Reliability and validity of a temporal distancing emotion regulation task in adolescence.

Abstract

Adopting a temporally distant perspective on stressors, also known as using a temporal distancing emotion regulation strategy, can alleviate distress. Young adults’ ability to adopt a temporal distancing strategy has previously been measured using an experimental temporal distancing task (Ahmed, Somerville, & Sebastian, 2018). In the current study, we evaluate the psychometric properties of this task in younger (N = 345, aged 10–11) and older (N = 99, aged 18–21) adolescents and explore developmental differences in the ability to use temporal distancing to alleviate distress. Participants listened to scenarios and rated negative affect when adopting a distant-future perspective, a near-future perspective, or when reacting naturally. We evaluated the test–retest reliability of the measure in older adolescents and its construct validity in both younger and older adolescents by assessing correlations with self-report measures of emotion regulation strategy use. Our findings broadly replicated those of Ahmed et al. (2018): Adopting distant- and near-future perspectives produced significantly lower self-reported distress relative to reacting naturally, with the distant-future strategy producing the least distress. Older adolescents alleviated their distress more effectively than younger adolescents and reported projecting further into the future. Regulation success scores on the temporal distancing task showed adequate test–retest reliability. However, these scores did not correlate with self-reported habitual use of temporal distancing or reappraisal strategies generally. These findings suggest that the ability to use a temporal distancing strategy for emotion regulation improves during adolescence, but that ability may not be related to habitual use of this strategy. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved)