The Role of Emotion Regulation in Adolescents' Psychological Well-being: A Systematic Literature Review

Abstract

Emotion regulation has increasingly been recognized as an important psychological process associated with the development and maintenance of various psychological disorders. Difficulties in managing emotional experiences may occur across diagnostic categories, making emotion regulation a relevant construct in transdiagnostic approaches to psychopathology. This study aims to systematically review conceptual and empirical evidence regarding emotion regulation as a transdiagnostic factor in psychological disorders, identify common and disorder-specific regulatory difficulties, and examine their implications for psychological interventions. A systematic literature review was conducted using a structured literature selection and synthesis approach based on the PRISMA 2020 framework. The proposed review period covered 2016–2026, with eligible studies examining emotion regulation in relation to psychological or psychiatric disorders. Data were synthesized narratively to accommodate differences in study designs, clinical populations, measurement instruments, and outcomes. The findings indicate that emotion regulation difficulties are associated with multiple psychological disorders. A 2026 multilevel meta-analysis encompassing 619 studies, 41,590 clinical participants, and 36,787 control participants reported an overall standardized mean difference (SMD) of 1.70 in emotion regulation difficulties. Prominent patterns included increased rumination (SMD = 1.51), experiential avoidance (SMD = 1.00), and expressive suppression (SMD = 0.73), alongside lower acceptance (SMD = −0.85), problem-solving (SMD = −0.63), and cognitive reappraisal (SMD = −0.63). Nevertheless, the patterns and severity of these difficulties varied across diagnostic categories. In conclusion, emotion regulation represents a clinically relevant transdiagnostic framework for understanding psychopathology and informing psychological interventions. However, methodological heterogeneity and limitations in causal evidence should be considered when interpreting these findings.