Emotion malleability beliefs matter in emotion regulation: a comprehensive review and meta-analysis

Individuals' beliefs about the malleability of emotions have been theorised to play a role in their psychological distress by influencing emotion regulation processes, such as the use of emotion regulation strategies. We conducted a meta-analysis to test this idea across studies with a focus on the relationships between emotion malleability beliefs and five distinct emotion regulation strategies: cognitive reappraisal, suppression, avoidance, rumination, and acceptance. Further, using two-stage meta-analytic structural equation modelling (TSSEM), we examined whether the emotion regulation strategies mediate the cross-sectional relationship between emotion malleability beliefs and psychological distress across studies. Thirty-seven studies were included in the meta-analyses and 55 cross-sectional studies were included in the TSSEM. Results demonstrated that, across studies, emotion malleability beliefs were significantly associated with greater use of putatively helpful strategies (particularly with cognitive reappraisal) and less use of putatively unhelpful strategies (particularly with avoidance). The use of cognitive reappraisal and avoidance partially mediated the relationship between emotion malleability beliefs and psychological distress. These results highlight the importance of considering beliefs about the malleability of emotions in the context of emotion regulation. These findings suggest the potential role of emotion malleability beliefs in interventions for individuals with emotion regulation-related difficulties and psychological distress.