Moderating the link between discrimination and adverse mental health outcomes: Examining the protective effects of cognitive flexibility and emotion regulation

Yutong Zhu; Wisteria Deng

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0282220

Abstract

Discrimination is associated with mental health problems. While prior research has demonstrated the significance of emotion regulation in explaining the onset and development of discrimination-related anxiety, few studies investigated this dynamic with cognitive flexibility among sexual and/or racial minority individuals. The current study incorporated cognitive flexibility to investigate its potential buffering effects on discrimination-related anxiety. 221 individuals, 37.6% of whom (n = 83) identified as sexual and/or racial minorities, responded to an online questionnaire about their levels of cognitive flexibility and emotion regulation, perceived discrimination, and anxiety. Moderated mediation analyses were conducted with these variables. Our findings indicated that emotion regulation difficulty (ERD) mediated the relationship between discrimination and anxiety, while cognitive flexibility had a strong moderating effect on the relationship between ERD and anxiety. These results suggested new research directions and implied the therapeutic potential of advancing cognitive flexibility skills with emotion regulation training in depression and anxiety intervention and treatments. Future research is needed to investigate cognitive flexibility as a transdiagnostic mechanism underlying the onset and development of anxiety, to potentially lead to novel prevention or intervention for marginalized people facing additional stressors like discrimination.

Citation: Zhu Y, Deng W (2023) Moderating the link between discrimination and adverse mental health outcomes: Examining the protective effects of cognitive flexibility and emotion regulation. PLoS ONE 18(10): e0282220. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0282220

Editor: Ching-Fang Sun, Virginia Tech Carilion School of Medicine, UNITED STATES

Received: February 8, 2023; Accepted: September 26, 2023; Published: October 10, 2023

Copyright: © 2023 Zhu, Deng. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding: The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

Discrimination incurs substantial costs as it associates with negative health outcomes [1]. Discrimination can lead to stress-related difficult emotions such as sadness [2], anger [3], and grief [4]. These negative emotions can result in adverse physical and behavioral responses, including cardiovascular diseases [5], sleep difficulties [6], and substance abuse [7]. It is especially harmful to racial and/or sexual minorities, who may experience low self-esteem, anxiety, and stress-related disorders as a result of discrimination [8–11]. Asian Americans reported a marked increase in racial discrimination during the COVID-19 pandemic, which led to worsened anxiety and depression symptoms [12]. Additionally, a nationally representative survey found that 36% of LGBTQ adults reported experiencing discrimination, with 52% reporting negative impacts on their mental well-being [13]. Considering the discrimination experienced by minority populations and subsequent adverse mental health outcomes, it is important to identify potential risk and protective factors to inform public health decisions and intervention designs for minority individuals.

Given that the association between discrimination and adverse mental health outcomes is fueled by emotional responses, emotion regulation may moderate this relationship. Previous literature identifies emotion regulation difficulty (ERD) as a risk factor underlying the development of stress-related disorders. Emotion regulation refers to one’s explicit or implicit control over emotional states [14]. ERD may manifest as avoidance or suppression of emotional experiences and can lead to persistent worry and an excessive focus on emotional cues, which contribute to the development of generalized anxiety disorder [15, 16]. Research has found that ERD is directly linked to anxiety diagnoses even after controlling for worry, trait anxiety, and depressive symptoms [17]. Moreover, neuroimaging results revealed the neural correlates supporting the association between ERD and anxiety. fMRI studies indicated that ERD arises from dysregulation in the amygdala, as well as abnormalities in its connectivity with the frontal-cortical areas [18]. Elevated amygdala activation was found in at-risk individuals without an anxiety disorder diagnosis [19]. Negative amygdala-vmPFC connectivity was associated with social anxiety disorder symptomatology, and effective treatments that improve ERD often reduce this brain abnormality [20]. Emotion dysregulation has also been found to be related to a reduction in amygdala-rVLPFC functional connectivity among female adolescents, and this hypoconnectivity predicted anxiety symptoms during nine-month follow-ups [21].

Under prolonged exposure to stress, such as discrimination, the ability to regulate one’s emotions becomes more crucial as it may buffer maladaptive stress responses (e.g., elevated or blunted reactivity to stress), consequently reducing feelings of anxiety. Chronic exposure to racial discrimination is linked to elevated baseline cortisol and blood pressure levels and blunted neuroendocrine and cardiovascular reactivity [22]. A comprehensive meta-analysis further underscores the correlation between recent experiences of discrimination and heightened physiological stress responses and psychological distress [23]. Nevertheless, the dynamic interplay between emotional awareness and adaptive emotion regulation strategies (i.e., high emotion regulation capacity) significantly shapes an individual’s responses to discriminatory incidents. Individuals with better emotion regulation ability may exhibit more adaptive reactions when facing discrimination, thereby mitigating the distress it elicits [24]. Conversely, emotion regulation difficulties may exacerbate discrimination-induced distress and maladaptive physiological stress response [24, 25]. All in all, individuals facing discrimination may experience higher levels of anxiety, an association that is amplified by their emotion regulation difficulties.

Apart from affective factors, cognitive mechanisms, such as cognitive flexibility, may also influence anxiety levels after experiencing discrimination. Cognitive flexibility refers to the ability to adjust one’s beliefs and/or behaviors to better adapt to the environment [26]. People with a higher level of cognitive flexibility can disengage from the previous mindsets to incorporate new information and form new beliefs that are more appropriate to the current context. Notably, cognitive inflexibility stands as a prominent deficit linked to anxiety, possibly stemming from prefrontal cortex dysfunction [27]. Conversely, individuals with high trait anxiety reveal inflexibility in adapting to advantageous options if they contradict existing beliefs [28]. Research has also shown that interventions focused on enhancing cognitive flexibility through neurocognitive training can potentially lead to a reduction in PTSD symptoms [29]. Under the context of discrimination, recent exposure to discriminatory incidents can adversely affect cognitive flexibility, even when accounting for lifetime experiences of discrimination [30]. Thus, cognitive flexibility operates as both a risk factor and a developmental outcome of anxiety, with discrimination potentially exacerbating this intricate interplay.

While previous research has demonstrated that difficulties in emotion regulation and cognitive flexibility can lead to increased anxiety, little has been explored regarding how these constructs may interact with each other to alleviate adverse mental health outcomes. High cognitive flexibility reflects high cognitive control and the ability to reevaluate current situations (e.g., cognitive reappraisal); these cognitive abilities and skills are shared by adaptive emotion regulation strategies [31, 32]. Meanwhile, employing maladaptive emotion regulation techniques can result in low moods and reduced motivation to revise existing beliefs, consequently negatively impacting cognitive flexibility [33]. Thus, it can be hypothesized that cognitive flexibility may interact with emotion regulation ability to buffer against anxiety incurred by discrimination. A better understanding of the interplay between emotion regulation and cognitive flexibility is crucial to understand the development of negative mental health impacts of discrimination.

Current study

The current study aimed to examine the interaction between cognitive flexibility and emotion regulation difficulties (ERD) in relation to discrimination-induced anxiety. We hypothesized that ERD would mediate the relationship between discrimination and anxiety. Additionally, cognitive flexibility would moderate the association between discrimination and anxiety as well as the link between ERD and anxiety (i.e., these associations will be weaker for individuals with high cognitive flexibility) (S1 Fig). Because ERD and cognitive flexibility intercorrelate with each other and their association is not hierarchical [34], we applied moderated mediation instead of parallel or serial mediation models. We also tested alternative models using ERD as the moderator and cognitive flexibility as the mediator to investigate potential directionality between the two constructs. By exploring the interplay between emotion regulation and cognitive flexibility, this study aims to uncover potential protective factors against discrimination-related anxiety. Our findings may provide valuable insights for public health recommendations and innovative interventions for minority groups who experience prevalent discrimination and heightened anxiety.

Materials and methods

Procedure and participants

Study procedures were approved by the Yale University Institutional Review Board (IRB). Power analysis estimated the number of 110 for the desirable sample size. We oversampled for minority participants to better examine the heterogeneity within the minority populations. Participants (N = 221, M_age = 41.18, SD_age = 12.09) were recruited via Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (MTurk), an online crowdsourcing platform that provides access to a large and diverse sample for mental health research studies (demographics see Table 1). MTurk users who live in the United States and are 18 years or older were eligible to participate in this study. According to guidelines for research using crowdsourced samples, the study exclusively recruited participants who have a history of submitting high-quality answers [35]. All participants need to complete at least 500 MTurk studies, with 98% of those studies accepting their responses. All participants provided a written consent and received $6 for study compensation.

Download:

Table 1. Demographic characteristics of participants.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0282220.t001

Measures

Minority status.

Participants were asked to report their race and sexual orientation. We computed a binary variable called “minority status”: participants were coded 1 (“yes”) if they reported being either non-heterosexual or non-White. Participants reported to be both heterosexual and White were coded 0 (“no”) in this variable.

Discrimination.

Everyday Discrimination Scale (EDS) is a 9-item scale that measures the frequency of day-to-day microaggression or discrimination [36]. Each item contains a four-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (“never”) to 5 (“almost every day”). The EDS also contains a follow-up question to ask the respondent about their perceived “main reasons” for their discriminative experiences (e.g., race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.). The EDS has been shown to have high construct validity among racial minority groups [37].

Cognitive flexibility.

The Interpretive Inflexibility Task (IIT) is a picture-based scenario task developed from the Emotional BADE task [38, 39]. IIT pictures were extracted from the public domain (https://www.shutterstock.com/). In contrast to the verbal scenarios used in the Emotional BADE task, each of the 24 IIT scenarios is based on a photograph of an interpersonal situation and is progressively presented to the respondents, with 12 leading to a positive resolution and 12 leading to a negative resolution. Each IIT scenario is presented to the respondent three times: with 80%, 20%, and 0% of the photograph blurred at each time. The blurred areas were chosen to conceal the emotional valence of the scenario. By gradually reducing the percentage of blurred photos, respondents are provided with more information, which may help to resolve the initial blurring (see Fig 1 for an example). The IIT produces an interpretation bias index reflecting moment-to-moment fluctuations in interpretation bias (1), with a high interpretation bias index indicating high flexibility in revising initial biased interpretations. Moreover, the emotional valence of belief revision outcomes potentially influences individuals’ readiness to amend existing beliefs in response to new information. Indeed, optimism bias states that individuals tend to exhibit more pronounced belief updates when confronted with positive news compared to negative news [40]. The IIT accounts for the directionality of belief revisioning by generating two flexibility indices: positive flexibility score captures the flexibility in endorsing positive resolutions, whereas negative flexibility score depicts the ability to endorse negative outcomes [38]. Thus, IIT is appropriate for the current study because it can measure both positive and negative flexibility under social affective processing.

(1)

Download:

Fig 1. Example of an IIT scenario where emotional information is differentiated gradually by removing ambiguity.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0282220.g001

Emotion regulation difficulty (ERD).

The Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale (DERS) is a self-report assessment designed to measure an individual’s trait-level emotion regulation capabilities. The DERS consists of 36 items, with higher scores indicating greater difficulties in emotion regulation. This scale assesses an individual’s perceived ability to regulate their emotions, including their awareness of emotions, acceptance of emotions, and ability to adjust cognitively and behaviorally during times of emotional distress [41].

State anxiety.

State-Anxiety Inventory (STAI) is a commonly used measure of trait and state anxiety [42]. STAI has been widely used in clinical settings for anxiety disorder diagnoses, as it can sensitively distinguish anxiety from depressive symptoms. We used the short version of the measurement (STAI-5) developed by Zsido and his collogues [43]. STAI-5 contains 5 items for trait anxiety and 5 items for state anxiety. The short version of STAI has been found to have comparable psychometric properties compared to the 40-item long version [43]. Higher scores indicate a greater level of anxiety.

Statistical analysis

Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS Mac Version 26 (SPSS Science, Chicago, IL, United States). Descriptive analyses were first performed to investigate any potential correlations among the main study variables. Independent t-tests were conducted comparing the level of discrimination concerning socio-demographic status. SPSS Macro PROCESS Version 4.1 was used for the moderated mediation analysis [44]. Analytical procedures of Model 15 instead of 14 were adopted to investigate the potential moderating effects on the direct and indirect effects. As in the hypothesized model (Fig 1), daily discrimination was the independent variable and state anxiety was the dependent variable. ERD was included as the mediator of the relationship between daily discrimination and anxiety. Positive and negative flexibility were separately analyzed as the moderator of the relationship between daily discrimination and ERD, and anxiety respectively. In addition, an alternative model with cognitive flexibility as the mediator and ERD as the moderator would also be tested to investigate the potential reciprocal influence of emotion regulation and cognitive flexibility. Sociodemographic profiles, including age, gender, minority status, marital status, educational level, employment, household income, and native language (English vs. others), were included as covariates in all models. We used 5,000 bootstrap samples and determined the mediation and moderation effects of the 95% confidence interval. Moreover, to better account for the moderating effects [45], we examined the conditional indirect effects of the moderators at -1SD, the mean, and +1SD. Statistical significance was set at a two-tailed p-value < .05.

Results

Descriptive statistics

Table 2 presents the descriptive statistics and correlations for the main study variables. Reported discrimination was strongly correlated with all other variables: minority status (r = .190, p = .005), positive flexibility (r = -.231, p = .001), negative flexibility (r = -.189, p = .005), state anxiety (r = .389, p < .001), and ERD (r = .314, p < .001). ERD was strongly correlated with state anxiety (r = .498, p < .001). Positive and negative flexibility strongly correlated with each other (r = .544, p < .001).

Download:

Table 2. Descriptive statistics and correlations of study variables.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0282220.t002

Socio-demographic data and discrimination

There were significant differences in discrimination with respect to minority status. Consistent with previous literature, racial and/or sexual orientational minority individuals are more likely to experience discrimination (t = -2.870, p = .005). Mean comparison showed no significant associations between discrimination and gender (t = -.415, p = .679), psychiatric history (t = .715, p = .475), marital status (t = 1.118, p = .349), educational level (t = .350, p = .910), and household income (t = 1.894, p = .080). Discrimination remains to be a significant predictor for state anxiety (β = .365, t = 5.761, p < .001), after controlling for sociodemographic profiles (i.e., age, gender, minority status, marital status, educational level, employment, household income, and native language).

Cognitive flexibility and emotion regulation’s moderated mediating effects on state anxiety

When including flexibility in endorsing positive outcomes (i.e., positive flexibility) as the moderator, the results suggested a significant impact of discrimination on ERD (b = .628, t = 4.515, p < .001), and ERD had a significant impact on state anxiety (b = .075, t = 7.194, p < .001). Accounting for the mediating effect of ERD, discrimination did not have a significant impact on state anxiety (b = .036, t = 1.575, p = .117). Additionally, positive flexibility significantly moderated the indirect effect of ERD on anxiety (b = -.051, t = -4.358, p < .001, ΔR² = .050), but did not moderate the direct effect of discrimination on anxiety (b = -.005, t = -.193, p = .847). Bootstrap testing also indicated a moderating effect on indirect effect. Specifically, individuals with low positive flexibility observed a stronger relationship between ERD and state anxiety, whereas those with high positive flexibility are less likely to develop anxiety following ERD. In sum, emotion regulation influenced the relationship between discrimination and anxiety, while positive flexibility moderated the relationship between emotion regulation and anxiety (Fig 2).

Download:

Fig 2. The standardized regression coefficients for the mediating effect of ERD and the moderating effect of positive flexibility on the relationship between discrimination and anxiety.

*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0282220.g002

Similarly, flexibility in endorsing negative outcomes (i.e., negative flexibility) also moderated the association between ERD and state anxiety. Results indicated that discrimination had a significant impact on ERD (b = .628, t = 4.515, p < .001) and ERD had a significant impact on state anxiety (b = .075, t = 5.815, p < .001). Unlike when positive flexibility is the moderator, discrimination still had a significant impact on state anxiety after being mediated by ERD (b = .058, t = 2.018, p = .045). Negative flexibility significantly moderated the impact of ERD on anxiety (b = -.033, t = -3.204, p = .002) but did not moderate the impact of discrimination on anxiety (b = -.022, t = -.875, p = .383). Bootstrap testing indicated a moderating effect on indirect effect and the change of effect size (ΔR²) was .028. In other words, individuals with high ERD showed a stronger relationship between discrimination and state anxiety, while high negative flexibility weakened the relationship between ERD and state anxiety (Fig 3).

Download:

Fig 3. The standardized regression coefficients for the mediating effect of ERD and the moderating effect of negative flexibility on the relationship between discrimination and anxiety.

*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0282220.g003

Moreover, because of the limitation of cross-sectional data, causation and directionality cannot be inferred among the variables. Thus, we tested alternative models using ERD as the moderator and cognitive flexibility as the mediator, controlling for all socioeconomic factors. The results indicated that positive and negative flexibility fully mediated the relationship between discrimination and state anxiety. ERD moderated both the direct and indirect effects when negative flexibility was the moderator, but only moderated the indirect effect when positive flexibility was the moderator (S2 and S3 Figs for coefficients). Thus, cognitive flexibility and emotion regulation reciprocally influence each other while shaping the relationship between discrimination and state anxiety.

Discussion

The current study investigated the effects of emotion regulation and cognitive flexibility on discrimination-related anxiety. Our findings confirmed that the reported discrimination level is higher among sexual and racial minorities. ERD mediated the relationship between discrimination and anxiety, while cognitive flexibility (in endorsing both positive and negative outcomes) moderated the positive association between ERD and anxiety.

Consistent with the previous literature [46–48], our findings highlighted the significance of ERD in explaining discrimination-related anxiety, suggesting the importance of implementing adaptive emotion regulation strategies for sexual and/or racial minority individuals. Future community-based participatory research could pay more attention to the interplay between emotion regulation and cognitive flexibility to increase public and academic awareness and create interventions that will benefit a larger and more diverse population. Also, we pointed out the importance of cognitive flexibility in buffering against the association between ERD and anxiety and subsequently between discrimination and anxiety. These findings emphasized the importance of incorporating cognitive flexibility training in disseminating emotion regulation strategies. While existing anxiety interventions targeting emotion dysregulation often train individuals on transferrable skills that can also improve cognitive flexibility, few of them structurally include cognitive flexibility as an intervention target. For example, anxiety prevention programs for children and adolescents included cognitive-behavioral training such as cognitive restructuring (i.e., the ability to notice negative thinking patterns) [49]. Mennin and Fresco’s Emotion Regulation Therapy (ERT) contains behavioral intervention on regulatory skills such as attentional flexibility and cognitive reframing skills (i.e., belief flexibility) [50]. However, none of these intervention frameworks explicitly draw the link between cognitive flexibility and emotion regulation ability. Given our findings on how cognitive flexibility may interact with emotion regulation to protect against anxiety, it may be helpful to clearly include cognitive flexibility as a goal of the intervention. Ultimately, emotion regulation presents a form of flexibility in modifying one’s emotions, which falls in line with the cognitive flexibility required to revise existing beliefs and thoughts. Drawing connections between these different forms of flexibility may bring about insight, increase the effectiveness of anxiety interventions, and improve treatment outcomes.

Also, it is important to note that the direct effect of discrimination on anxiety was significant when negative flexibility (p = .045), but not positive flexibility (p = .117), was the moderator. In parallel, moderation analyses indicated that the impact of ERD on anxiety is greater when anxiety is explained by positive flexibility (ΔR² = .050) than negative flexibility (ΔR² = .028). These findings supported prior work showing that negative and positive flexibility have differential effects in predicting affective symptoms [38, 39], further confirming the distinct effects of negative and positive flexibility in explaining anxiety. Compared to negative flexibility, positive flexibility may be more closely related to the association between emotion regulation and anxiety. Anxiety disorders are characterized by negative interpretation bias, or the tendency to interpret ambiguous situations as a negative or catastrophic solution [51]. Therefore, the ability to flexibly revise biased interpretations in a positive direction may rely more on effective emotion regulation skills and has salient impacts on anxiety outcomes. To further evaluate the mechanisms of positive and negative flexibility, future research needs to examine the affective component of biased interpretations and the corresponding affective processing during belief revision in greater detail.

Furthermore, our alternative model using cognitive flexibility as the mediator and ERD as the moderator suggested that cognitive flexibility fully mediated the relationship between discrimination on anxiety, while ERD moderated this mediation. Altogether, our findings showed that the interplay of cognitive and affective revisioning processes goes in both directions. Indeed, emotion regulation and cognitive flexibility interact with each other dynamically during information processing and together influence the development of psychopathological symptoms. Extensive prior research has illuminated the intricate bidirectional bond between emotion regulation, cognitive flexibility, and psychopathology. For instance, individuals unable to effectively detach from negative thoughts (i.e., cognitive inflexibility) and emotions (i.e., emotion dysregulation) are at higher risk of rumination, potentially leading to depressive symptoms [52]. Trait anxiety is associated with individuals’ cognitive flexibility for shifting task demands and their capacity to regulate emotions under stress [53]. Improved emotion regulation is linked to reduced paranoia among individuals with lower cognitive flexibility. Meanwhile, higher cognitive flexibility is connected to less severe paranoia in those facing challenges with emotion regulation [34]. Overall, the prior literature hints at interconnections between emotion regulation, cognitive flexibility, and psychopathology. This study further underscores the protective roles of these two mechanisms in alleviating stress related to discrimination.

Furthermore, our findings reiterate the therapeutic implications of integrating cognitive flexibility training into depression and anxiety intervention. In particular, future treatment design may incorporate targeted exercises and skills teaching to encourage perspective-shifting, prompt alternative explanations, and challenge rigid thinking patterns. Moreover, recognizing the interwoven nature of emotion regulation and cognitive flexibility provides a novel avenue that boosts the effectiveness of existing interventions. Considering the transferrable skills between emotion regulation and cognitive flexibility (e.g., cognitive reappraisal), improvements in cognitive flexibility and emotion regulation ability may both serve as a proxy for successful intervention outcomes [54]. By promoting cognitive flexibility and its synergy with emotion regulation, practitioners and researchers can pave the way for more comprehensive and impactful approaches to symptom management.

The study is not without limitations. First, although the study had a clear objective to include sexual and racial minorities in the sampling procedure, the online design still restricted our ability to gather a representative sample. Considering the fine-grained heterogeneity within sub-groups of sexual and racial minorities, future research should incorporate in-person participant recruitment to access to larger sample (e.g., community-based participatory research) and make sure that minority populations with diverse identities are included.

Second, while we used a standardized measure of IIT to assess cognitive flexibility, it is essential to acknowledge that this task represents a single measure. Cognitive flexibility is a complex concept that encompasses various facets, and relying solely on the IIT, which primarily focuses on an individual’s ability to update existing beliefs with new information, might not fully capture their overall cognitive flexibility skills. To expand upon the study’s findings, future research should incorporate additional measures of diverse cognitive flexibility dimensions, such as set shifting (i.e., the ability to disengage from previous mindsets and incorporate new rules on task demands) and coping flexibility (i.e., the ability to adeptly use adaptive strategies to manage specific stressors) [55], further exploring the association between cognitive flexibility and discrimination-related anxiety.

Third, the cross-sectional nature of this study does not allow for the inference of causal relationships between variables. In fact, our results indicated that cognitive flexibility and ERD were interchangeable as mediators and moderators when explaining the association between discrimination and anxiety, which further suggests the reciprocal influences of these factors during affective processing. Thus, future research can use real-time data collection methods, such as ecological momentary assessments (EMAs), to capture the temporal variations paralleling individuals’ cognitive and affective processing [56]. By investigating the dynamics of cognitive flexibility and emotion regulation under real-world affective contexts, scholars would have a more comprehensive understanding of how affective and cognitive factors interact in predicting anxiety.

Conclusion

Previous research suggested the significance of emotion regulation in explaining the onset and development of discrimination-related anxiety. The current study further included cognitive flexibility in this dynamic. We focused on individuals’ ability to update existing beliefs and found a significant moderated mediating impact of cognitive flexibility and ERD on the association between discrimination and anxiety. ERD mediated the connection between discrimination and anxiety, with higher difficulties indicating a higher level of anxiety, while both positive and negative flexibility buffered against the negative impact of ERD. Alternative model analyses suggested the possible reciprocal influence of cognitive flexibility and emotion regulation in influencing discrimination-related anxiety. Despite the limitation of the sample diversity, one-dimensional measurement, and cross-sectional study design, these findings foreshadowed novel research directions and implied therapeutic applications. Future studies like this will advance our understanding of anxiety mechanisms and potentially lead to novel prevention and interventions for marginalized individuals facing additional stressors like discrimination.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Hypothesized model.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0282220.s001

(TIF)

S2 Fig. The standardized regression coefficients for the mediating effect of positive flexibility and the moderating effect of ERD on the relationship between discrimination and anxiety.

*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0282220.s002

(TIF)

S3 Fig. The standardized regression coefficients for the mediating effect of negative flexibility and the moderating effect of ERD on the relationship between discrimination and anxiety.

*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0282220.s003

(TIF)

S1 Dataset.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0282220.s004

(SAV)

References

1. Elias A, Paradies Y. Estimating the mental health costs of racial discrimination. BMC Public Health. 2016;16(1):1205. pmid:27899096
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
2. Lorenzo-Blanco EI, Delva J. Examining lifetime episodes of sadness, help seeking, and perceived treatment helpfulness among US Latino/as. Community Mental Health Journal. 2012;48(5):611–626. pmid:21720854
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
3. Hartshorn KJS, Whitbeck LB, Hoyt DR. Exploring the relationships of perceived discrimination, anger, and aggression among North American indigenous adolescents. Society and Mental Health. 2012;2(1):53–67. pmid:22905334
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
4. Grinage J. Endless mourning: Racial melancholia, Black grief, and the transformative possibilities for racial justice in education. Harvard Educational Review. 2019;89(2):227–250.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
5. Panza GA, Puhl RM, Taylor BA, Zaleski AL, Livingston J, Pescatello LS. Links between discrimination and cardiovascular health among socially stigmatized groups: A systematic review. PLoS ONE. 2019;14(6):e0217623. pmid:31181102
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
6. Slopen N, Lewis TT, Williams DR. Discrimination and sleep: A systematic review. Sleep Medicine. 2016;18:88–95. pmid:25770043
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
7. Otiniano Verissimo AD, Gee GC, Ford CL, Iguchi MY. Racial discrimination, gender discrimination, and substance abuse among Latina/os nationwide. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology. 2014;20(1):43–51. pmid:24491127
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
8. Mekawi Y, Hyatt CS, Maples-Keller J, Carter S, Michopoulos V, Powers A. Racial discrimination predicts mental health outcomes beyond the role of personality traits in a community sample of African Americans. Clinical Psychological Science. 2021;9(2):183–196. pmid:36968342
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
9. Puckett JA, Maroney MR, Wadsworth LP, Mustanski B, Newcomb ME. Coping with discrimination: The insidious effects of gender minority stigma on depression and anxiety in transgender individuals. Journal of Clinical Psychology. 2020;76(1):176–194. pmid:31517999
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
10. Soto JA, Dawson-Andoh NA, BeLue R. The relationship between perceived discrimination and generalized anxiety disorder among African Americans, Afro Caribbeans, and non-Hispanic Whites. Journal of Anxiety Disorders. 2011;25(2):258–265. pmid:21041059
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
11. Zvolensky MJ, Rogers AH, Bakhshaie J, Viana AG, Walker R, Mayorga NA, et al. Perceived racial discrimination, anxiety sensitivity, and mental health among Latinos in a federally qualified health center. Stigma and Health. 2019 Oct;4(4):473–9.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
12. Lee S, Waters SF. Asians and Asian Americans’ experiences of racial discrimination during the COVID-19 pandemic: impacts on health outcomes and the buffering role of social support. Stigma and Health. 2021 Jan;6(1):70–8.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
13. Mahowald L, Gruberg S, Halpin J. The state of the LGBTQ community in 2020. Center for American Progress; 2020 Oct 29.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
14. American Psychological Association. APA Dictionary of Psychology. 2022. Available from: https://dictionary.apa.org/
- View Article
- Google Scholar
15. Schäfer JÖ, Naumann E, Holmes EA, Tuschen-Caffier B, Samson AC. Emotion regulation strategies in depressive and anxiety symptoms in youth: a meta-analytic review. Journal of Youth and Adolescence. 2017 Feb;46(2):261–76. pmid:27734198
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
16. Mennin DS, Heimberg RG, Turk CL, Fresco DM. Applying an emotion regulation framework to integrative approaches to generalized anxiety disorder. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice. 2002 Spring;9(1):85–90.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
17. Mennin DS, Heimberg RG, Turk CL, Fresco DM. Preliminary evidence for an emotion dysregulation model of generalized anxiety disorder. Behaviour Research and Therapy. 2005 Oct;43(10):1281–310. pmid:16086981
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
18. Leshin JC, Lindquist KA. Neuroimaging of emotion dysregulation. In: Beauchaine TP, Crowell SE, editors. The Oxford Handbook of Emotion Dysregulation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2020. p. 181–201. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190689285.013.14
19. Wolfensberger SPA, Veltman DJ, Hoogendijk WJG, Boomsma DI, de Geus EJC. Amygdala responses to emotional faces in twins discordant or concordant for the risk for anxiety and depression. NeuroImage. 2008 Feb 15;41(2):544–552. pmid:18396414
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
20. Young KS, Burklund LJ, Torre JB, Saxbe D, Lieberman MD, Craske MG. Treatment for social anxiety disorder alters functional connectivity in emotion regulation neural circuitry. Psychiatry Res Neuroimaging. 2017 Mar 30;261:44–51. pmid:28129555
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
21. Davis MM, Miernicki ME, Telzer EH, Rudolph KD. The contribution of childhood negative emotionality and cognitive control to anxiety-linked neural dysregulation of emotion in adolescence. J Abnorm Child Psychol. 2019;47(3):515–527. pmid:30062613
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
22. Sladek MR, Castro SA, Doane LD. Ethnic-Racial discrimination experiences predict Latinx adolescents’ physiological stress processes across college transition. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2021 Jun 1;128:105212. pmid:33933893
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
23. Pascoe EA, Richman LS. Perceived Discrimination and Health: A Meta-Analytic Review. Psychol Bull. 2009 Jul;135(4):531–54. pmid:19586161
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
24. Krkovic K, Clamor A, Lincoln TM. Emotion regulation as a predictor of the endocrine, autonomic, affective, and symptomatic stress response and recovery. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2018 Aug 1;94:112–20. pmid:29775874
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
25. Lincoln TM, Hartmann M, Köther U, Moritz S. Dealing with feeling: Specific emotion regulation skills predict responses to stress in psychosis. Psychiatry Research. 2015 Aug;228(2):216–22. pmid:26001960
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
26. Diamond A. Executive functions. Annual Review of Psychology. 2013;64(1):135–68. pmid:23020641
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
27. Park J, Moghaddam B. Impact of anxiety on prefrontal cortex encoding of cognitive flexibility. Neuroscience. 2017 Mar 14;345:193–202. pmid:27316551
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
28. Wilson CG, Nusbaum AT, Whitney P, Hinson JM. Trait anxiety impairs cognitive flexibility when overcoming a task acquired response and a preexisting bias. PLOS ONE. 2018 Sep 27;13(9):e0204694. pmid:30261023
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
29. Ben-Zion Z, Fine NB, Keynan NJ, Admon R, Green N, Halevi M, et al. Cognitive Flexibility Predicts PTSD Symptoms: Observational and Interventional Studies. Front Psychiatry. 2018;9:477. pmid:30337890
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
30. Keating L, Kaur A, Mendieta M, Gleason C, Basello G, Roth A, et al. Racial discrimination and core executive functions. Stress and Health. 2022 Aug;38(3):615–21. pmid:34799970
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
31. Hofmann SG, Heering S, Sawyer AT, Asnaani A. How to handle anxiety: the effects of reappraisal, acceptance, and suppression strategies on anxious arousal. Behaviour Research and Therapy. 2009 May;47(5):389–94. pmid:19281966
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
32. Gabrys RL, Tabri N, Anisman H, Matheson K. Cognitive control and flexibility in the context of stress and depressive symptoms: the cognitive control and flexibility questionnaire. Frontiers in Psychology. 2018 Jul;9:2219. pmid:30510530
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
33. Zimmer-Gembeck MJ, Skinner EA, Modecki KL, Webb HJ, Gardner AA, Hawes T, et al. The self-perception of flexible coping with stress: a new measure and relations with emotional adjustment. Cogent Psychology. 2018;5(1):1537908
- View Article
- Google Scholar
34. Deng W, Acquah K, Joormann J, Cannon TD. Cognitive flexibility and emotion regulation: Dual layers of resilience against the emergence of paranoia. Behaviour Research and Therapy. 2023 Aug 1;167:104360. pmid:37413786
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
35. Chandler J, Shapiro D. Conducting clinical research using crowdsourced convenience samples. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology. 2016;12:53–81. pmid:26772208
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
36. Williams DR, Gonzalez HM, Williams S, Mohammed SA, Moomal H, Stein DJ. Perceived discrimination, race and health in South Africa. Social Science & Medicine. 2008;67(3):441–452. pmid:18486292
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
37. Krieger N, Smith K, Naishadham D, Hartman C, Barbeau EM. Experiences of discrimination: validity and reliability of a self-report measure for population health research on racism and health. Social Science & Medicine. 2005;61(7):1576–1596. pmid:16005789
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
38. Deng W, Everaert J, Creighton M, Bronstein MV, Cannon T, Joormann J. Developing a novel assessment of interpretation flexibility: reliability, validity and clinical implications. Personality and Individual Differences. 2022;190:111548.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
39. Everaert J, Bronstein MV, Cannon TD, Joormann J. Looking through tinted glasses: depression and social anxiety are related to both interpretation biases and inflexible negative interpretations. Clinical Psychological Science. 2018;6(4):517–528.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
40. Kuzmanovic B, Rigoux L, Tittgemeyer M. Influence of vmPFC on dmPFC Predicts Valence-Guided Belief Formation. J Neurosci. 2018 Sep 12;38(37):7996–8010. pmid:30104337
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
41. Hallion LS, Steinman SA, Tolin DF, Diefenbach GJ. Psychometric properties of the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale (DERS) and its short forms in adults with emotional disorders. Frontiers in Psychology. 2018;9:539. pmid:29725312
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
42. Spielberger CD, Gorsuch RL, Lushene R, Vagg PR, Jacobs GA. Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press; 1983.
43. Zsido AN, Teleki SA, Csokasi K, Rozsa S, Bandi SA. Development of the short version of the spielberger state-trait anxiety inventory. Psychiatry Research. 2020;291:113223. pmid:32563747
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
44. Hayes AF. Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: a regression-based approach. 3rd ed. New York: The Guilford Press; 2022.
45. Aiken LS, West SG, Reno RR. Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions. Sage Publications; 1991. New York, NY.
46. Graham JR, Calloway A, Roemer L. The buffering effects of emotion regulation in the relationship between experiences of racism and anxiety in a black American sample. Cognitive Therapy and Research. 2015;39(5):553–563.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
47. Mekawi Y, Watson-Singleton NN, Kuzyk E, Dixon HD, Carter S, Bradley-Davino B, et al. Racial discrimination and posttraumatic stress: Examining emotion dysregulation as a mediator in an African American community sample. European Journal of Psychotraumatology. 2020;11(1):1824398. pmid:33244363
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
48. Teng CC, Hon S, Wang A, Tsai W. Impact of COVID-19 discrimination fear on psychological distress among East Asian college students: The moderating role of emotion regulation. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. 2022 Jan;92(1):75–82. pmid:36355700
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
49. Teubert D, Pinquart M. A meta-analytic review on the prevention of symptoms of anxiety in children and adolescents. J Anxiety Disord. 2011;25(8):1046–1059.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
50. Mennin DS, Fresco DM. Emotion Regulation Therapy. In: Gross JJ, editor. Handbook of Emotion Regulation. 2nd ed. New York: Guilford Press; 2013.
51. Chen J, Short M, Kemps E. Interpretation bias in social anxiety: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Affect Disord. 2020;276:1119–1130. pmid:32777650
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
52. Koster EHW, De Lissnyder E, Derakshan N, De Raedt R. Understanding depressive rumination from a cognitive science perspective: The impaired disengagement hypothesis. Clinical Psychology Review. 2011 Feb 1;31(1):138–45. pmid:20817334
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
53. Johnson DR. Emotional attention set-shifting and its relationship to anxiety and emotion regulation. Emotion. 2009;9(5):681–90. pmid:19803590
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
54. Amédée LM, Cyr-Desautels L, Bénard H, Pascuzzo K, Dubois-Comtois K, Hébert M, et al. Cognitive flexibility moderates the association between maltreatment and emotion regulation in residential care children of the middle childhood period. Developmental Child Welfare. 2022 Sep 1;4(3):217–34.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
55. Stange JP, Alloy LB, Fresco DM. Inflexibility as a Vulnerability to Depression: A Systematic Qualitative Review. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice. 2017;24(3):245–76. pmid:29038622
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
56. Walz LC, Nauta MH, aan het Rot M. Experience sampling and ecological momentary assessment for studying the daily lives of patients with anxiety disorders: A systematic review. J Anxiety Disord. 2014;28(8):925–937. pmid:25445083
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar

[ref1] 1. Elias A, Paradies Y. Estimating the mental health costs of racial discrimination. BMC Public Health. 2016;16(1):1205. pmid:27899096
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[2] View Article

[3] PubMed/NCBI

[4] Google Scholar

[ref2] 2. Lorenzo-Blanco EI, Delva J. Examining lifetime episodes of sadness, help seeking, and perceived treatment helpfulness among US Latino/as. Community Mental Health Journal. 2012;48(5):611–626. pmid:21720854
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[6] View Article

[7] PubMed/NCBI

[8] Google Scholar

[ref3] 3. Hartshorn KJS, Whitbeck LB, Hoyt DR. Exploring the relationships of perceived discrimination, anger, and aggression among North American indigenous adolescents. Society and Mental Health. 2012;2(1):53–67. pmid:22905334
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[10] View Article

[11] PubMed/NCBI

[12] Google Scholar

[ref4] 4. Grinage J. Endless mourning: Racial melancholia, Black grief, and the transformative possibilities for racial justice in education. Harvard Educational Review. 2019;89(2):227–250.
View Article
Google Scholar

[14] View Article

[15] Google Scholar

[ref5] 5. Panza GA, Puhl RM, Taylor BA, Zaleski AL, Livingston J, Pescatello LS. Links between discrimination and cardiovascular health among socially stigmatized groups: A systematic review. PLoS ONE. 2019;14(6):e0217623. pmid:31181102
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[17] View Article

[18] PubMed/NCBI

[19] Google Scholar

[ref6] 6. Slopen N, Lewis TT, Williams DR. Discrimination and sleep: A systematic review. Sleep Medicine. 2016;18:88–95. pmid:25770043
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[21] View Article

[22] PubMed/NCBI

[23] Google Scholar

[ref7] 7. Otiniano Verissimo AD, Gee GC, Ford CL, Iguchi MY. Racial discrimination, gender discrimination, and substance abuse among Latina/os nationwide. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology. 2014;20(1):43–51. pmid:24491127
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[25] View Article

[26] PubMed/NCBI

[27] Google Scholar

[ref8] 8. Mekawi Y, Hyatt CS, Maples-Keller J, Carter S, Michopoulos V, Powers A. Racial discrimination predicts mental health outcomes beyond the role of personality traits in a community sample of African Americans. Clinical Psychological Science. 2021;9(2):183–196. pmid:36968342
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[29] View Article

[30] PubMed/NCBI

[31] Google Scholar

[ref9] 9. Puckett JA, Maroney MR, Wadsworth LP, Mustanski B, Newcomb ME. Coping with discrimination: The insidious effects of gender minority stigma on depression and anxiety in transgender individuals. Journal of Clinical Psychology. 2020;76(1):176–194. pmid:31517999
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[33] View Article

[34] PubMed/NCBI

[35] Google Scholar

[ref10] 10. Soto JA, Dawson-Andoh NA, BeLue R. The relationship between perceived discrimination and generalized anxiety disorder among African Americans, Afro Caribbeans, and non-Hispanic Whites. Journal of Anxiety Disorders. 2011;25(2):258–265. pmid:21041059
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[37] View Article

[38] PubMed/NCBI

[39] Google Scholar

[ref11] 11. Zvolensky MJ, Rogers AH, Bakhshaie J, Viana AG, Walker R, Mayorga NA, et al. Perceived racial discrimination, anxiety sensitivity, and mental health among Latinos in a federally qualified health center. Stigma and Health. 2019 Oct;4(4):473–9.
View Article
Google Scholar

[41] View Article

[42] Google Scholar

[ref12] 12. Lee S, Waters SF. Asians and Asian Americans’ experiences of racial discrimination during the COVID-19 pandemic: impacts on health outcomes and the buffering role of social support. Stigma and Health. 2021 Jan;6(1):70–8.
View Article
Google Scholar

[44] View Article

[45] Google Scholar

[ref13] 13. Mahowald L, Gruberg S, Halpin J. The state of the LGBTQ community in 2020. Center for American Progress; 2020 Oct 29.
View Article
Google Scholar

[47] View Article

[48] Google Scholar

[ref14] 14. American Psychological Association. APA Dictionary of Psychology. 2022. Available from: https://dictionary.apa.org/
View Article
Google Scholar

[50] View Article

[51] Google Scholar

[ref15] 15. Schäfer JÖ, Naumann E, Holmes EA, Tuschen-Caffier B, Samson AC. Emotion regulation strategies in depressive and anxiety symptoms in youth: a meta-analytic review. Journal of Youth and Adolescence. 2017 Feb;46(2):261–76. pmid:27734198
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[53] View Article

[54] PubMed/NCBI

[55] Google Scholar

[ref16] 16. Mennin DS, Heimberg RG, Turk CL, Fresco DM. Applying an emotion regulation framework to integrative approaches to generalized anxiety disorder. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice. 2002 Spring;9(1):85–90.
View Article
Google Scholar

[57] View Article

[58] Google Scholar

[ref17] 17. Mennin DS, Heimberg RG, Turk CL, Fresco DM. Preliminary evidence for an emotion dysregulation model of generalized anxiety disorder. Behaviour Research and Therapy. 2005 Oct;43(10):1281–310. pmid:16086981
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[60] View Article

[61] PubMed/NCBI

[62] Google Scholar

[ref18] 18. Leshin JC, Lindquist KA. Neuroimaging of emotion dysregulation. In: Beauchaine TP, Crowell SE, editors. The Oxford Handbook of Emotion Dysregulation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2020. p. 181–201. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190689285.013.14

[ref19] 19. Wolfensberger SPA, Veltman DJ, Hoogendijk WJG, Boomsma DI, de Geus EJC. Amygdala responses to emotional faces in twins discordant or concordant for the risk for anxiety and depression. NeuroImage. 2008 Feb 15;41(2):544–552. pmid:18396414
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[65] View Article

[66] PubMed/NCBI

[67] Google Scholar

[ref20] 20. Young KS, Burklund LJ, Torre JB, Saxbe D, Lieberman MD, Craske MG. Treatment for social anxiety disorder alters functional connectivity in emotion regulation neural circuitry. Psychiatry Res Neuroimaging. 2017 Mar 30;261:44–51. pmid:28129555
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[69] View Article

[70] PubMed/NCBI

[71] Google Scholar

[ref21] 21. Davis MM, Miernicki ME, Telzer EH, Rudolph KD. The contribution of childhood negative emotionality and cognitive control to anxiety-linked neural dysregulation of emotion in adolescence. J Abnorm Child Psychol. 2019;47(3):515–527. pmid:30062613
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[73] View Article

[74] PubMed/NCBI

[75] Google Scholar

[ref22] 22. Sladek MR, Castro SA, Doane LD. Ethnic-Racial discrimination experiences predict Latinx adolescents’ physiological stress processes across college transition. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2021 Jun 1;128:105212. pmid:33933893
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[77] View Article

[78] PubMed/NCBI

[79] Google Scholar

[ref23] 23. Pascoe EA, Richman LS. Perceived Discrimination and Health: A Meta-Analytic Review. Psychol Bull. 2009 Jul;135(4):531–54. pmid:19586161
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[81] View Article

[82] PubMed/NCBI

[83] Google Scholar

[ref24] 24. Krkovic K, Clamor A, Lincoln TM. Emotion regulation as a predictor of the endocrine, autonomic, affective, and symptomatic stress response and recovery. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2018 Aug 1;94:112–20. pmid:29775874
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[85] View Article

[86] PubMed/NCBI

[87] Google Scholar

[ref25] 25. Lincoln TM, Hartmann M, Köther U, Moritz S. Dealing with feeling: Specific emotion regulation skills predict responses to stress in psychosis. Psychiatry Research. 2015 Aug;228(2):216–22. pmid:26001960
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[89] View Article

[90] PubMed/NCBI

[91] Google Scholar

[ref26] 26. Diamond A. Executive functions. Annual Review of Psychology. 2013;64(1):135–68. pmid:23020641
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[93] View Article

[94] PubMed/NCBI

[95] Google Scholar

[ref27] 27. Park J, Moghaddam B. Impact of anxiety on prefrontal cortex encoding of cognitive flexibility. Neuroscience. 2017 Mar 14;345:193–202. pmid:27316551
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[97] View Article

[98] PubMed/NCBI

[99] Google Scholar

[ref28] 28. Wilson CG, Nusbaum AT, Whitney P, Hinson JM. Trait anxiety impairs cognitive flexibility when overcoming a task acquired response and a preexisting bias. PLOS ONE. 2018 Sep 27;13(9):e0204694. pmid:30261023
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[101] View Article

[102] PubMed/NCBI

[103] Google Scholar

[ref29] 29. Ben-Zion Z, Fine NB, Keynan NJ, Admon R, Green N, Halevi M, et al. Cognitive Flexibility Predicts PTSD Symptoms: Observational and Interventional Studies. Front Psychiatry. 2018;9:477. pmid:30337890
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[105] View Article

[106] PubMed/NCBI

[107] Google Scholar

[ref30] 30. Keating L, Kaur A, Mendieta M, Gleason C, Basello G, Roth A, et al. Racial discrimination and core executive functions. Stress and Health. 2022 Aug;38(3):615–21. pmid:34799970
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[109] View Article

[110] PubMed/NCBI

[111] Google Scholar

[ref31] 31. Hofmann SG, Heering S, Sawyer AT, Asnaani A. How to handle anxiety: the effects of reappraisal, acceptance, and suppression strategies on anxious arousal. Behaviour Research and Therapy. 2009 May;47(5):389–94. pmid:19281966
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[113] View Article

[114] PubMed/NCBI

[115] Google Scholar

[ref32] 32. Gabrys RL, Tabri N, Anisman H, Matheson K. Cognitive control and flexibility in the context of stress and depressive symptoms: the cognitive control and flexibility questionnaire. Frontiers in Psychology. 2018 Jul;9:2219. pmid:30510530
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[117] View Article

[118] PubMed/NCBI

[119] Google Scholar

[ref33] 33. Zimmer-Gembeck MJ, Skinner EA, Modecki KL, Webb HJ, Gardner AA, Hawes T, et al. The self-perception of flexible coping with stress: a new measure and relations with emotional adjustment. Cogent Psychology. 2018;5(1):1537908
View Article
Google Scholar

[121] View Article

[122] Google Scholar

[ref34] 34. Deng W, Acquah K, Joormann J, Cannon TD. Cognitive flexibility and emotion regulation: Dual layers of resilience against the emergence of paranoia. Behaviour Research and Therapy. 2023 Aug 1;167:104360. pmid:37413786
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[124] View Article

[125] PubMed/NCBI

[126] Google Scholar

[ref35] 35. Chandler J, Shapiro D. Conducting clinical research using crowdsourced convenience samples. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology. 2016;12:53–81. pmid:26772208
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[128] View Article

[129] PubMed/NCBI

[130] Google Scholar

[ref36] 36. Williams DR, Gonzalez HM, Williams S, Mohammed SA, Moomal H, Stein DJ. Perceived discrimination, race and health in South Africa. Social Science & Medicine. 2008;67(3):441–452. pmid:18486292
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[132] View Article

[133] PubMed/NCBI

[134] Google Scholar

[ref37] 37. Krieger N, Smith K, Naishadham D, Hartman C, Barbeau EM. Experiences of discrimination: validity and reliability of a self-report measure for population health research on racism and health. Social Science & Medicine. 2005;61(7):1576–1596. pmid:16005789
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[136] View Article

[137] PubMed/NCBI

[138] Google Scholar

[ref38] 38. Deng W, Everaert J, Creighton M, Bronstein MV, Cannon T, Joormann J. Developing a novel assessment of interpretation flexibility: reliability, validity and clinical implications. Personality and Individual Differences. 2022;190:111548.
View Article
Google Scholar

[140] View Article

[141] Google Scholar

[ref39] 39. Everaert J, Bronstein MV, Cannon TD, Joormann J. Looking through tinted glasses: depression and social anxiety are related to both interpretation biases and inflexible negative interpretations. Clinical Psychological Science. 2018;6(4):517–528.
View Article
Google Scholar

[143] View Article

[144] Google Scholar

[ref40] 40. Kuzmanovic B, Rigoux L, Tittgemeyer M. Influence of vmPFC on dmPFC Predicts Valence-Guided Belief Formation. J Neurosci. 2018 Sep 12;38(37):7996–8010. pmid:30104337
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[146] View Article

[147] PubMed/NCBI

[148] Google Scholar

[ref41] 41. Hallion LS, Steinman SA, Tolin DF, Diefenbach GJ. Psychometric properties of the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale (DERS) and its short forms in adults with emotional disorders. Frontiers in Psychology. 2018;9:539. pmid:29725312
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[150] View Article

[151] PubMed/NCBI

[152] Google Scholar

[ref42] 42. Spielberger CD, Gorsuch RL, Lushene R, Vagg PR, Jacobs GA. Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press; 1983.

[ref43] 43. Zsido AN, Teleki SA, Csokasi K, Rozsa S, Bandi SA. Development of the short version of the spielberger state-trait anxiety inventory. Psychiatry Research. 2020;291:113223. pmid:32563747
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[155] View Article

[156] PubMed/NCBI

[157] Google Scholar

[ref44] 44. Hayes AF. Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: a regression-based approach. 3rd ed. New York: The Guilford Press; 2022.

[ref45] 45. Aiken LS, West SG, Reno RR. Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions. Sage Publications; 1991. New York, NY.

[ref46] 46. Graham JR, Calloway A, Roemer L. The buffering effects of emotion regulation in the relationship between experiences of racism and anxiety in a black American sample. Cognitive Therapy and Research. 2015;39(5):553–563.
View Article
Google Scholar

[161] View Article

[162] Google Scholar

[ref47] 47. Mekawi Y, Watson-Singleton NN, Kuzyk E, Dixon HD, Carter S, Bradley-Davino B, et al. Racial discrimination and posttraumatic stress: Examining emotion dysregulation as a mediator in an African American community sample. European Journal of Psychotraumatology. 2020;11(1):1824398. pmid:33244363
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[164] View Article

[165] PubMed/NCBI

[166] Google Scholar

[ref48] 48. Teng CC, Hon S, Wang A, Tsai W. Impact of COVID-19 discrimination fear on psychological distress among East Asian college students: The moderating role of emotion regulation. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. 2022 Jan;92(1):75–82. pmid:36355700
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[168] View Article

[169] PubMed/NCBI

[170] Google Scholar

[ref49] 49. Teubert D, Pinquart M. A meta-analytic review on the prevention of symptoms of anxiety in children and adolescents. J Anxiety Disord. 2011;25(8):1046–1059.
View Article
Google Scholar

[172] View Article

[173] Google Scholar

[ref50] 50. Mennin DS, Fresco DM. Emotion Regulation Therapy. In: Gross JJ, editor. Handbook of Emotion Regulation. 2nd ed. New York: Guilford Press; 2013.

[ref51] 51. Chen J, Short M, Kemps E. Interpretation bias in social anxiety: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Affect Disord. 2020;276:1119–1130. pmid:32777650
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[176] View Article

[177] PubMed/NCBI

[178] Google Scholar

[ref52] 52. Koster EHW, De Lissnyder E, Derakshan N, De Raedt R. Understanding depressive rumination from a cognitive science perspective: The impaired disengagement hypothesis. Clinical Psychology Review. 2011 Feb 1;31(1):138–45. pmid:20817334
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[180] View Article

[181] PubMed/NCBI

[182] Google Scholar

[ref53] 53. Johnson DR. Emotional attention set-shifting and its relationship to anxiety and emotion regulation. Emotion. 2009;9(5):681–90. pmid:19803590
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[184] View Article

[185] PubMed/NCBI

[186] Google Scholar

[ref54] 54. Amédée LM, Cyr-Desautels L, Bénard H, Pascuzzo K, Dubois-Comtois K, Hébert M, et al. Cognitive flexibility moderates the association between maltreatment and emotion regulation in residential care children of the middle childhood period. Developmental Child Welfare. 2022 Sep 1;4(3):217–34.
View Article
Google Scholar

[188] View Article

[189] Google Scholar

[ref55] 55. Stange JP, Alloy LB, Fresco DM. Inflexibility as a Vulnerability to Depression: A Systematic Qualitative Review. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice. 2017;24(3):245–76. pmid:29038622
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[191] View Article

[192] PubMed/NCBI

[193] Google Scholar

[ref56] 56. Walz LC, Nauta MH, aan het Rot M. Experience sampling and ecological momentary assessment for studying the daily lives of patients with anxiety disorders: A systematic review. J Anxiety Disord. 2014;28(8):925–937. pmid:25445083
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[195] View Article

[196] PubMed/NCBI

[197] Google Scholar

Figures

Abstract

Introduction

Current study

Materials and methods

Procedure and participants

Measures

Minority status.

Discrimination.

Cognitive flexibility.

Emotion regulation difficulty (ERD).

State anxiety.

Statistical analysis

Results

Descriptive statistics

Socio-demographic data and discrimination

Cognitive flexibility and emotion regulation’s moderated mediating effects on state anxiety

Discussion

Conclusion

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Hypothesized model.

S2 Fig. The standardized regression coefficients for the mediating effect of positive flexibility and the moderating effect of ERD on the relationship between discrimination and anxiety.

S3 Fig. The standardized regression coefficients for the mediating effect of negative flexibility and the moderating effect of ERD on the relationship between discrimination and anxiety.

S1 Dataset.

References