Understanding reappraisal as a multicomponent process: The psychological health benefits of attempting to use reappraisal depend on reappraisal success.
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
When is reappraisal-reframing a situation's meaning to alter its emotional impact-associated with psychological health? To answer this question, we should consider that reappraisal is a multicomponent process that includes, first, deciding to attempt to use reappraisal and, second, implementing reappraisal with varying degrees of success. Although theories of emotion regulation suggest that both attempting reappraisal more frequently and implementing reappraisal more successfully are necessary to achieve greater psychological health, no research has directly tested this assumption. We propose that daily diaries are particularly well suited to assess these 2 components because diaries can capture repeated attempts and success in daily life and with relative precision. In a sample of community adults (N = 219), we found that among participants experiencing elevated life stress (but not among those experiencing lower life stress), attempting reappraisal more frequently was associated with fewer depressive symptoms for those who used reappraisal more successfully, but was associated with somewhat more depressive symptoms for those who used reappraisal less successfully. These findings suggest that attempting reappraisal is associated with benefits only when individuals can implement it successfully. Thus, to fully understand the health implications of emotion regulation, we must consider it as a multicomponent process. (PsycINFO Database Record
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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