CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 30Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional DevelopmentMental Health Research Topics

Do I really feel better? Effectiveness of emotion regulation strategies depends on the measure and social anxiety

Open access
Daniel, Katharine E., Baee, Sonia, Boukhechba, Mehdi, Barnes, Laura E., Teachman, Bethany A.·2019·Depression and Anxiety
DOI 10.1002/da.22970
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Effective emotion regulation (ER) is important to long-term healthy functioning, but little is known about what constitutes effective ER in the moment or how social anxiety symptoms and different strategies influence short-term effectiveness outcomes. METHODS: Intensive ecological momentary data from N = 124 college students illustrate how different ways of operationalizing ER effectiveness leads to different conclusions about the short-term effectiveness of different strategies in daily life. RESULTS: When effectiveness is operationalized as the degree to which participants judged that their ER attempts made them feel better, social anxiety severity was negatively associated with effectiveness, and avoidance-oriented strategies were judged to be less effective than engagement-oriented strategies. In contrast, when effectiveness is operationalized as the degree of change in self-reported affect following ER attempts, social anxiety severity was not related to effectiveness, and avoidance-oriented strategies were more effective than engagement-oriented strategies. Social anxiety and ER strategy type did not interact in either model, regardless of how effectiveness was measured. CONCLUSIONS: The study highlights discrepancies when examining two common but distinct ways of measuring the same overarching effectiveness construct, and raises intriguing questions about how forms of psychopathology that are intimately tied to emotion dysregulation, like social anxiety, moderate different ways of measuring the effectiveness of ER attempts.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/da.22970

Cites

45 of 45 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Some studies included a mix of random prompt, event-contingent, and end-of-day records.

    “studies such as those by Daniel et al [24], Helbig-Lang et [46], and Kashdan et al [20] included a mix of different types of data collection, combining random prompt, event-contingent, and end-of-day records.”

    From Studies of Social Anxiety Using Ambulatory Assessment: Systematic Review (2024) · cites this paper as [24]

    Section 2.1 (Participants; page unavailable) describes randomly timed smartphone surveys, supporting the random-prompt part of the claim. It does not describe event-contingent or end-of-day records; the same-day observation pairs in Sections 2.1 and 3 are an analysis of survey responses, not a separate end-of-day collection method. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Daniel et al found that, depending on the way in which effectiveness is measured (either judgment of effectiveness or change in affect), the results differ.

    “Daniel et al [24] found that, depending on the way in which effectiveness is measured (either judgment of effectiveness or change in affect), the results differ.”

    From Studies of Social Anxiety Using Ambulatory Assessment: Systematic Review (2024) · cites this paper as [24]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Mattick, R. P., & Clarke, J. C. (1998). Development and validation of measures of social phobia scrutiny fear and social interaction anxiety. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 36(4), 455-470.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Daniel, K. E., Baee, S., Boukhechba, M., Barnes, L. E., & Teachman, B. A.
Affiliations
University of Virginia (US)
Corresponding author
Daniel, Katharine E.
ORCID
Venue
Depression and Anxiety
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2019-10-25
Volume
36
Issue
12
Pages
1182-1190
ISSN
  • 1091-4269 (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-6394
DOI
10.1002/da.22970
OpenAlex
W2981794612
Cited by
30
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1
FWCI
3.24
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Depression and Anxiety (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Office of Extramural Research, National Institutes of Health (R01MH113752)
  • University of Virginia (Hobby Postdoctoral and Predoctoral Fellowship Grant)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Child and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Mental Health Research Topics
Keywords
emotion regulation, social anxiety, self-reported affect, subjective well-being, effectiveness evaluation, emotional dysregulation, university students
MeSH terms
Phobia, Social, Emotional Regulation, Anxiety, Emotions, Female, Humans, Male, Psychopathology, Students, Young Adult, Self Report

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review