How should I regulate my emotions if I want to run faster?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study investigated the effects of emotion regulation strategies on self-reported emotions and 1600 m track running performance. In stage 1 of a three-stage study, participants (N = 15) reported emotional states associated with best, worst and ideal performance. Results indicated that a best and ideal emotional state for performance composed of feeling happy, calm, energetic and moderately anxious whereas the worst emotional state for performance composed of feeling downhearted, sluggish and highly anxious. In stage 2, emotion regulation interventions were developed using online material and supported by electronic feedback. One intervention motivated participants to increase the intensity of unpleasant emotions (e.g. feel more angry and anxious). A second intervention motivated participants to reduce the intensity of unpleasant emotions (e.g. feel less angry and anxious). In stage 3, using a repeated measures design, participants used each intervention before running a 1600 m time trial. Data were compared with a no treatment control condition. The intervention designed to increase the intensity of unpleasant emotions resulted in higher anxiety and lower calmness scores but no significant effects on 1600 m running time. The intervention designed to reduce the intensity of unpleasant emotions was associated with significantly slower times for the first 400 m. We suggest future research should investigate emotion regulation, emotion and performance using quasi-experimental methods with performance measures that are meaningful to participants.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".