A Limited Repertoire of Emotion Regulation Strategies is Associated with Internalizing Problems in Adolescence
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The present study was designed to test whether the beneficial effects of emotion regulation (ER) have less to do with the use of singular, ‘adaptive’ strategies and more to do with using a range of strategies. Using a community sample of adolescents (N = 177, M = 13.6 years), groups based on five measures of ER (reappraisal, suppression, concealing, emotional engagement, and adjusting) were created through latent profile analysis. A six‐group model was the best fit. As hypothesized, ER profiles with high scores on one or two indicators were associated with higher levels of internalizing problems, whereas profiles with average to high scores on several indicators and high scores on adjusting were associated with lower levels of internalizing problems (depression, general anxiety, and social anxiety). Results highlight the importance of having different ER strategies to use and that a limited ER repertoire in adolescence may be associated with internalizing problems.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it