MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2048861222 · doi:10.1521/jscp.24.2.172.62269

Effects of Suppressing Negative Self–Referent Thoughts on Mood and Self–Esteem

2005· article· en· W2048861222 on OpenAlexaff
Jennifer L. S. Borton, Lee J. Markowitz, John Dieterich

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Social and Clinical Psychology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologySelf-esteemReferentMoodNegative moodDepressed moodClinical psychologyDepression (economics)Developmental psychologyThought suppressionCognitionPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Researchers have implicated thought suppression as a factor in the etiology and maintenance of a variety of psychological disorders, including obsessive–compulsive disorder, post–traumatic stress disorder, and depression, but have virtually ignored the potentially harmful effects of suppression on self–esteem. In the current study, we examined the effects of suppressing negative self–referent thoughts on subsequent state self–esteem and mood. Participants who suppressed their negative thoughts, compared to those who did not, experienced lower state self–esteem and more anxious and depressed mood. In addition, participants who rated their thoughts as highly depressing were particularly vulnerable to the negative effects of suppression. The results emphasize the importance of examining the consequences to the self–concept and mood of suppressing negative self–referent thoughts.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.071
GPT teacher head0.460
Teacher spread0.389 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations45
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Social and Clinical PsychologySame topicAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesFrench-language works237,207