Review TRENDS in Cognitive Science s Vol.9 No.5 May 200 24 Box 2.From basic mechanisms to individual difference and vely re Aany opatholog und failure tive basi re for 13,6.13到日 nd su hus .9.)that might be related yadtnhlerasonsiderableaniabityinthen mot ods like tho his v .78.E dge of d in p appraisal syste date the rs and sugge avenues f e:h he li It is might re自e es in y to coa tively rur emotional events pre ponseasinchndi action of re they generate,when they do so,and how these emotions ving to initiate(amplify)or block(diminish)perception Se mes h ve of our responses to stimul (3)their rela ive reliance on (e.g.141).One distinction su sted by Gross and ntrol and cognitive change,as indicated by their placement along the continuum;and(4)whether emotion ognit (e.g. att ing to ge is heir explicit goal( I want to fee ulation of negative emotions might limit expressive action but ment is correct). ot dampen unpl nt expe e.wo L atio contrast cognitive regulation neutralizes gative Attentional control ence without impairing and might decrease Attention is often referred to as the selective aspect of physiological arous sing,enabling us to focus on goa might be related to both normaland patholorical variation (e.g.loud music next door)information.In ral studie in well-being and social behavior(Box 2). have indicated that behavioral and neural responses ha two types of attend compare ectivel (g 119l)When responses to attended and hypothetical continuum to illustrate ory strateges tapping :(1)thewo type relat automati e conte Cognitive change re 1.Hy coninuumilustratngralatio the forms of cognitive control of em citation action of regulatory processes. Current work examines the processes that individuals use to influence which emotions they generate, when they do so, and how these emotions are experienced or expressed [1]. Several schemes have been proposed for organizing regulatory strategies (e.g. [14]). One distinction suggested by Gross and colleagues contrasts behavioral (e.g. suppressing expres￾sive behavior) and cognitive (e.g. attending to or inter￾preting emotion-eliciting situations in ways that limit emotional responding) regulation. Behavioral regulation of negative emotions might limit expressive action but does not dampen unpleasant experience, worsens memory, and increases sympathetic nervous system activation. By contrast, cognitive regulation neutralizes negative experi￾ence without impairing memory and might decrease physiological arousal [15,16]. Individual differences in emotional responsivity and/or cognitive control capacity might be related to both normal and pathological variation in well-being and social behavior (Box 2). Recent imaging work has investigated two types of cognitive regulation, attentional control and cognitive change, which are the focus of this review. Figure 1 uses a hypothetical continuum to illustrate relationships between regulatory strategies tapping these two types of control. These strategies might differ in: (1) their targets – impacting different types of emotional appraisal processes and associated neural systems [17,18]; (2) their effects – serving to initiate (amplify) or block (diminish) perception of our responses to stimuli; (3) their relative reliance on the overlapping neural systems supporting attentional control and cognitive change, as indicated by their placement along the continuum; and (4) whether emotion change is their explicit goal (‘I want to feel better!’), or occurs as a by-product of pursuing some other learning or judgment-related goal (e.g. ‘I want to learn which judg￾ment is correct’). Attentional control Attention is often referred to as the selective aspect of information processing, enabling us to focus on goal￾relevant (e.g. our writing) and ignore goal-irrelevant (e.g. loud music next door) information. In general, studies have indicated that behavioral and neural responses to attended as compared with unattended stimuli (or stimulus features) are either facilitated or inhibited, respectively (e.g. [19]). When responses to attended and unattended inputs do not differ, processing is considered to be relatively automatic. In the context of emotion, researchers have begun asking how paying less attention Box 2. From basic mechanisms to individual differences Characterizing the nature and operating characteristics of basic emotion regulatory mechanisms in healthy participants might help to establish a normative model for explaining the successful regulation of emotion. It might also lead to a greater under￾standing of individual differences, clinical conditions and lifespan development, by describing them in terms of variation and change in the function of a basic functional architecture for the cognitive control of emotion. Among healthy adults, there is considerable variability in the nature and strength of emotional responses, and also in the capacity to regulate them. Behavioral studies have begun to explore the experiential and behavioral consequences of these differences [73], and characteristic patterns of resting and/or emotional stimulus￾related neural activity in prefrontal and emotional appraisal systems are now being associated with gender, personality, negative affectivity [3,74] and regulatory ability. For example, Jackson et al. found that greater left PFC electrical activity at rest predicted dampened physiological reactivity to aversive stimuli, which might reflect automatic regulatory processes [75], and Ray et al. [76] found that the tendency to cognitively ruminate about emotional events pre￾dicted enhanced ability to increase or decrease amygdala responses through reappraisal, which itself depends upon cognitively reexamin￾ing the meaning of emotional events. Many forms of psychopathology revolve around failures to adaptively regulate emotional responses, with consequences ranging from personal distress to socially maladaptive and self-destructive behaviors [2,3,5]. Resting and symptom provocation studies have begun to identify abnormal patterns of neural response in psychiatric illness [3,6,13] and substance abuse (e.g. [77]) that might be related to emotion regulation failures. However, very few studies have examined directly the neural mechanisms mediating successful or unsuccessful regulation in clinical populations using methods like those described in this review (see, however, [78]). Building knowledge of dysregula￾tory mechanisms from a basic model of effective regulation could elucidate the nature of these disorders and suggest avenues for cognitive and pharmacological treatment. Basic models of emotion regulation might also help to explain the development of regulatory capacities across the lifespan. It is possible, for example, that structural and functional changes in control and appraisal systems underlie normal and abnormal emotional responses in children [79], and the positivity of emotional experience in older adults [80]. TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences Attentional control Cognitive change Selective inattention to emotional stimuli [19–22,25] Performing distracting secondary task [31–35] Attention to and judgement of emotional vs. non-emotional stimulus attributes [23,24,26–28] Anticipatory/ expectancy￾driven emotion [37–40,42–46] Top-down appraisal [17] Reappraisal [48–54] Placebo [55–57] S-R reversal/ extinction [58–65] Figure 1. Hypothetical continuum illustrating relationships among the forms of cognitive control of emotion described in this review. The left and right anchors for the continuum represent the exclusive use of attentional control or cognitive change, respectively, to modulate emotion perception and/or responses. Red and blue text denote strategies for controlled emotion generation and regulation, respectively. Relevant citations for each strategy are shown in brackets. This continuum is intended to serve a heuristic function, helping the reader to visualize relationships among control strategies (see text). Review TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences Vol.9 No.5 May 2005 243 www.sciencedirect.com