The Emotional Stroop as an Emotion Regulation Task

Abstract

Background/Study Context: The present studies investigate age differences observed when performing the emotional Stroop task considered as an expression of emotion regulation. Previous studies employing this task showed mixed findings regarding age differences, with a lack of evidence for positivity effects. However, moderating factors such as arousal or dispositional (emotion) regulation strategies were mostly not taken into account. Moreover, relations between Stroop effects and emotional reactions were not examined.

Methods: In two studies (Study 1/2: n_young = 26/41; n_old = 19/39), an emotional Stroop task was employed and valence (negative, neutral, positive [Study 2 only]) and arousal of the word stimuli were varied. Additionally, flexible goal adjustment (FGA), positive and negative affect in the last 12 months, and change in momentary affect (Study 2 only) were measured.

Results: Study 1 showed larger emotional Stroop effects (ESE) in older than younger adults with medium arousing negative words. We also found correlations between FGA (positive correlation) as well as negative affect (negative correlation) and the ESE with medium arousing negative words. Study 2 corroborates these findings by exhibiting positive change in momentary affect with larger ESEs for medium arousing negative words in the older age group.

Conclusions: The findings emphasize the importance of including arousal level and dispositional regulation measures (such as FGA) as moderating factors in age differences and within-group differences in emotion regulation. Although we did not find evidence for a positivity effect, processing in the emotional Stroop task was related to positive change in momentary affect and less negative affect in the older age group. Taken together, our experiments demonstrate that the emotional Stroop task is suited as a measure for emotion induction and related emotion regulation mechanisms.

View correction statement:

Corrigendum

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Sincere thanks are given to Tugba Agar, Inga Grapentin, Ulrike Heinisch, and Christian Skupin for collecting the data of Study 1 and Arzu Cetin, Lisa Gräbig, Maxi-Sophie Kuhlmey, Luise Prüßner, and Daniela Röttinger for collecting the data of Study 2 and providing helpful comments. We would like to thank Ryan Hackländer for increasing the readability of the manuscript and three anonymous reviewers and the editor for helpful comments on our work.

Notes

¹ Given cohort differences in access to the educational system (it was less favorable for earlier cohorts), to be classified as highly educated, young participants had completed a university entrance qualification (i.e., Abitur), whereas older adults had at least completed intermediate qualifications (i..e., Mittlere Reife, Realschulabschluss).

² Wühr and Frings (2008) also realized other object-shape combinations using additionally diamonds and triangles as shapes. However, there was one relevant and one irrelevant object for each participant and object-shape combinations did not affect the findings. Additionally, as we used longer words, we had also to enlarge the objects and the distances between them.

Figure 1. Example of a display used in Studies 1 and 2. The square is the relevant object (the solid circle is the irrelevant object). The example shows a trial in which a medium arousing negative word (Kummer is the German word for sorrow) is shown in the background.

³ By separating the intruding word content spatially from the task relevant stimulus, we are able to explore the power of the visual capture effects of emotional stimuli, i.e., whether the ESE indicates an involuntary allocation of attention to any negative stimulus in the visual field or rather prolonged processing of already attended objects with (irrelevant) negative features. This aspect, however, is not the focus of the present paper.

⁴ COSMAS (COrpus Search, Management and Analysis System) II is a German database of written language based on about 13.5 million book pages.

⁵ F values were computed on the basis of Pillai’s trace in multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVA), as this is assumed to be robust against unequal and small cell sizes as well as violations of homogeneity of covariances (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). F values are reported with partial eta squared (η_p²) as an index of effect size.

⁶ The main effect of word position, F(2, 42) = 11.79, p < .001, η_p² = .36, indicated longer RTs in trials with words in the relevant object (M = 1100 ms) than with words in the irrelevant object (1077 ms) or in the background (1073 ms). Moreover, a main effect of object level was qualified by an interaction with age, F(1, 42) = 7.56, p < .01, η_p² = .15. Participants responded faster when the relevant object was in the front than in the rear. This difference was larger for older adults.

⁷ For example, Brandtstädter & Renner, 1990; Frazier et al., 2007; Wrosch, Heckhausen, & Lachman, 2000.

⁸ There were two additional blocks after the fourth block. Before these additional blocks, subjects received a time perspective manipulation. Analyses of these blocks as well as the time perspective manipulation are not part of this article. Additionally, prior to the Stroop task, subjects took part in another attention task (Digit Parity Paradigm).

⁹ As in Study 1, a main effect of object level was qualified by an interaction with age, F(1, 76) = 11.67, p < .01, η² = .13. Participants responded faster when the relevant object was in the front than in the rear. This difference was larger for older adults.

¹⁰ A prior analysis included order of blocks (effect-coded: negative/positive = −1, positive/negative = 1) and its interaction terms. Order had no significant influence.