Staying busy can help us get through a demanding day. Tasks give us something manageable to do when our feelings are difficult to settle. Yet the same habit can become less helpful when the urgent work is finished and a painful conversation still needs our attention. A response that served us in one moment may need reconsideration in the next.

We often look for a dependable way to handle distress. We want to know whether we should talk about our feelings, think differently, take action, or step back. These are reasonable questions, but their answers depend partly on the situation. Regulatory flexibility directs our attention toward that relationship: what we are facing, what we can do, and what happens when we try.

What Is Regulatory Flexibility

Psychologists George Bonanno and Charles Burton (2013) proposed a framework for understanding differences in how people adapt their coping and emotion regulation. They identified three components: sensitivity to context, a repertoire of available strategies, and responsiveness to feedback. Together, these capacities help explain why knowing a useful technique does not always mean knowing when or how to use it.

Coping includes thoughts and actions used to manage demands we experience as stressful. Emotion regulation concerns attempts to influence emotions, including their intensity, duration, or expression. The two overlap, although coping can also address practical problems beyond the emotional response itself (Folkman & Moskowitz, 2004; McRae & Gross, 2020).

Flexibility gives these activities a continuing relationship with circumstances. We form an understanding of what is happening, respond using the options available to us, and reconsider that response as information develops. This can involve changing course. It can also involve staying with a response that remains appropriate, even when the situation is uncomfortable.

Why Coping Strategies Depend on Context

Most of us have familiar ways of handling strain. Some people analyze a problem until they can explain it. Others seek company, become quiet, or move quickly into action. Familiar responses can be useful and efficient. Trouble arises when familiarity substitutes for considering what the present circumstances require.

Bonanno and Burton (2013) described the assumption that a particular strategy is consistently beneficial or harmful as the “fallacy of uniform efficacy.” Their argument invites closer attention to context. A pause in emotional engagement, for example, may serve a different purpose during an urgent task than during an ongoing attempt to understand a loss. The timing, purpose, and consequences deserve examination.

This does not make every strategy equally helpful. Across five studies, Gross and John (2003) found that habitual reappraisal—rethinking a situation’s meaning—was associated with better interpersonal functioning and well-being, while habitual suppression—holding back emotional expression—showed less favorable associations. These patterns matter. They describe habitual use, however, rather than settle how useful a particular response will be in every situation. Frequency of use, ability to use a strategy, and its suitability for the moment are different questions.

What Research Shows About Coping Flexibility

Cheng, Lau, and Chan (2014) brought together findings on coping flexibility from research involving 58,946 participants. Across 329 effect sizes, flexibility had a small-to-moderate association with better psychological adjustment, with an average correlation of .23. The connection was stronger when researchers examined how well a response matched the situation or people’s confidence in adapting. Simply having many responses or changing them often showed weaker associations. The distinction matters: having options and using them well are different achievements.

These findings support taking flexibility seriously while preserving uncertainty. The studies used different definitions and measures, and the overall association does not establish that increasing flexibility causes improved adjustment. Coping flexibility is also a related construct, rather than a direct test of every component of Bonanno and Burton’s broader framework.

A study of 170 people offers a more specific example. Among those facing high levels of stress, people who were better at rethinking an upsetting situation reported fewer depressive symptoms when their stressors were relatively difficult to control. When stressors were more controllable, that ability was associated with more symptoms. The researchers assessed reappraisal ability in a laboratory task, rather than simply asking how often people used it in daily life. A later correction left the study’s substantive conclusions unchanged (Troy et al., 2013; Corrigendum, 2016).

The study suggests that the fit between an ability and the situation deserves attention. Because the researchers assessed these factors at one point in time, the study cannot establish that reappraisal caused either outcome. The possibility that feeling better could sometimes reduce efforts to change a manageable problem remains an explanation to test, rather than a demonstrated mechanism.

The Three Components of Regulatory Flexibility

Context Sensitivity

Context sensitivity begins with noticing what the situation appears to require. What is at stake? Is there something we can change? Does the moment call for action, emotional settling, information, or support? Our answer depends on how we understand both the demands and our available resources (Bonanno & Burton, 2013).

Consider the difference between an approaching deadline and an irreversible disappointment. A deadline may allow practical changes: clarifying priorities, asking for help, or reducing the scope of a task. A disappointment may require making room for feelings and reconsidering expectations. Both situations can involve action and emotion, but the balance may differ.

Control is often partial. We may be unable to reverse a decision while still being able to ask for clarification, appeal part of it, or decide what to do next. Lazarus and Folkman (1984) describe problem-focused and emotion-focused coping as functions that can occur together. Settling our feelings can support practical action, while action may leave feelings that still need attention. Reading the context includes asking which parts of the situation can realistically be influenced.

Reading the context is an interpretation, and interpretations can be mistaken. We may overestimate our influence, overlook an available option, or assume another person’s intentions. Context sensitivity therefore includes leaving room for information that complicates our first impression. The feedback we receive later may change our understanding of the problem itself.

A Repertoire of Usable Strategies

A repertoire consists of responses we can actually bring into use. We might change a situation, redirect attention temporarily, reconsider an interpretation, or influence how we express an emotion. McRae and Gross (2020) describe these possibilities within the wider process model of emotion regulation. Each operates at a different point in how an emotional response unfolds.

Knowing a strategy by name does not make it readily available under pressure. Reappraisal, for example, involves changing how we think about a situation to influence its emotional meaning. Someone may understand the idea yet struggle to find a credible alternative interpretation in a particular moment. Availability includes the capacity to implement a response, not simply familiarity with its description (Bonanno & Burton, 2013).

The aim is not to accumulate techniques or use as many as possible. A larger repertoire offers possibilities, but selecting among them still requires judgment. Cheng et al.’s (2014) findings reinforce this caution: breadth alone showed a smaller association with adjustment than some other definitions of flexibility.

Responsiveness to Feedback

Feedback is easier to interpret when we are clear about our purpose. Carver and Scheier (1982) describe self-regulation as comparing where we seem to be with where we want to be, then responding to the difference. If we want to become steady enough to participate in a meeting, feeling calmer may be a useful sign. If we want to resolve a work problem, we also need to ask whether the problem itself is changing.

Bonanno and Burton (2013) describe responsiveness to feedback as monitoring a strategy’s effectiveness and maintaining, adjusting, ending, or replacing it as needed. Changing course is only one possibility. A response may need more time or a different level of effort. Folkman and Moskowitz (2004) emphasize that coping effectiveness also depends on changing demands and the period of time being considered.

Immediate relief is one part of the picture. In an everyday illustration, avoiding a difficult message might reduce anxiety for the evening while allowing a manageable concern to grow. Reading it and making a plan could initially increase discomfort. Neither relief nor discomfort, by itself, establishes whether a response is serving its purpose.

Outcomes also depend on circumstances beyond our control. A thoughtful response can meet resistance or fail to achieve its goal. Feedback gives us reasons to reconsider our reading of the situation, the strategy, or how we used it; it does not provide a verdict on our worth or competence. Before abandoning a response, we can ask whether its intended effects have had a reasonable opportunity to appear.

What Flexibility Looks Like in Everyday Life

Facing a Difficult Work Problem

Imagine receiving critical feedback shortly before an important meeting. The immediate task may be to settle enough to participate. Briefly shifting attention to the meeting could help. Later, when there is time to review the criticism, a different response may become useful: clarifying the concern, examining the work, and deciding what to change.

In this illustration, temporarily setting the criticism aside and later engaging with it serve different purposes. If the person repeatedly postpones reviewing it, the strategy’s practical consequences change. The unresolved issue becomes part of the feedback. Flexibility involves noticing that change and deciding whether a more direct response is now possible.

Pausing During an Ordinary Disagreement

Consider two people who want to resolve a disagreement but are becoming too upset to listen. A mutually understood pause may create room to settle. Returning to the conversation may create an opportunity for clarification and repair. If a pause repeatedly becomes indefinite silence, its consequences call for a different discussion about whether and how the issue will be addressed.

These examples illustrate the framework; they are not findings from a specific intervention study. They also assume an ordinary problem in which participation is reasonably safe. Coercion, threats, and abuse require attention to protection and support. A person is not responsible for finding the perfect emotional response to make another person stop causing harm.

What Makes Flexible Responding Difficult

Difficulty adapting does not always arise in the same place. Bonanno and Burton’s (2013) framework helps us consider which part of the process may need attention. We may also return to a familiar response before considering alternatives. Examining its present purpose leaves room to appreciate why it helped before and question whether it still fits.

Understanding Where a Response Stops Fitting

• Reading the situation. Am I trying to accept something I could influence, or control something I cannot change? The distinction is rarely complete, but separating the changeable and unchangeable parts can clarify what to try. This question draws on context sensitivity and the research on reappraisal and controllability (Bonanno & Burton, 2013; Troy et al., 2013).
• Putting a strategy into practice. Do I understand the technique but struggle to use it here? Someone may recognize the value of reappraisal without finding a credible alternative interpretation. That difficulty calls attention to implementation, rather than immediately settling whether the strategy itself is unsuitable (Bonanno & Burton, 2013; McRae & Gross, 2020).
• Interpreting the feedback. Am I judging only immediate relief, or expecting results before they could reasonably emerge? The purpose and time frame affect what counts as useful evidence. These questions apply the research to reflection; they are not a validated assessment or a way to diagnose a person’s flexibility (Folkman & Moskowitz, 2004; Carver & Scheier, 1982).

Our options are also shaped by the world around us. Lazarus and Folkman (1984) discuss health and energy, skills, social support, and material resources as resources for coping, alongside constraints on using them. Flexibility cannot be understood solely as an individual willingness to try harder. Sometimes a useful adjustment means changing conditions, obtaining support, or setting a boundary. Asking someone to accommodate preventable harm indefinitely overlooks the situation that needs attention.

Developing Regulatory Flexibility

What Does This Situation Appear to Require

Begin with a specific situation rather than a global judgment about yourself. Identify what seems changeable, what remains uncertain, and what matters most right now. If the immediate need is to settle enough to think, acknowledge it. If a practical action is available, consider whether emotional coping can support that action.

What Response Can I Realistically Use

Choose an option you can implement under the circumstances. This may mean trying a small practical change, seeking perspective, or practicing a familiar regulation skill. Expanding a repertoire can be gradual. The question is which additional response would offer a useful possibility in situations where your current options feel narrow.

What Is the Feedback Telling Me Over Time

Return to the purpose of the response and examine its effects. You might continue it, change how you are using it, or try something else. Another person’s perspective may help when your interpretation feels uncertain, provided that person is trustworthy and able to understand the context.

These questions are practical implications of the framework, not a validated three-step treatment. They offer a way to reflect without demanding constant self-monitoring. Sometimes the most considered adjustment is to seek help, set a boundary, or recognize that the situation needs changes beyond what one person can provide.

A Few Words by Psychology Fanatic

The responses that carry us through life develop for reasons. Staying busy, thinking carefully, reaching out, and stepping back can each have a place. Understanding that place requires curiosity about what a response is doing for us now.

We do not need to reconsider every feeling or abandon a strategy whenever life remains difficult. We can allow experience to inform us: this helped for a while; this still serves a purpose; this may need to change. Such reflection leaves room for commitment while keeping us open to learning. The situation may remain hard, but our response can become more considered as we understand it more fully.

Associated Concepts

• Emotion regulation: The broader study of attempts to influence emotional responses. Regulatory flexibility focuses attention on how strategies fit changing contexts and feedback.
• Coping flexibility: A closely related construct concerning flexible responses to stressful demands. Cheng et al. (2014) show that researchers have measured it in several distinct ways, which matters when interpreting claims about its benefits.
• Cognitive reappraisal: Changing an interpretation to influence an emotional response. It is one possible strategy within a repertoire, rather than another name for flexibility (McRae & Gross, 2020).
• Psychological flexibility: A related term whose meaning depends on the framework being used. Here, flexibility refers specifically to context sensitivity, strategy repertoire, and responsiveness to feedback (Bonanno & Burton, 2013).
• Resilience: Regulatory flexibility is relevant to understanding adaptation to adversity, but it is not interchangeable with resilience. A capacity to adjust responses does not guarantee a particular course of recovery or eliminate the influence of circumstances.
• Primary and Secondary Coping: Primary coping addresses the conditions creating stress, while secondary coping helps manage the emotional response. Regulatory flexibility involves adjusting the balance between these functions as circumstances change.

References

Bonanno, George A.; Burton, Charles L. (2013). Regulatory Flexibility: An Individual Differences Perspective on Coping and Emotion Regulation. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(6), 591–612. DOI: 10.1177/1745691613504116.
(Return to Main Text)

Carver, Charles S.; Scheier, Michael F. (1982). Control Theory: A Useful Conceptual Framework for Personality–Social, Clinical, and Health Psychology. Psychological Bulletin, 92(1), 111–135. DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.92.1.111.
(Return to Main Text)

Cheng, Cecilia; Lau, Hi-Po Bobo; Chan, Man-Pui Sally (2014). Coping Flexibility and Psychological Adjustment to Stressful Life Changes: A Meta-Analytic Review. Psychological Bulletin, 140(6), 1582–1607. DOI: 10.1037/a0037913.
(Return to Main Text)

Corrigendum (2016). A Person-by-Situation Approach to Emotion Regulation: Cognitive Reappraisal Can Either Help or Hurt, Depending on the Context. Psychological Science, 27(3), 428–431. DOI: 10.1177/0956797615627417.
(Return to Main Text)

Folkman, Susan; Moskowitz, Judith Tedlie (2004). Coping: Pitfalls and Promise. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 745–774. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.141456.
(Return to Main Text)

Gross, James J.; John, Oliver P. (2003). Individual Differences in Two Emotion Regulation Processes: Implications for Affect, Relationships, and Well-Being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(2), 348–362. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.85.2.348.
(Return to Main Text)

Lazarus, Richard S.; Folkman, Susan (1984). Stress, Appraisal, and Coping. Springer Publishing Company. ISBN: 9780826141903.
(Return to Main Text)

McRae, Kateri; Gross, James J. (2020). Emotion Regulation. Emotion, 20(1), 1–9. DOI: 10.1037/emo0000703.
(Return to Main Text)

Troy, Allison S.; Shallcross, Amanda J.; Mauss, Iris B. (2013). A Person-by-Situation Approach to Emotion Regulation: Cognitive Reappraisal Can Either Help or Hurt, Depending on the Context. Psychological Science, 24(12), 2505–2514. DOI: 10.1177/0956797613496434.
(Return to Main Text)