Understanding the association between reappraisal use and depressive symptoms during adolescence: the moderating influence of regulatory success
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Higher levels of reliance on cognitive reappraisal to manage daily emotional events are commonly associated with lower levels of depressive symptoms. However, reappraisal is a cognitively demanding regulation strategy, and its efficacy may depend on how successfully an individual is able to employ it. Individual differences in the association between reappraisal use and depressive symptoms may be particularly evident during adolescence, when the cognitive skills required to implement this complex strategy are still in development. The current study sought to determine whether the association between reappraisal use and subsequent depressive symptom development is contingent on perceived regulatory success when using reappraisal. At Wave 1, adolescents (n = 178, mean age = 13.92, 49.7% female) used an experience-sampling smartphone app to report on their reappraisal use and perceptions of regulatory success over the course of two weeks. Six, 12, and 18 months later, adolescents completed a self-report measure of their depressive symptoms. Results showed that a) reappraisal use was associated with both subsequent depressive symptoms and trajectories of depressive symptoms over time, b) these associations were moderated by perceptions of regulatory success. Higher levels of reappraisal use were associated with lower levels of depressive symptoms only for those who reported higher than average between-subject regulatory success when reappraisal was enacted.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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".