continuous self-monitoring which may demand more cognitive resources throughout its implementation (Gross, 2002; Kobylińska & Kusev, 2019).
情绪调节本身对于日常功能和健康至关重要 （ N .Cohen & Ochsner， 2018;Gross，2015 年）。先前的研究表明，使用特定的情绪调节策略，如认知重新评估，包括重新构建刺激或情境以改变其情绪影响，与更大的积极影响、减少消极影响以及更好的整体健康和福祉有关（Gross & John，2003;胡 et al.， 2014;Lopez & Denny，2019 年）。相比之下，研究表明，表达抑制，涉及调节情绪的外在表达（例如，扼杀鬼脸），适应性较差（Gross，2002 年;Ochsner & Gross， 2005）。事实上，一些研究揭示了表达抑制与社会情感功能和幸福感相关的结果之间存在负相关关系（Butler 等人，2003 年;English等人，2012 年;胡 et al.， 2014）。观察到的适应性差异可能是这些策略在情绪生成过程中所处位置的结果（Gross，1998 年;Gross & John， 2003）。以前因为中心的情绪调节策略（例如，分散注意力或认知重新评估）在情绪反应产生之前干预情绪的评估和影响，而以反应为中心的策略（例如，表达抑制）在情绪已经产生后干预情绪反应（Gross & John， 2003）。因此，表达抑制的适应性可能比其他策略差，因为它不会改变情绪或其影响。此外，虽然认知重新评估等策略最初需要更多的认知资源来实施，但随后的重新评估的情绪影响对认知的负担较小（即，更自然地来自最初的重新评估），而表达抑制需要持续的自我监控，这可能需要更多的认知资源在整个实施过程中（Gross，2002;Kobylińska & Kusev，2019）。

More recent theorizing suggests that successful emotion regulation relies not on strategy use alone, but rather on a dynamic process of interacting with person, situation, and strategy factors (Doré et al., 2016). For example, the intensity of a situation or stimulus can influence the preferred emotion regulation strategy (e.g., attentional deployment strategies such as distraction are more often preferred during high-intensity situations compared to cognitive reappraisal; Sheppes & Meiran, 2008; Webb et al., 2012). Additionally, some have suggested that adaptive emotion regulation is not about using or avoiding individual strategies. Rather, it is about knowing that multiple strategies are available to use when needed and when appropriate, based on situational demands and other factors (Aldao & Nolen-Hoeksema, 2013; Bonanno & Burton, 2013). A person’s strategy repertoire, reflecting the range of strategies they can readily deploy, works like a “toolbox” (Fujita et al., 2020). Rather than exclusively relying on individual strategies that are more (or less) adaptive, a person with a greater strategy repertoire will selectively employ strategies that best fit the demands of the situation, resulting in successful regulation. This toolbox may also benefit the individual interpersonally in their social interactions with others.
最近的理论表明，成功的情绪调节不仅仅取决于策略的使用，而是取决于与人、情境和策略因素互动的动态过程（Doré et al.， 2016）。例如，情境或刺激的强度可以影响首选的情绪调节策略（例如，与认知重新评估相比，在高强度情况下，分散注意力等注意力部署策略更受欢迎;Sheppes & Meiran， 2008;Webb et al.， 2012）。此外，一些人认为适应性情绪调节不是使用或避免单个策略。相反，它是关于知道在需要和适当的时候，根据情境需求和其他因素，可以使用多种策略（Aldao & Nolen-Hoeksema，2013;Bonanno & Burton，2013 年）。一个人的策略库反映了他们可以轻松部署的策略范围，就像一个“工具箱”（Fujita et al.， 2020）。一个拥有更多策略库的人不会完全依赖或多（或少）适应性的个体策略，而是会选择性地采用最适合情况需求的策略，从而获得成功的监管。这个工具箱也可能使个人在与他人的社交互动中的人际关系受益。

Utilizing emotion regulation strategies in this way better reflects the changes that occur in our environment and its shifting demands, and, importantly, can bolster against emotion dysregulation associated with some mental health disorders (Aldao, et al., 2015; Bonanno, et al., 2004). Furthermore, emotion regulation strategies can be characterized as intrapersonal (i.e., within oneself) or interpersonal (i.e., with
以这种方式利用情绪调节策略可以更好地反映我们环境中发生的变化及其不断变化的需求，并且重要的是，可以加强与某些心理健康障碍相关的情绪失调（Aldao 等人，2015 年;Bonanno 等人，2004 年）。此外，情绪调节策略可以被描述为人际（即在自己内部）或人际关系（即
others). Human beings rely on social interactions and networks to enrich their lives. Efforts to regulate emotions are rarely done in a social vacuum, as individuals will often seek out others for support in these efforts (Zaki & Williams, 2013). As mentioned earlier, social support can help reduce stress and regulate emotions (Bolger & Eckenrode, 1991; Bolger et al., 2000), which may be attributable to the fact that a strong support network enables the social sharing of emotions, which positively impacts the sharer and listener and is a key mechanism that bridges inward emotional experiences and their outward expression (see Rimé, 2009 for a review). Support and support seeking can be conceptualized as an interpersonal emotion regulation strategy that a person explicitly employs (Niven, 2017), but other work has shown that people can benefit from social support without being fully aware of it (Bolger & Eckenrode, 1991; Bolger et al., 2000). Therefore, social sup-port-whether already present in one’s network or deliberately sought out-is a critical form of emotion regulation, so it is worth further examining links between intrapersonal and interpersonal emotion regulation strategies.
其他）。人类依靠社交互动和网络来丰富他们的生活。调节情绪的努力很少在社会真空中进行，因为个人通常会在这些努力中寻求他人的支持（Zaki & Williams，2013）。如前所述，社会支持可以帮助减轻压力和调节情绪（Bolger & Eckenrode，1991;Bolger et al.， 2000），这可能归因于这样一个事实，即强大的支持网络能够实现情感的社会分享，这对分享者和听众产生积极影响，是连接内在情感体验和外在表达的关键机制（参见 Rimé，2009 年的评论）。支持和支持寻求可以被概念化为一个人明确采用的人际情绪调节策略（Niven，2017），但其他工作表明，人们可以在不完全意识到社会支持的情况下从中受益（Bolger & Eckenrode，1991;Bolger et al.， 2000）。因此，社会支持——无论是已经存在于一个人的网络中还是刻意寻找的——都是情绪调节的一种关键形式，因此值得进一步研究个人内部和人际情绪调节策略之间的联系。

With this in mind, the present study aimed to bridge the social support and emotion regulation literature by examining links between social support within a well-defined network, patterns of emotion regulation strategy use, and multiple health outcomes. The overarching goal was to assess how supportive network connections relate to use of emotion regulation strategies and overall health. To address this question, we had three a priori, preregistered ${}^1$${}^1$^(1){ }^{1} hypotheses: (H1) Social support, as captured by an egocentric social network measure (outdegree; see below for methodological details), will be correlated with greater use of typically adaptive emotion regulation strategies (e.g., situation selection, reappraisal), less use of expressive suppression, and greater collective use of multiple strategies, as captured by strategy repertoire/profile; (H2) Social support will also be positively correlated with overall health and well-being; and (H3) The association in Hypothesis 2 will be partially mediated by use of emotion regulation strategies, such that greater social support will be associated with more adaptive use of strategies (e.g., less expressive suppression), which will be associated with better health.
考虑到这一点，本研究旨在通过检查定义明确的网络内的社会支持、情绪调节策略使用模式和多种健康结果之间的联系，在社会支持和情绪调节文献之间架起桥梁。总体目标是评估支持性网络连接与情绪调节策略的使用和整体健康的关系。为了回答这个问题，我们有三个先验的、预先注册 ${}^1$${}^1$^(1){ }^{1} 的假设：（H1） 由以自我为中心的社交网络测量所捕获的社会支持（出度;方法详情见下文）将与典型适应性情绪调节策略（例如，情境选择、重新评估）的大量使用相关，表达抑制的减少使用，以及多种策略的集体使用增加， 由 Strategy Repertoire/Profile 捕获;（H2）社会支持也将与整体健康和福祉呈正相关;（H3） 假设 2 中的关联将部分通过使用情绪调节策略来介导，这样更大的社会支持将与更具适应性的策略使用（例如，较少的表达抑制）相关联，这将与更好的健康相关。

Since we were interested in assessing socio-emotional support in well-established social networks, we recruited participants from the Rice University undergraduate population, a group with wellcharacterized networks defined by being randomly assigned to one of 11 residential colleges at matriculation. Indeed, as has been demonstrated at other universities that employ the residential college system (e.g., Yale University; Brasco, 2014), many students at Rice closely identify with their college and forge strong interpersonal bonds with others in their college, which is consistent with research on how friendships form in emergent network structures (Frank et al., 2013). Prospective participants were told they would complete an online, survey-based study. Before beginning the survey, all participants gave their informed consent in accordance with Rice University’s Institutional Review Board. Three hundred eighty-seven Rice undergraduate students ( 230 women; $M_{\text{age}}=19.3$$M_{\text{age }}=19.3$M_("age ")=19.3M_{\text {age }}=19.3 years, $S{D}_{\text{age}}=1.05$$S{D}_{\text{age }}=1.05$SD_("age ")=1.05S D_{\text {age }}=1.05 years) began the survey, with some giving incomplete
由于我们对评估成熟社交网络中的社会情感支持感兴趣，因此我们从莱斯大学本科生群体中招募了参与者，该群体具有特征明确的网络，其定义为在入学时被随机分配到 11 所住宿学院之一。事实上，正如其他采用住宿学院制度的大学所证明的那样（例如，耶鲁大学;Brasco，2014 年），莱斯大学的许多学生与他们的大学密切相关，并与大学中的其他人建立了牢固的人际关系，这与关于友谊如何在新兴网络结构中形成的研究一致（Frank et al.， 2013）。潜在参与者被告知他们将完成一项基于调查的在线研究。在开始调查之前，所有参与者都根据莱斯大学的机构审查委员会给出了知情同意。387 名莱斯大学本科生（230 名女性; $M_{\text{age}}=19.3$$M_{\text{age }}=19.3$M_("age ")=19.3M_{\text {age }}=19.3 年， $S{D}_{\text{age}}=1.05$$S{D}_{\text{age }}=1.05$SD_("age ")=1.05S D_{\text {age }}=1.05 年）开始调查，有些人给出不完整

responses across surveys. Listwise deletion was used on an analysis-by-analysis basis, which resulted in $N\mathrm{s}$$N\mathrm{s}$NsN \mathrm{~s} ranging from 320 to 376 across our preregistered analyses. All participants received course credit for participating.
跨调查的响应。在逐个分析的基础上使用列表删除，这导致我们的预注册分析 $N\mathrm{s}$$N\mathrm{s}$NsN \mathrm{~s} 范围从 320 到 376 不等。所有参与者都因参与而获得课程学分。

We adapted questions from a previous study by Morelli et al. (2017) on social networks (Morelli et al., 2017). Specifically, participants were asked to nominate between two and five unique individuals in response to the following eight questions: (a) “Who in your residential college are your closest friends?” (b) “Who in your residential college do you spend the most time with?” © “Who in your residential college have you asked for advice about your social life?” (d) “Who do you turn to in your residential college when something bad happens?” (e) “Who in your residential college do you share good news with?” (f) “Who in your residential college makes you feel supported and cared for?” (g) “Who in your residential college is most empathetic?” And (h) “Who in your residential college usually makes you feel positive?” Following a similar method from Courtney et al. (2021), we combined the unique nominations made across all subnetworks (represented by the eight questions above) to create a single, aggregate network per participant. The total number of unique support ties identified by the participant (i.e., network outdegree) served as a global measure of perceived social support (Courtney et al., 2021). In addition to this aggregate network measure, we also included nominations from individual subnetworks to compare, where relevant, all associations of interest using the aggregate measure versus subnetworks that may more directly index social support (e.g., “Who in your residential college makes you feel supported and cared for?”).
我们改编了 Morelli 等人（2017 年）之前关于社交网络的研究（Morelli 等人，2017 年）中的问题。具体来说，参与者被要求提名 2 到 5 个独特的个体来回答以下八个问题：（a） “在你的住宿学院里，谁是你最亲密的朋友？”（b） “在你的住宿学院里，你和谁在一起的时间最多？©”“在你的住宿学院里，你向谁询问过关于你的社交生活的建议？”（d） “当你的住宿学院发生不好的事情时，你会向谁求助？”（e） “在你的住宿学院里，你与谁分享好消息？”（f） “在你的住宿学院里，谁让你感到被支持和关心？”（g） “在你的住宿学院里，谁最有同理心？”以及 （h） “在你的住宿学院里，谁通常让你感到积极？遵循 Courtney 等人（2021 年）的类似方法，我们将所有子网络（由上述八个问题表示）中做出的唯一提名相结合，为每个参与者创建一个单一的聚合网络。参与者确定的唯一支持纽带的总数（即网络出度）是感知社会支持的全局衡量标准（Courtney et al.， 2021）。除了这个聚合网络测量之外，我们还包括了来自各个子网络的提名，以便在相关的情况下，使用聚合测量的所有感兴趣的关联与可能更直接地索引社会支持的子网络进行比较（例如，“你的住宿学院里谁让你感到被支持和关心？

We used two scales to assess participants’ use of four emotion regulation strategies: situation selection, distraction, cognitive reappraisal, and expressive suppression.
我们使用两个量表来评估参与者对四种情绪调节策略的使用：情境选择、分心、认知重新评估和表达抑制。

First, we administered the 10-item Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (ERQ; Gross & John, 2003) to assess participants’ overall tendencies to employ two emotion regulation strategies: cognitive reappraisal (e.g., “I control my emotions by changing the way I think about the situation I’m in”) and expressive suppression (e.g., “I keep my emotions to myself”; Gross & John, 2003). Participants endorsed all items using a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Scores from each subscale (six items for cognitive reappraisal; four items for expressive suppression) were averaged to derive a total score for each strategy, with higher scores indicating greater use of the respective strategy. Internal consistency was sufficient for both the reappraisal subscale $(\alpha =.84)$$(\alpha =.84)$(alpha=.84)(\alpha=.84) and the suppression subscale $(\alpha =.77)$$(\alpha =.77)$(alpha=.77)(\alpha=.77).
首先，我们进行了 10 项情绪调节问卷 （ERQ;Gross & John， 2003）来评估参与者总体倾向于采用两种情绪调节策略：认知重评价（例如，“我通过改变我对所处情况的思考方式来控制我的情绪”）和表达性抑制（例如，“我把我的情绪留给自己”;Gross & John， 2003）。参与者使用从 1（非常不同意）到 7（非常同意）的 7 点李克特量表认可所有项目。将每个子量表的分数（认知再评估 6 个项目;表达抑制 4 个项目）的分数平均以得出每个策略的总分，分数越高表示对相应策略的使用越多。内部一致性对于重新评估分量表 $(\alpha =.84)$$(\alpha =.84)$(alpha=.84)(\alpha=.84) 和抑制分量表 $(\alpha =.77)$$(\alpha =.77)$(alpha=.77)(\alpha=.77) 都足够了。

We also administered additional items that assessed people’s use of two additional emotion regulation strategies, situation selection, and distraction, respectively, as per the process model of emotion regulation (Gross, 1998). The item for situation selection was, “When I want to feel less negative emotion (such as sadness or anger), I change the situation that I’m in by finding a totally new one,” and the item for distraction was: “When I’m faced with a stressful situation, I stay in the
我们还根据情绪调节的过程模型（Gross， 1998）管理了额外的项目，分别评估了人们对两种额外情绪调节策略的使用，即情境选择和分心。情境选择项目是：“当我想减少负面情绪（如悲伤或愤怒）时，我会通过找到一个全新的情境来改变我所处的情境”，分散注意力的项目是：“当我面临压力情况时，我会保持在
same place but try to think about something else entirely in order to stay calm.” We intentionally worded these items to mirror that of the ERQ, and like the ERQ, participants used a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) indicating their agreement with the statements.
同样的地方，但为了保持冷静，试着完全考虑其他事情。我们特意用词来反映 ERQ 的措辞，并且与 ERQ 一样，参与者使用了 7 点李克特量表，范围从 1（非常不同意）到 7（非常同意），表明他们同意这些陈述。

We administered two measures of overall health: (a) the Short Form-8 (SF-8), a brief self-assessment of health that contains both physical and mental components (Ware et al., 2001) and (b) items from the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Global Health survey, which assesses various facets of health and well-being (Hays et al., 2009) and predicts future health outcomes (Cella et al., 2010). For the PROMIS Global Health survey, following our previous work (Lopez & Denny, 2019), we computed sum scores based on responses to the following three questions: (a) “In general, would you say your health is”; (b) “In general, would you say your quality of life is”; and © “In general, how would you rate your satisfaction with your social activities and relationships?” For each item, participants gave ratings on a $1-5$$1-5$1-51-5 Likert scale, with poor, fair, good, very good, and excellent as the response options. Higher scores represent greater health and wellbeing, and in this sample, there was high internal consistency ( $\alpha =.82$$\alpha =.82$alpha=.82\alpha=.82 ).
我们进行了两项整体健康状况测量：（a） 简表 8 （SF-8），包含身体和心理成分的简短自我健康评估（Ware 等人，2001 年）和 （b） 来自患者报告结果测量信息系统 （PROMIS） 全球健康调查的项目，该调查评估健康和福祉的各个方面（Hays 等人，2009 年）并预测未来的健康结果（Cella 等人， 对于PROMIS全球健康调查，根据我们之前的工作（Lopez & Denny，2019年，我们根据以下三个问题的回答计算了总分：（a） “一般来说，你会说你的健康状况是吗：（b） “一般来说，您认为您的生活质量是”;以及©“一般来说，您如何评价您对社交活动和人际关系的满意度？对于每个项目，参与者都按照 $1-5$$1-5$1-51-5 李克特量表进行评分，回答选项为差、一般、好、非常好和优秀。分数越高代表健康状况越好，在这个样本中，内部一致性很高 （ $\alpha =.82$$\alpha =.82$alpha=.82\alpha=.82 ）。

We also administered two validated measures of mental health: (a) the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression (CES-D) Scale (Radloff, 1977) to evaluate depressive symptoms and (b) The State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI; form Y-2) to measure participants’ dispositional tendencies to experience anxiety (Spielberger et al., 1999). In the present sample, items from both measures exhibited high internal consistency ( $\alpha =.91$$\alpha =.91$alpha=.91\alpha=.91 for CES-D items and $\alpha =.91$$\alpha =.91$alpha=.91\alpha=.91 for STAI items).
我们还实施了两项经过验证的心理健康测量方法：（a） 流行病学研究中心抑郁量表 （CES-D） 量表 （Radloff， 1977） 用于评估抑郁症状和 （b） 状态-特质焦虑量表 （STAI;表格 Y-2） 用于测量参与者体验焦虑的倾向 （Spielberger et al.， 1999）。在本样本中，来自两个指标的项目都表现出高度的内部一致性（ $\alpha =.91$$\alpha =.91$alpha=.91\alpha=.91 对于 CES-D 项目和 $\alpha =.91$$\alpha =.91$alpha=.91\alpha=.91 STAI 项目）。

Following our preregistered analyses and similar work that has examined links between use of emotion regulation strategies and health indicators (Lopez & Denny, 2019), we included participants’ age (in years) and identified gender as covariates in all analyses; we selected these particular covariates because of potential age and gender effects in familiarity and use of emotion regulation strategies (Brummer et al., 2014; Nolen-Hoeksema & Aldao, 2011), as well as gender differences in anxiety and depressive symptoms (e.g., Simonds & Whiffen, 2003).
在我们预先注册的分析和类似的工作中，我们检查了情绪调节策略的使用与健康指标之间的联系（Lopez & Denny，2019年），我们包括了参与者的年龄（以岁为单位，并在所有分析中将性别确定为协变量;我们之所以选择这些特定的协变量，是因为熟悉度和情绪调节策略的使用存在潜在的年龄和性别影响（Brummer et al.， 2014;Nolen-Hoeksema & Aldao， 2011），以及焦虑和抑郁症状的性别差异（例如，Simonds & Whiffen， 2003）。

We ran this study with the goal of detecting small-to-medium correlations (and indirect associations assessed via mediation) for analyses testing multiple hypotheses. Thus, we conducted two sets of a priori power calculations corresponding to pairwise correlations and mediation models, respectively: (a) For pairwise correlations with $80\mathrm{\%}$$80\mathrm{\%}$80%80 \% power to detect small pairwise correlations of interest (e.g., $r=.15$$r=.15$r=.15r=.15 ), we would need an $N$$N$NN of at least 345 and (b) For indirect associations with $80\mathrm{\%}$$80\mathrm{\%}$80%80 \% power to detect at least small- to mediumsized effects in any $\alpha$$\alpha$alpha\alpha and $\beta$$\beta$beta\beta paths making up an indirect effect, using percentile bootstrap estimation (Shrout & Bolger, 2002), the required sample size was about 400 (see Table 3 in Fritz & Mackinnon, 2007). Therefore, we aimed to recruit approximately
我们进行这项研究的目的是检测中小型相关性（以及通过中介评估的间接关联），以测试多个假设的分析。因此，我们进行了两组先验幂计算，分别对应于成对相关和中介模型：（a） 对于具有 $80\mathrm{\%}$$80\mathrm{\%}$80%80 \% 检测感兴趣的小成对相关性的功率的成对相关（例如， $r=.15$$r=.15$r=.15r=.15 ），我们需要至少 345 的 a $N$$N$NN 和 （b） 对于与 $80\mathrm{\%}$$80\mathrm{\%}$80%80 \% 功率的间接关联，至少可以检测到任何 $\alpha$$\alpha$alpha\alpha 和 $\beta$$\beta$beta\beta 路径构成间接效应，使用百分位数引导估计（Shrout & Bolger，2002），所需的样本量约为400（参见Fritz & Mackinnon，2007中的表3）。因此，我们的目标是招募大约