UC Irvine

This dissertation assessed the extent to which people endorse theories that emotion helps versus hinders reasoning and wellbeing and how these theories relate to analytical reasoning, physical health, emotion regulation and wellbeing. Study 1 examined the links between help and hinder theories, reasoning under stress, reappraisal and suppression use, and wellbeing. Help theory endorsement predicted better reasoning, more reappraisal and greater wellbeing, while hinder theory endorsement predicted more sick days in recent months and more suppression. In Study 2, a new measure of help and hinder theories (The Help and Hinder Theories Scale; HHTE) was developed which assessed the set of beliefs that form each theory. Study 3 demonstrated that the HHTE’s factor structure replicated in a separate sample, and that the scale had adequate three-week test-retest reliability. Study 3 also showed evidence of convergent and divergent validity for the HHTE. Study 4 then tested causal relations between help and hinder theories and responses to a distressing event. Specifically, participants who were randomly assigned to a condition to encourage a help theory endorsed a help theory more and endorsed a hinder theory less than those in the control condition. Participants in the help theory condition reported more emotion acceptance of their emotional response to viewing a distressing film clip, and showed faster emotional and physiological recovery. Together, these studies suggest that believing that emotion is helpful matters for emotional wellbeing and social relationships, and may motivate people to accept emotional experience and thus show faster physiological recovery after distressing events. In contrast, believing that emotion is a hindrance is linked to lower wellbeing, less social support, and less-effective emotion regulation strategies.