Since we talked about some beliefs about emotions last time, I think it’s only appropriate to start with another belief about emotion—this time, in relation to emotion regulation.

People vary in the extent to which they think they can control emotions. On one side of the spectrum, some think emotions just “happen” to them—that emotions are fixed and there’s nothing they can do. On the other side, some believe emotions can be changed or regulated. This belief, in turn, affects whether and how we deal with emotions when we experience them.

In one study (Tamir et al. 2007), researchers found that people who believed emotions were fixed experienced more negative emotions, were less likely to seek support from friends, and were generally unhappier during the transition from high school to college. In essence, our beliefs about the nature of emotion (fixed or changeable) can influence our perceived ability to cope. For instance, if we think it’s wishful thinking to change how we feel, why bother trying when we feel depressed?

The Surprising Exceptions in Emotion Regulation

Generally, we try to regulate negative emotions to feel better. There are many examples, such as doing “retail therapy” after a recent breakup. But there’s more nuance to emotion regulation. Today I want to talk about some exceptions, including:

1. When we deliberately try to sustain negative feelings

2. When we choose to increase negative feelings

3. When we try to decrease positive feelings

When We Choose to Stay Upset

Why would we want to sustain a negative emotion? It sounds counterintuitive. But we do this when the emotion feels morally appropriate or when it helps us achieve our goals.

For instance, Lin, Reich, and Kreps (2022) found that people deliberately choose to sustain negative emotions after being exposed to human suffering. We learn from social norms about when a feeling is (in)appropriate. People regulate their emotions to be appropriate for social interactions. We can think about the recent example of the earthquake in Turkey and Syria. It feels morally right to experience sadness, grief, or anger and we might refuse to repair our mood. In this example, the goal of feeling the right emotions outweighs the goal of simply feeling good. This effect is specific to content that involves morality, or “the right and the wrong” (instead of any negative contents), as that is where we experience a strong motivation to experience the morally right emotions, despite them being negative. 

Another study (Ford et al. 2023) examined how people regulate their emotions when exposed to political news or events. We’re often bombarded with negative political content—statements about LGBTQ rights, abortion laws, and so on—and these can make us feel angry, anxious, or hopeless. The researchers found that while regulating emotions (e.g., distraction, thinking positively) can boost long-term well-being, it also reduces motivation to take action—like signing petitions. So, although we protect ourselves emotionally, it comes at a cost: less action. Many times, It is precisely the restless feeling that keeps us going. A life as a political activist is anything but easy not only because of the danger but also because of the difficulty to (not) cope with negative emotions that they are constantly exposed to. Thus, in this context and many others, we might choose to hold onto those feelings to stay engaged.

When Staying Angry Helps Us Win

When do we want to deliberately increase negative feelings? Mostly, it is because some emotions serve a specific function in certain situations—or at least we believe they do. In other words, we might be motivated to amplify unpleasant emotions for their instrumental benefits. Tamir, Mitchell, and Gross (2008) found that people sometimes choose to artificially boost their anger when anticipating a confrontational task. For instance, if you know you are going to have a fight with someone, you might engage in activities that make you angrier—like recalling past grievances—so you can increase your chances of “winning” the confrontation. This strategy is, in part, driven by the fact that anger increases aggression and can make us appear more intimidating. Interestingly, not only did people choose to experience anger before a confrontational game—they also performed better in those tasks. So, it turns out that increasing your anger before a confrontation may not be so irrational after all. 

When We Choose to Suppress Positive Emotions

Finally, when do we want to decrease our positive feelings? The idea is closely related to the moral concern that was outlined before. Schadenfreude - the joy of seeing the failures or humiliations of others - might not be seen as something desirable despite it being a positive emotion. The emotions that we experience can signal to us our identity and the experience of schadenfreude might signal immorality or lack of compassion to others and ourselves. Therefore, we might actively suppress this positive emotion. Similarly, in spaces with a strong social norm on how we should feel, such as a funeral, we would usually choose to suppress our positive emotions to feel in line with the social norm. 

More Than Just “Feeling Good”

To summarize, the idea that “we always want to feel good” oversimplifies the reality of emotion regulation. Of course we want to feel better—but we also want to feel right. Sometimes, we regulate for moral or instrumental reasons, not just to feel good. Sometimes, regulating emotions might cause us to miss out on the information or motivation those emotions carry.