A multicomponent approach toward understanding emotion regulation in schizophrenia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Emotion deficits are well documented in people with schizophrenia. Far less is known about their ability to implement emotion regulation strategies. We sought to explore whether people with schizophrenia can modify their emotion responses similar to controls. METHODS: People with (n = 25) and without (n = 21) schizophrenia were instructed to amplify positive-emotion expression, reappraise negative emotion experience, and suppress physiological response. Multiple components of emotion response were measured (experience, expression, and physiology). RESULTS: Although people with schizophrenia showed increased positive expressivity following amplification and decreased negative emotion experience following reappraisal, overall, they expressed less positive emotion and experienced more negative emotion compared with controls. Neither group was effective at physiological suppression. CONCLUSIONS: Together these findings suggest that people with schizophrenia can engage in amplification and reappraisal when explicitly instructed to do so, albeit additional practice may be necessary to modify emotion responses to levels similar to controls.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".