The Tension Between Cognitive and Regulatory Flexibility and Their Associations With Current and Lifetime PTSD Symptoms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, researchers have tried to unpack the meaning of the term flexibility and test how different constructs of flexibility are associated with various psychopathologies. For example, it is apparent that high levels of flexibility allow individuals to adaptively cope and avoid psychopathology following traumatic events, but the precise nature of this flexibility is ambiguous. In this study we focus on two central constructs: cognitive flexibility – the ability to recognize and implement possible responses to a situation– and regulatory flexibility – the ability to modulate emotional expression and experience across situations. We aim to explore the connection between cognitive and regulatory flexibility and evaluate their relative effect on PTSD symptoms. Trauma-exposed college students ( N = 109, M age = 25.31, SD = 4.59) were assessed for cognitive and regulatory flexibility and current and lifetime PTSD symptoms. We predicted and found a relatively weak, yet significant, overlap between participants’ cognitive and regulatory flexibility. Importantly, while both cognitive and regulatory flexibility were associated with lifetime PTSD symptoms, only cognitive flexibility was associated with current PTSD symptoms. The findings illuminate the possible value of differentiating between constructs of flexibility in predicting short and long-term effects of traumatic exposure and may pave the ground for developing personalized intervention methods.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 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".