Emotion regulation during adolescence: Antecedent or outcome of depressive symptomology?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Consistently, moderate to strong correlations between emotion regulation and depressive symptomology are well documented. This relationship is most often conceptualized as unidirectional, in that poor emotion regulation acts as a pre-existing risk factor for depressive symptomatology. However, explicit examinations of the direction of this relationship have been limited, and support for a directional relation between emotion regulation and psychopathology has been inconsistent. Moreover, the majority of the research exploring these associations relies on adult participants and the studies that have examined emotion regulation and depression in adolescents have relied almost exclusively on cross-sectional data. As a replication and extension of work that has been done by others, the current study assessed Suppression and Reappraisal use and Depressive Symptoms in 1343 adolescents (Mean age = 12.9 years, SD = 0.85) who completed assessments of emotion regulation and depressive symptoms four times over two years. Results indicated that only Suppression but not Reappraisal was concurrently correlated with Depressive Symptoms. Moreover, a correlated slopes analysis showed that within-subject changes in use of Suppression, but not Reappraisal, were associated with within-subject changes in Depressive Symptoms over time. Finally, a cross-lag panel analysis showed that while Depressive Symptoms were predictive of future Suppression use, Suppression use did not predict later Depressive Symptoms. Therefore, while Suppression and Depressive Symptoms seem to be associated during adolescence, associations between reappraisal and depressive symptomology were not present in the current study. Moreover, despite previous evidence supporting emotion regulation as a risk factor for depression, suppression may be the outcome, rather than the antecedent, of depressive symptoms during adolescence.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".