"Be willing to have it so. Acceptance of what has happened is the first step to overcoming the consequences of any misfortune."
William James
A study published in Emotion proposed that Buddhist teachings and practices involve more of a noninfluence philosophy towards emotions than those of the more control-oriented Protestant understanding of emotions. It was also proposed that, across religions, the use of noninfluence emotion-regulation strategies would predict the emergence of fewer depressive symptoms.
This study was conducted by Dr. Brooke Wilken of the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology, and Dr. Yuri Miyamoto of the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
When emotions arise, we often engage in active strategies to increase, maintain, or decrease their intensity through a process called emotion regulation.
Dr. Wilken and Dr. Miyamoto propose that allowing your emotions to arise without attempting to change them is also a viable emotion regulation strategy, and evidence suggests that therapeutic interventions based on these noninfluence strategies are effective in treating depressive symptoms.
For centuries, Buddhists teachings have emphasized the acceptance of experiences as they are without the need to influence or control them. However, in Christianity (and the New Testament, more specifically), a more common theme is for followers to manage and do away with any negative emotions as they arise.
In light of the literature on the benefits of noninfluence emotion regulation practices, the researchers hypothesized that Buddhists would be more likely than Protestants to learn and adopt more noninfluence emotion regulation strategies from their religious teachings, and that adopting these strategies would be related to the experience of fewer depressive symptoms.
To test their hypothesis, Drs. Wilken and Miyamoto first recruited a group of Buddhist and Protestant students to complete online surveys regarding their religions’ teachings about emotions, their personal use of emotion regulation strategies, and an assessment of depressive symptoms.
They found that Buddhist participants reported more religious teachings of noninfluence emotion regulation strategies than did Protestant participants. Individuals who reported more of these religious teachings, in turn, also reported tending to more often engage in noninfluence emotion regulation strategies themselves.
In a second study, the researchers wanted to replicate their initial results and find out whether people adopting noninfluence strategies were doing so out of passivity or confusion about how to handle emotions, or if these strategies were more in line with the Buddhist practice of emotional acceptance. To test this, they recruited Buddhist and Protestant practitioners from the local community and places of worship.
This time, their questionnaire had additional questions regarding participants’ perceptions around emotional uncertainty (e.g., “When I do not influence my emotions, it is mostly because I am uncertain if I should enhance, maintain, or dampen my emotions.”), uncontrollability (e.g., “When I do not influence my emotions, it is mostly because I am giving up, giving in, or being defeated by my emotions.”), or acceptance (e.g., “Not influencing my emotions at all often means accepting emotions as they are.”).
The results from their second study replicated the findings of the first study regarding the relationship between perceptions of religious teachings and use of noninfluence emotion regulation strategies. Additionally, they found that people engaging in noninfluence strategies were doing so out of active acceptance, and not out of uncertainty or passivity.
The first two studies took a big-picture approach to examining people’s emotion regulation tendencies, asking participants how they generally tend to regulate their emotions. In a third study, Wilken and Miyamoto wanted to find out if the trends they uncovered held up in a specific emotional instance.
To examine this, they had participants think back to a situation in which they felt anger and hostility towards another person and asked them, in hindsight, to rate how much they would prefer to enhance, maintain, dampen, or not influence their anger in that situation.
Again, the findings on religious differences in noninfluence teachings from the first two studies were replicated in Study 3. The researchers also found an indirect link between religion and in-the-moment preferences through participants big-picture emotion regulation tendencies. In general, Buddhists reported more often using noninfluence strategies than Protestants which, in turn, predicted their preference for in-the-moment emotional noninfluence in the anger-inducing situation.
Importantly, in support of their hypothesis regarding emotion regulation and depression, all 3 studies found that engaging in more noninfluence strategies predicted fewer depressive symptoms, regardless of one’s religious affiliation.
When it comes to managing an emotional experience, rather than trying to change how you feel, you might find it beneficial to heed the Beatles’ words of wisdom in times of trouble and let it be.