Dimensions of Emotion Regulation as Mediators of the Relationship Between Emotion Controllability Beliefs With Stress and Well-Being
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although beliefs about the extent to which emotions are amenable versus immutable to control (i.e., implicit theories of emotion) have been linked to various mental health indices, mediators of this relationship remain unclear. This study extends prior research by examining dimensions of emotion regulation (ER) difficulties as parallel mediators in the relationship between emotion controllability beliefs and stress and well-being among university students ( n = 483). Higher emotion controllability beliefs were found to be associated with fewer difficulties in emotional clarity, emotional acceptance, effective ER strategy access, impulse control, and goal-directed behaviour. Moreover, the relationship between emotion controllability beliefs and stress and well-being was mediated by emotional clarity and strategy access. Results implicate difficulties understanding one’s own emotions and accessing effective ER strategies as key mechanisms through which lower emotion controllability beliefs may be associated with higher stress and lower well-being. Conversely, better emotional clarity and greater access to effective ER strategies may explain why higher emotion controllability beliefs are associated with better mental health. The present study provides support for the role of implicit theories of emotion in clarifying patterns of adaptive versus maladaptive emotional responding, and sheds light on the cognitive processes underlying individual differences in emotion regulation and mental health. Furthermore, findings offer novel insight regarding the specific emotion regulatory mechanisms through which emotion controllability beliefs may be associated with mental health.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".