Rumination and Emotions in Nonsuicidal Self‐Injury and Eating Disorder Behaviors: A Preliminary Test of the Emotional Cascade Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study examined relations between repeated rumination trials and emotions in nonsuicidal self-injury (NSSI) and eating disorder behaviors (EDBs) within the context of the emotional cascade model (Selby, Anestis, & Joiner, 2008). METHOD: Rumination was repeatedly induced in 342 university students (79.2% female, Mage = 18.61, standard error = .08); negative and positive emotions were reported after each rumination trial. Repeated measures analyses of variance were used to examine the relations between NSSI and EDB history and changes in emotions. RESULTS: NSSI history associated with greater initial increases in negative emotions, whereas EDB history associated with greater initial decreases in positive emotions. Baseline negative emotional states and trait emotion regulation mediated the relation between NSSI/EDB history and emotional states after rumination. CONCLUSION: Although NSSI and EDBs share similarities in emotion dysregulation, differences also exist. Both emotion dysregulation and maladaptive cognitive processes should be targeted in treatment for NSSI and EDBs.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".