Emotion
2014, Vol. 14, No. 2, 235–240
© 2014 American Psychological Association
1528-3542/14/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0035422
BRIEF REPORT
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Emotion Reactivity and Regulation Are Associated With Psychological
Functioning Following the 2011 Earthquake, Tsunami, and Nuclear
Crisis in Japan
Sarah R. Cavanagh and Erin J. Fitzgerald
Heather L. Urry
Assumption College
Tufts University
Frequent and successful use of cognitive reappraisal, an emotion regulation strategy that involves
rethinking the meaning of an emotional event in order to change one’s emotional response, has been
linked in everyday life to positive outcomes such as higher well-being. Whether we should expect this
association to be maintained in a strong, temporally and spatially close emotional context is an
unexplored question that might have important implications for our understanding of emotion regulation
and its relations to psychological functioning. In this study of members of the U. S. Embassy Tokyo
community in the months following the March 2011 earthquake, tsunami, and nuclear crisis in Japan,
self-reported use of cognitive reappraisal was not related to psychological functioning, but demonstrated
success using cognitive reappraisal to decrease feelings of unpleasantness in response to disaster-related
pictures on a performance-based task was associated with fewer symptoms of depression and posttraumatic stress. Moreover, emotional reactivity to these pictures was associated with greater symptomatology. These results suggest that situational intensity may be an important moderator of reappraisal and
psychological functioning relationships.
Keywords: cognitive reappraisal, emotion regulation, PTSD, trauma
Supplemental materials: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0035422.supp
As we navigate our lives, we encounter emotional challenges
small (your toddler throws a tantrum) and large (your spouse asks
for a divorce). How we regulate the emotions these challenges
evoke may impact our ill- and well-being (Gross & John, 2003).
For example, regular use of and success at implementing cognitive
reappraisal (CR), or the reinterpretation of the meaning of an
emotional event, has been linked to good outcomes such as higher
well-being (e.g., McRae, Jacobs, Ray, John, & Gross, 2012).
However, these investigations evaluated everyday situations, leaving open an important question: What happens when we encounter
a situation of extraordinary intensity?
Consider the plight of people living in Japan when the March
2011 earthquake, tsunami, and nuclear disasters struck. Two participants recollect their experience:
I thought it was my time to die. The SOUND and VIBRATIONS . . .
creaking, cracking, swaying, rumbling . . .
I was terrified as I huddled in a small room. [M]y consciousness
seemed to cross over to a place that had accepted the shaking would
never stop.
How might such high-intensity situations impact CR and psychological functioning relationships? On the one hand, Sheppes et
al. (2012) demonstrated that high-intensity situations lead people
to choose an emotion regulation strategy other than CR— distraction—which is quickly implemented and requires fewer cognitive
resources. In the short term, at least, this suggests that highintensity situations like the Japan crisis ought to reduce CR use
and, thus, by reducing negative emotional responding, possibly
predict better concurrent functioning. On the other hand, crosssectional studies directly assessing the CR use and functioning
relationship among trauma-exposed people have indicated that
lower CR use is associated with higher posttraumatic symptomatology (Boden, Bonn-Miller, Kashdan, Alvarez, & Gross, 2012;
Boden et al., 2013; Eftekhari, Zoellner, & Vigil, 2009; Ehring &
Quack, 2010). These studies are critical for documenting the
potential importance of CR following trauma, but have limitations.
For one, all of these studies have demonstrated the CR use and
functioning association quite some time after trauma exposure,
either assessing combat-exposed veterans from a variety of wars
Sarah R. Cavanagh and Erin J. Fitzgerald, Department of Psychology,
Assumption College; and Heather L. Urry, Department of Psychology,
Tufts University.
Supported by Psi Chi. Our sincere thanks to Paul M. Fitzgerald for his
instrumental assistance with recruitment. Please note that the first two
authors contributed equally to this manuscript.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Sarah R.
Cavanagh, Department of Psychology, Assumption College, 500 Salisbury
Street, Worcester MA 01609. E-mail: [email protected]
235
CAVANAGH, FITZGERALD, AND URRY
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
236
(Boden et al., 2012; Boden et al., 2013; over a third of participants
in each study were Vietnam veterans) or community samples
surveyed about any past trauma, extending back to childhood
(Eftekhari et al., 2009; Ehring & Quack, 2010). The association
may differ if assessed closer to the trauma. When intensity is high,
victims may be apt to engage in less resource-intensive strategies
than CR. In addition, these studies assessed people exposed to a
variety of traumas; trauma type thus remains a viable thirdvariable explanation for the CR use and functioning relationships.
Third, these studies focused on CR use, that is, the frequency with
which people reported using CR to regulate emotion. CR use may
be differentiated from CR success, that is, demonstrable change in
emotions in accordance with one’s emotion-regulatory goal. Troy,
Wilhelm, Shallcross, and Mauss (2010) have presented evidence
that better CR success relates to lower depressive symptoms, but
only under high life stress. Because high life stress was operationalized as an accumulation of ordinary life stressors (from changes
in sleep to job loss), it is unknown whether this may hold true
when people experience events outside the realm of ordinary life
experience (e.g., two natural disasters, ongoing threat of a nuclear
disaster). Finally, greater CR use is associated with lower negative
emotion and higher positive emotion (Gross & John, 2003), yet
none of the existing studies assessed whether CR is uniquely
associated with functioning above and beyond emotion reactivity.
We conducted an online assessment of CR use (using the
Emotion Regulation Questionnaire [ERQ]), CR success, emotion
reactivity (using a performance-based picture task), and psychological functioning (i.e., depression symptoms, posttraumatic
symptoms, and satisfaction with life) in participants living in
Tokyo, Japan, in the months following the March 2011 disasters.
Our participants were recently exposed to potentially traumatic
events of extremely high intensity (the initial earthquake and
tsunami) and were living with daily ongoing stress (the nuclear
crisis and aftershocks were still occurring).
We tested the hypothesis that greater CR use (based on previous
studies) and CR success (on logical grounds) would be associated
with better psychological functioning. However, if (a) highintensity traumatic situations fundamentally alter the use and success of CR or their relation with functioning, and/or (b) emotion
reactivity explains the relation in previous studies, CR use and/or
success may be unrelated or even inversely related to functioning.
“Better psychological functioning” was operationalized as lower
levels of depressive and posttraumatic symptoms and higher levels
of satisfaction with life.
Method
We report how we determined our sample size, all data exclusions, all manipulations, and all measures in the study (Simmons,
Nelson, & Simonsohn, 2012).
Participants
One hundred twenty people started the survey, and 53 (61.1%
female; 31 American and 22 Japanese/Okinawan) provided data on
all key measures. All participants were permanently residing in
Japan during the crisis. All materials were presented in English.
Participants were members of the U.S. Embassy Tokyo community, and were recruited on a volunteer basis through email, flyer,
and digital bulletin board. To maximize statistical power, our
sample size was determined by recruiting as many participants as
possible between July 1 and 31, 2011 (thus, 3– 4 months after the
initial earthquake). All procedures were approved by the Assumption College Institutional Review Board; participants provided
electronic informed consent.
Materials and Procedures
Participants were directed to the study website (hosted by SurveyMonkey.com) where they completed demographics, the picture
task, a disaster-related questionnaire, and questionnaires about
psychological functioning (in this order; see Table 1 for descriptive statistics, including internal consistency estimates for all measures using Cronbach’s alpha).
Table 1
Means (Standard Deviations) for Control Variables, Measures
of Self-Reported Frequency of Emotion Regulation Strategy Use,
and Psychological Functioning
Measures
Control variables
Age (years)
Sex (female)
SDS score
Emotion regulation
ERQ CR subscale score
Picture task arousal ratings
Decrease negative
View negative
View neutral
Increase positive
View positive
Picture task valence ratings
Decrease negative
View negative
View neutral
Increase positive
View positive
Psychological functioning
PCL-C score
BDI-II score
SWLS score
M (SD)
Cronbach’s ␣
43.21 (10.52)
62.3%
17.51 (4.35)
NA
NA
.64
29.68 (6.30)
.83
6.38 (1.60)
6.85 (1.48)
3.44 (1.46)
3.23 (1.55)
3.15 (1.68)
.82
.84
.80
.73
.84
7.30 (1.06)
7.74 (0.83)
4.51 (0.73)
2.60 (1.24)
2.41 (1.15)
.77
.75
.58
.85
.89
31.32 (10.05)
7.28 (6.09)
24.99 (5.87)
.89
.86
.83
Note. We submitted the valence and arousal ratings to general linear
model analyses with cognitive reappraisal (CR) condition (negative decrease, negative view, positive increase, positive view, neutral view) as a
within-subjects factor, and age, sex, nationality, and SDS scores as covariates of no interest. These analyses revealed a significant main effects of
CR condition for valence, F(2.31, 111.06) ⫽ 15.48, p ⬍ .001, ␩2p ⫽ .24,
and arousal, F(2.28, 109.45) ⫽ 3.17, p ⫽ .040, ␩2p ⫽ .06. Pairwise
comparisons (Fisher’s least significant difference) revealed that negative
pictures were more arousing and unpleasant than positive or neutral pictures, and positive pictures were more pleasant than neutral pictures.
Moreover, participants demonstrated successful reduction of negative emotions, rating negative pictures as less arousing and unpleasant when instructed to decrease their emotions compared with the view condition.
However, participants did not demonstrate successful upregulation of positive emotions; positive pictures were not rated more arousing or pleasant
when instructed to increase their emotions. NA ⫽ not applicable; SDS ⫽
Marlowe⫺Crowne Social Desirability Scale; ERQ CR ⫽ Emotion Regulation Questionnaire Cognitive Reappraisal subscale; PCL-C ⫽ Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Checklist, Civilian Version; BDI-II ⫽ Beck Depression Inventory⫺II; SWLS ⫽ Satisfaction With Life Scale.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
COGNITIVE REAPPRAISAL CRISIS
CR use. To evaluate the extent to which participants used CR
in everyday life, participants completed the well-validated 10-item
ERQ (Gross & John, 2003), which yields a score reflecting the
degree to which people habitually use CR (e.g., “When I want to
feel less negative emotion, I change the way I’m thinking about the
situation”).
Picture task. Participants were asked to regulate their emotional response to negative (disaster-related; e.g., toddler being
scanned for radiation), positive (e.g., bride on her wedding day),
and neutral (e.g., man washing windows) pictures. The negative
pictures were selected from major media outlets. Neutral and
positive pictures were selected from the online image source
DepositPhotos.
Participants were trained to use CR (instruction: “To change
your emotional response, you should change how you THINK
about the meaning of the picture”). During training, participants
viewed four example pictures each, followed by three different
examples of possible cognitive reappraisals, as well as an example
view trial. Following CR training, the instructions were shortened
to “Please DECREASE/INCREASE your emotional reaction (feel
more/less emotional)” and “Please VIEW the picture naturally (do
not change your emotional reaction)”.
The CR task was presented in five blocks (three pseudorandom
orders) of five trials (decrease/negative, view/negative, view/neutral, increase/positive, and view/positive). Participants rated their
experienced arousal (calm-to-exciting) and valence (pleasant-tounpleasant) using 9-point scales after each trial. Means were
computed across trials for each participant within each cell of the
design for general linear model (GLM) analysis. Reliability analyses indicated that the condition means were estimated with acceptable internal consistency despite the low number of trials (see
Table 1). Scores capturing emotion reactivity (view/negative –
view/neutral; view/positive – view/neutral) and CR success (view/
negative – decrease/negative; increase/positive – view/positive)
were computed for correlation and regression analyses.
Psychological functioning. To assess psychological functioning, participants completed the Posttraumatic Stress Disorder
Checklist, Civilian Version (PCL-C; Weathers, Huska, & Keane,
1991); the Beck Depression Inventory⫺II (BDI-II; Beck, Steer, &
Brown, 1996), modified to exclude the suicidal ideation item; and
the Satisfaction With Life Scale (SWLS; Diener, Emmons, Larsen,
& Griffin, 1985).1
Control variables. To assess the degree to which self-report
responses in this study might be impacted by self-presentation
concerns, participants also completed the Crowne⫺Marlowe Social Desirability Scale (SDS; Crowne & Marlowe, 1960). Along
with sex, age, and nationality (i.e., American and Japanese), SDS
scores were entered as covariates of no interest in all analyses,
though repeating the analyses with no covariates did not substantially change the results.
Results
Did Participants React Emotionally and Successfully
Implement CR?
To assess emotion reactivity and CR success during the picture
task, we submitted the valence and arousal ratings to GLM anal-
237
yses with CR condition (negative/decrease, negative/view, positive/increase, positive/view, neutral/view) as a within-subjects factor, and age, sex, nationality, and SDS scores as covariates of no
interest. As reported in Table 1, these analyses suggested that
participants responded emotionally to the pictures; they rated
negative pictures as more arousing and unpleasant and positive
pictures as more pleasant than neutral pictures.
Moreover, participants demonstrated successful reduction of negative emotions, rating negative pictures as less arousing and unpleasant when instructed to decrease their emotions compared with the
view condition. However, participants did not demonstrate successful
upregulation of positive emotions. We thus focused on CR success in
decreasing negative emotion when testing our hypotheses.
Was Self-Reported CR Use Associated With Better
CR Success?
To examine whether CR use based on the ERQ was significantly
related to CR success assessed in the picture task, we conducted
bivariate correlations between CR use and our measures of CR
success. None of the use and success measures correlated (lowest
p ⫽ .28).
Were CR Use and Success Associated With
Psychological Functioning?
To investigate whether CR use and success predicted levels of
psychological functioning, we computed three linear regressions
with BDI-II, PCL-C, and SWLS scores as criterion variables. Age,
sex, SDS scores, and nationality were entered as control variables
on a first step, negative emotion reactivity (view/negative – view/
neutral) was entered on the second step, and CR use and negative
CR success (view/negative – decrease/negative) were entered on
the third step.2
These analyses revealed that CR use did not significantly predict
BDI-II (p ⫽ .18) or PCL-C (p ⫽ .76) scores. However, greater
negative CR success (valence) was associated with lower selfreported depressive, ␤ ⫽ ⫺3.70, t(43) ⫽ ⫺3.10, p ⫽ .003, and
posttraumatic, ␤ ⫽ ⫺5.43, t(43) ⫽ ⫺2.82, p ⫽ .007, symptoms. In
addition, greater negative emotion reactivity (valence) was associated with higher depressive, ␤ ⫽ 2.60, t(43) ⫽ 2.81, p ⫽ .007,
and posttraumatic, ␤ ⫽ 6.51, t(43) ⫽ 4.36, p ⬍ .001, symptoms
(see Figure 1 for partial regression plots).3 Neither arousal-rated
CR success nor emotion reactivity predicted psychological functioning, and none of the CR or emotion reactivity measures predicted satisfaction with life.
1
Participants also completed items assessing Asian and European American values (Butler et al., 2007). These data are not presented, because of
high overlap with our nationality groupings. Because our focus in this
study was CR, we do not report data on the Emotion Regulation Questionnaire Expressive Suppression subscale.
2
Table 2, available in supplemental material, provides the correlations between
these condition means and our measures of psychological functioning.
3
To investigate whether nationality moderated the relationship between
CR success and Beck Depression Inventory⫺II (BDI-II) and Posttraumatic
Stress Disorder Checklist, Civilian Version (PCL-C), scores, we repeated
these regressions, removing nationality as a control variable on the first
step and, instead, including the interaction of nationality and CR success on
the fourth step. Nationality did not interact with CR success to predict
either BDI (p ⫽ .94) or PCL-C (p ⫽ .31) scores.
CAVANAGH, FITZGERALD, AND URRY
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
238
Figure 1. Partial regression plots depicting the association between cognitive reappraisal (CR) success for rated
unpleasantness (view negative – decrease negative), emotion reactivity (view negative – view neutral) (x axes),
and Beck Depression Inventory⫺II scores, Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Checklist (Civilian) scores (y axes).
Higher success using CR to decrease rated feelings of unpleasantness was associated with lower depressive and
posttraumatic symptoms, and greater emotion reactivity was associated with higher depressive and posttraumatic
symptoms. Repeating the emotional reactivity/PCL_C analysis without the value in the upper right-hand corner
did not affect the significance level of the results.
Discussion
In the aftermath of the March 2011 earthquake, tsunami, and
nuclear crisis in Japan, greater emotional reactivity to disasterrelated images and success using CR to regulate these emotions
predicted concurrent symptoms of psychopathology in participants
still living with the effects of the disasters. Higher emotional
reactivity was associated with poorer functioning and better CR
success associated with better functioning.
We did not replicate past research linking CR use and psychological functioning following trauma exposure (e.g., Boden et al., 2013).
Consistent with Sheppes et al.’s (2012) theoretical model, the emotional intensity associated with close temporal and spatial proximity
of the crisis may have altered the typical CR⫺functioning relations.
Frequently choosing CR may be adaptive for everyday situations, but
not when emotions become extremely intense. Future investigations
should evaluate whether resource-sparing strategies (e.g., distraction)
may be better associated with psychological functioning under these
circumstances.
Although CR use was not associated with psychological functioning, our results provide one of the first empirical demonstrations that
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
COGNITIVE REAPPRAISAL CRISIS
higher CR success on a performance-based task is linked to better
psychological functioning following a trauma. Prospective research
investigating multiple channels of the emotional response (i.e., physiological response and expressive behavior) is needed to elaborate on
this intriguing but preliminary finding. If replicated in such designs,
this would provide support for the idea that skill at decreasing negative emotions by changing one’s thoughts about the event is associated with better immediate outcomes in potentially traumatic circumstances. This is consistent with multiple theoretical models of
emotions and their management (e.g., Beck, 1975; Gross & John,
2003), but has not been demonstrated before in a performance-based
task in a recently trauma-exposed sample.
In addition to CR success, greater ratings of unpleasantness to
disaster-related images uniquely predicted higher levels of posttraumatic and depressive symptoms. Practically speaking, this
suggests that our picture task validly indexed emotional reactivity.
This finding is also consistent with studies demonstrating that
psychophysiological reactivity to trauma cues is associated with
posttraumatic symptoms (Pitman et al., 2012). The current work
conceptually replicates and extends this association in a sample
with relatively low symptomatology, supporting arguments that we
should conceptualize symptoms of mental distress in a continuous
rather than a categorical framework (Insel et al., 2010).
Our measures of CR use and CR success did not correlate
significantly, whereas the few studies that have evaluated both in
the same participants have demonstrated a modest but significant
relationship (e.g., McRae, Gross, et al., 2012). However, there are
good reasons to separate emotion regulation frequency from success (McRae, 2013), and the absence of strong associations in the
present study and the modest nature of associations in other studies
would suggest that doing something frequently does not necessarily mean doing it well. Echoing McRae (2013), we suggest that
researchers measure both frequency and success whenever possible, because they may have different functional consequences.
This research has several notable strengths. We studied an
ecologically valid sample of culturally diverse men and women
still living with the effects of the crisis. In addition, we demonstrated that it is both feasible and conceptually lucrative to administer a performance-based task assessing individual differences in
emotion reactivity and CR success online. The task was relatively
brief and yielded signs of both valid and reliable assessment. Of
import, the task revealed that emotional reactivity and successful
emotion regulation each contribute unique variance to concurrent
symptomatology in the wake of a potentially traumatic event.
This study also has several limitations, thus, our conclusions are
tentative. For one, all of our measures were self-report and correlational. Although the inclusion of a measure of social desirability
bias partially mitigates the self-report weakness, it is nonetheless
true that this is not a precise measure of experimental demand, and
these self-reports could be subject to a number of other biases.
Moreover, the correlational nature of these data prevents us from
making conclusions about causal relationships. In addition, to
minimize participant burden and maximize recruitment, we used a
limited number of trials and, given the web-based assessment, had
no experimental control over the circumstances in which participants completed the picture task and questionnaires. That participants rated their emotional response to the conditions largely as
expected and that we observed acceptable to high levels of internal
consistency mitigates these concerns to some degree. Finally, for
239
several reasons,4 we do not report how these CR and functioning
relationships varied by culture, which extensive research has suggested they should (e.g., Matsumoto, Yoo, Nakagawa, & Sanae
Multinational Study of Cultural Display Rules, 2008). However,
we did control for cultural background in all of our analyses.
Conclusion
Our results provide evidence that, in the months after exposure
to a potential trauma, emotional reactivity to reminders of the
event is linked with poorer functioning, and demonstrated success
implementing CR is linked with better functioning. CR use, by
contrast, was not linked with functioning in this context. Overall,
these results underscore the potential importance of situational
intensity as a moderator of CR and psychological functioning
relationships.
4
Americans living and working in Japan and Japanese working in an
English-speaking American environment are probably not representative of
most Americans and Japanese. These cultural groups could have varied in
reporting styles or demand characteristics as well as cognitive reappraisal
and functioning, and the two groups may have been differentially impacted
by the disasters.
References
Beck, A. T. (1975). Cognitive therapy and the emotional disorders. New
York, NY: International Universities Press.
Beck, A. T., Steer, R. A., & Brown, G. K. (1996). Manual for the Beck
Depression Inventory⫺II. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
Boden, M. T., Bonn-Miller, M. O., Kashdan, T. B., Alvarez, J., & Gross,
J. J. (2012). The interactive effects of emotional clarity and cognitive
reappraisal in posttraumatic stress disorder. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 26, 233–238. doi:10.1016/j.janxdis.2011.11.007
Boden, M. T., Westermann, S., McRae, K., Kuo, J., Alvarez, J., Kulkarni,
M. R., . . . Bonn-Miller, M. O. (2013). Emotion regulation and posttraumatic stress disorder: A prospective investigation. Journal of Social
and Clinical Psychology, 32, 296 –314. doi:10.1521/jscp.2013.32.3.296
Butler, E. A., Lee, T. L., & Gross, J. J. (2007). Emotion regulation and
culture: Are the social consequences of emotion suppression culturespecific? Emotion, 7, 30 – 48. doi:10.1037/1528-3542.7.1.30
Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability
independent of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24,
349 –354. doi:10.1037/h0047358
Diener, E., Emmons, R., Larsen, R., & Griffin, S. (1985). The Satisfaction
With Life Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71–75. doi:
10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13
Eftekhari, A., Zoellner, L. A., & Vigil, S. A. (2009). Patterns of emotion
regulation and psychopathology. Anxiety, Stress & Coping: An International Journal, 22, 571–586. doi:10.1080/10615800802179860
Ehring, T., & Quack, D. (2010). Emotion regulation difficulties in trauma
survivors: The role of trauma type and PTSD symptom severity. Behavior Therapy, 41, 587–598. doi:10.1016/j.beth.2010.04.004
Gross, J. J., & John, O. (2003). Individual differences in two emotion
regulation processes: Implications for affect, relationships, and wellbeing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 348 –362.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.85.2.348
Insel, T., Cuthbert, B., Garvey, M., Heinssen, R., Pine, D., Quinn, K., . . .
Wang, P. (2010). Research domain criteria (RDoC): toward a new
classification framework for research on mental disorders. The American
Journal of Psychiatry, 167(7), 748 –751. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.2010
.09091379
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
240
CAVANAGH, FITZGERALD, AND URRY
Matsumoto, D., Yoo, S. H., Nakagawa, S., & Sanae Multinational Study of
Cultural Display Rules. (2008). Culture, emotion regulation, and adjustment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 925–937.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.94.6.925
McRae, K. (2013). Emotion regulation frequency and success: Separating
constructs from methods and time scale. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 7, 289 –302. doi:10.1111/spc3.12027
McRae, K., Gross, J. J., Weber, J., Robertson, E. R., Sokol-Hessner, P.,
Ray, R. D., . . . Ochsner, K. N. (2012). The development of emotion
regulation: An fMRI study of cognitive reappraisal in children, adolescents and young adults. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 7,
11–22. doi:10.1093/scan/nsr093
McRae, K., Jacobs, S. E., Ray, R. D., John, O. P., & Gross, J. J. (2012).
Individual differences in reappraisal ability: Links to reappraisal frequency, well-being, and cognitive control. Journal of Research in Personality, 46, 2–7. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2011.10.003
Pitman, R. K., Rasmusson, A. M., Koenen, K. C., Shin, L. M., Orr, S. P.,
Gilbertson, M. W., . . . Liberzon, I. (2012). Biological studies of
post-traumatic stress disorder, Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 13, 769 –
787. doi:10.1038/nrn3339
Sheppes, G., Scheibe, S., Suri, G., Radu, P., Blechert, J., & Gross, J. J.
(2012). Emotion regulation choice: A conceptual framework and supporting evidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. Advance online publication. doi:10.1037/a0030831
Simmons, J., Nelson, L., & Simonsohn, U. (2012). A 21 word solution.
Available at SSRN 2160588.
Troy, A. S., Wilhelm, F. H., Shallcross, A. J., & Mauss, I. B. (2010).
Seeing the silver lining: Cognitive reappraisal ability moderates the
relationship between stress and depressive symptoms. Emotion, 10,
783–795. doi:10.1037/a0020262
Weathers, F. W., Huska, J. A., & Keane, T. M. (1991). PCL-C for
DSM–IV. Boston, MA: National Center for PTSD, Behavioral Science
Division.
Received January 9, 2013
Revision received October 23, 2013
Accepted October 25, 2013 䡲