A brief reappraisal intervention leads to durable affective benefits.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
People who report frequently using cognitive reappraisal to decrease the impact of potentially upsetting situations report better affective functioning than people who report using cognitive reappraisal less frequently. However, most work linking everyday reappraisal use to affective outcomes has been correlational, making causal inference difficult. In this study, we examined whether 2 weeks of daily practice of reappraising negatively valenced personally relevant events would improve affective functioning compared with a wait-list control. Data were collected between 2021 and 2022 from a sample mainly comprised of females (82%) and who identified as Asian (35%) or White/Caucasian (40%). Our planned analyses indicated that reappraisal decreased depressive symptoms and perceived stress as well as increased life satisfaction both immediately and 4 weeks postintervention. Reductions in depressive symptoms and perceived stress were mediated by increases in reappraisal self-efficacy. These findings support the causal efficacy of brief reappraisal training. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
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".