Effects of Emotion Regulation Strategies on Mothers’ Self-Reported, Physiological, and Facial Expressive Responses to Infant Laughing

Figures & data

Table 1. Descriptive statistics of the study variables by study session

Variable	Session	M	SD	Min – Max
Positive affect	Baseline	2.84	0.88	1.00–4.60
	Control	3.39	0.83	1.00–5.00
	Suppression	3.22	0.85	1.10–5.00
	Enhancement	3.58	0.86	1.00–5.00
Positive perception	Control	4.60	0.50	2.67–5.00
	Suppression	4.42	0.69	2.00–5.00
	Enhancement	4.73	0.44	3.67–5.00
Intended sensitive caregiving	Control	3.88	0.95	1.00–5.00
	Suppression	3.75	1.04	1.00–5.00
	Enhancement	4.09	0.85	1.67–5.00
Intended insensitive caregiving	Control	1.66	0.67	1.00–4.00
	Suppression	1.80	0.80	1.00–4.00
	Enhancement	1.61	0.68	1.00–5.00
Skin conductance level	Baseline	6.09	2.62	1.79–13.41
	Control^1	.06	0.45	−0.81–1.17
	Suppression^1	.02	0.58	−1.96–1.35
	Enhancement^1	.05	0.52	−1.57–1.81
Happy facial expressions	Baseline	.07	0.10	.00 – .38
	Control	.18	0.18	.00 – .80
	Suppression	.14	0.16	.00 – .55
	Enhancement	.22	0.22	.00 – .85
Sad facial expressions	Baseline	.18	0.13	.01 – .57
	Control	.19	0.13	.01 – .54
	Suppression	.18	0.13	.01 – .63
	Enhancement	.16	0.12	.01 – .59

Note.¹Scores represent reactivity measures, calculated by subtracting baseline skin conductance level from skin conductance level during the experimental condition.

Table 2. Correlations among the dependent variables in the three experimental conditions

	Control condition						Suppression condition						Enhancement condition
Dependent variable	1	2	3	4	5	6	1	2	3	4	5	6	1	2	3	4	5	6
1. Positive affect	–						–						–
2. Positive perception	.52***	–					.55***	–					.43***	–
3. Sens. caregiving	.34**	.44***	–				.39***	.46***	–				.20*	.36***	–
4. Insens. caregiving	.07	−.18	−.08	–			−.11	−.37***	−.35***	–			.00	−.24*	−.14	–
5. SCL	.02	−.05	−.15	−.12	–		−.04	−.20	−.12	.08	–		.01	.09	−.13	−.10	–
6. Happy expressions	.09	.11	−.07	−.10	.21	–	.17	.20	.07	.04	−.09	–	.16	.15	−.07	−.12	.07	–
7. Sad expressions	−.03	.07	.11	−.12	−.19	−.34**	−.19	−.04	−.08	.09	−.19	−.35**	−.11	.00	.03	−.14	−.20	−.34**

Note. SCL = Skin conductance level; Sens. caregiving = Intended sensitive caregiving; Insens. caregiving = Intended insensitive caregiving; Happy expressions = Happy facial expressions; Sad expressions = Sad facial expressions. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Table 3. Parameter estimates of LMMs testing effects of emotion regulation strategies

Dependent variable	Parameter	Estimate	SE	p	95% CI
Positive affect	Intercept	3.38	.09	<.001	[3.21, 3.54]
	Suppression	−.15	.07	.03	[−.30, −.01]
	Enhancement	.21	.07	.01	[.06, .35]
Positive perception	Intercept	4.60	.06	<.001	[4.49, 4.71]
	Suppression	−.18	.06	.002	[−.29, −.07]
	Enhancement	.14	.06	.02	[.03, .25]
Intended sensitive caregiving	Intercept	3.87	.10	<.001	[3.68, 4.06]
	Suppression	−.12	.07	.10	[−.27, .02]
	Enhancement	.22	.07	.004	[.07, .36]
Intended insensitive caregiving	Intercept	1.66	.07	<.001	[1.52, 1.80]
	Suppression	.14	.07	.03	[.01, .27]
	Enhancement	−.06	.07	.39	[−.19, .07]
Skin conductance level	Intercept	.06	.05	.24	[−.04, .17]
	Suppression	−.05	.05	.30	[−.15, .05]
	Enhancement	−.02	.05	.72	[−.11, .08]
Happy facial expressions	Intercept	.18	.02	<.001	[.14, .22]
	Suppression	−.04	.02	.04	[−.07, .00]
	Enhancement	.04	.02	.02	[.01, .08]
Sad facial expressions	Intercept	.19	.01	<.001	[.16, .22]
	Suppression	.00	.01	.59	[−.02, .01]
	Enhancement	−.02	.01	.003	[−.04, −.01]

Note. Control condition is the reference condition; SE = standard error; CI = Confidence interval.

Figure 1. Mean (SE) positive affect and positive perception scores for the control, suppression, and enhancement condition. Note. Significant results of the pairwise comparisons, testing estimated marginal mean differences between two conditions (Bonferroni correction applied), are marked with stars. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001

Figure 2. Mean (SE) intended sensitive and insensitive caregiving responses for the control, suppression, and enhancement condition. Note. Significant results of the pairwise comparisons, testing estimated marginal mean differences between two conditions (Bonferroni correction applied), are marked with stars.*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001

Figure 3. Mean (SE) happy and sad facial expressivity scores for the control, suppression, and enhancement condition. Note. Significant results of the pairwise comparisons, testing estimated marginal mean differences between two conditions (Bonferroni correction applied), are marked with stars. *p < .05. ***p < .001