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

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]. Another study has found that ERD is directly linked to anxiety diagnoses even after controlling for worry, trait anxiety, and depressive symptoms [17].

Apart from affective factors, cognitive mechanisms may also influence anxiety levels after experiencing discrimination. While previous research has demonstrated that ERD can lead to increased anxiety, little has been explored regarding how cognitive flexibility can interact with emotion regulation to alleviate adverse mental health outcomes. Cognitive flexibility refers to the ability to adjust one’s beliefs and/or behaviors to better adapt to the environment [18]. 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. 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 [19-20]. Thus, it can be hypothesized that cognitive flexibility may interact with emotion regulation ability to buffer against anxiety incurred by discrimination. Meanwhile, employing maladaptive emotion regulation techniques can result in low moods and reduced motivation to revise existing beliefs, consequently negatively impacting cognitive flexibility [21]. 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.

Materials and methods

Results

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 = .720, t = 4.899, p < .001), and ERD had a significant impact on state anxiety (b = .074, t = 7.624, p < .001). Accounting for the mediating effect of ERD, discrimination did not have a significant impact on state anxiety (b = .035, t = 1.517, p = .131). Additionally, positive flexibility significantly moderated the indirect effect of ERD on anxiety (b = -.054, t = -4.753, p < .001, ΔR² = .060), but did not moderate the direct effect of discrimination on anxiety (b = .000, t = -.008, p = .993). 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 1).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Fig 1. 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.

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 = .720, t = 4.899, p < .001) and ERD had a significant impact on state anxiety (b = .074, t = 6.010, p < .001). Unlike when positive flexibility is the moderator, discrimination still had a significant impact on state anxiety after being mediated by ERD (b = .063, t = 2.207, p = .028). Negative flexibility significantly moderated the impact of ERD on anxiety (b = -.034, t = -3.392, p = .001) but did not moderate the impact of discrimination on anxiety (b = -.024, t = -.965, p = .336). Bootstrap testing indicated a moderating effect on indirect effect and the change of effect size (ΔR²) was .031. 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 2).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Fig 2. 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.

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. The results indicated that positive and negative flexibility partially 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 [33-35], 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. Past 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 [36]. Elevated amygdala activation was found in at-risk individuals without an anxiety disorder diagnosis [37]. Moreover, negative amygdala-vmPFC connectivity was associated with social anxiety disorder symptomatology, and effective treatments that improve ERD often reduce this brain abnormality [38]. Another study found that emotion dysregulation relates to a reduction in amygdala-rVLPFC functional connectivity among female adolescents, and this hypoconnectivity predicted anxiety symptoms during nine-month follow-ups [39]. Overall, supported by neuroimaging findings, emotion regulation difficulty is a risk factor for the onset, development, and maintenance of anxiety.

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) [40]. 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) [41]. 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 =.028), but not positive flexibility (p =.131), 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 = .060) than negative flexibility (ΔR² = .031). These findings supported prior work showing that negative and positive flexibility have differential effects in predicting affective symptoms [25-26], 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 [42]. 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 partially 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 influences the development of discrimination-induced anxiety, as each moderate the impact of the other. This finding reiterated the therapeutic implications of including cognitive flexibility training in anxiety prevention and treatments to improve outcomes. Moreover, considering the transferrable skills between emotion regulation and cognitive flexibility (e.g., cognitive reappraisal), cognitive flexibility can also be used as an indicator to evaluate the effectiveness of anxiety interventions that target emotion dysregulation.

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. Future research should incorporate in-person participant recruitment to make sure that minority populations with diverse identities are included. Second, 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 [43]. 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 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.

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.

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.