The DOI matches its Crossref record; 55 of the 63 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 1 of the 24 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
How to handle anxiety: The effects of reappraisal, acceptance, and suppression strategies on anxious arousal
Open accessAbstract
It has been suggested that reappraisal strategies are more effective than suppression strategies for regulating emotions. Recently, proponents of the acceptance-based behavior therapy movement have further emphasized the importance of acceptance-based emotion regulation techniques. In order to directly compare these different emotion regulation strategies, 202 volunteers were asked to give an impromptu speech in front of a video camera. Participants were randomly assigned to one of three groups. The Reappraisal group was instructed to regulate their anxious arousal by reappraising the situation; the Suppression group was asked to suppress their anxious behaviors; and the Acceptance group was instructed to accept their anxiety. As expected, the Suppression group showed a greater increase in heart rate from baseline than the Reappraisal and Acceptance groups. Moreover, the Suppression group reported more anxiety than the Reappraisal group. However, the Acceptance and Suppression groups did not differ in their subjective anxiety response. These results suggest that both reappraising and accepting anxiety is more effective for moderating the physiological arousal than suppressing anxiety. However, reappraising is more effective for moderating the subjective feeling of anxiety than attempts to suppress or accept it. © 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
13 Own interpretation · 9 No full text of the sources · 8 Own method · 7 Own result · 3 Sources not found · 3 No basis given · 1 Supported so far · 1 Not checked yet
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“We used similar instructions as Gross and colleagues to induce suppression (e.g., Gross & Levenson, 1997), and we replicated their earlier findings, suggesting that our experimental manipulation worked (Gross, 1998, 2002; Gross & Levenson, 1997).”
§ How to Handle Anxiety: The Effects of Reappraisal, Acceptance, and Suppression Strategies on Anxious Arousal > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Gross & Levenson, 1997 source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Gross, 1998 source
- Supportedcites Gross, 2002 source
The Affective Consequences of Reappraisal and Suppression: Experimental Data section (p. 4) describes instructions to hide emotional reactions and reports that suppression decreased disgust-expressive behavior. The citing authors’ statement that replicating earlier findings suggests their own manipulation worked is their inference, not a result attributed to Gross (2002). (LLM, conf=0.88)
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The Acceptance and Reappraisal groups did not differ from one another in heart rate changes from baseline (p > .81).”
§ How to Handle Anxiety: The Effects of Reappraisal, Acceptance, and Suppression Strategies on Anxious Arousal > Results > Effect of Emotion Regulation on Psychophysiological Arousal
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Participants complied with the emotion regulation instructions they received.
- Rests on an assumption: The speech task produced enough anticipatory anxiety to reveal group differences.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Approximately half of the participants in all three groups (48.52% of the Reappraisal group, 47.76% of the Suppression group, and 58.20% of the Acceptance group) terminated the speech before the 10 minutes elapsed, χ2 (2) = 1.82, p > .4.”
§ How to Handle Anxiety: The Effects of Reappraisal, Acceptance, and Suppression Strategies on Anxious Arousal > Results > Effect on Speech Length and Speech Termination
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Participants complied with the emotion regulation instructions they received.
- Rests on an assumption: The speech task produced enough anticipatory anxiety to reveal group differences.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The three groups did not differ in the length of speeches, F (2, 199) = 1.88, p > .15.”
§ How to Handle Anxiety: The Effects of Reappraisal, Acceptance, and Suppression Strategies on Anxious Arousal > Results > Effect on Speech Length and Speech Termination
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Participants complied with the emotion regulation instructions they received.
- Rests on an assumption: The speech task produced enough anticipatory anxiety to reveal group differences.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It should be noted, however, that the absolute differences between the groups were not very large.”
§ How to Handle Anxiety: The Effects of Reappraisal, Acceptance, and Suppression Strategies on Anxious Arousal > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As expected, the Suppression group showed a greater increase in heart rate from baseline than the Reappraisal and Acceptance groups.”
- Also stated in: § Effect of Emotion Regulation on Psychophysiological Arousal · plain
“Pairwise post-hoc group comparisons (Least Square Difference) in the changes in heart rate from baseline revealed that the Suppression group had a significantly greater increase in heart rate than the Reappraisal group (mean difference: −1.57, SE = .73, p = .03) and the Acceptance group (mean difference: −1.75, SE = .73, p = .02).”
- Also stated in: § Discussion · plain
“As expected, the Suppression group showed a greater increase in heart rate from baseline than the Reappraisal and Acceptance groups.”
§ How to Handle Anxiety: The Effects of Reappraisal, Acceptance, and Suppression Strategies on Anxious Arousal > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Participants complied with the emotion regulation instructions they received.
- Rests on an assumption: The speech task produced enough anticipatory anxiety to reveal group differences.
- Also stated in: § Effect of Emotion Regulation on Psychophysiological Arousal · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, the Acceptance and Suppression groups did not differ in their subjective anxiety response.”
- Also stated in: § Effect of Emotion Regulation on Psychophysiological Arousal · plain
“No significant differences were observed in STAI changes between the Acceptance and Suppression groups (mean difference: .90, SE = .66, p = .18)”
- Also stated in: § Discussion · plain
“However, the difference between the Acceptance group and the Suppression group in their subjective anxiety response did not reach statistical significance, despite the sufficiently high test power.”
§ How to Handle Anxiety: The Effects of Reappraisal, Acceptance, and Suppression Strategies on Anxious Arousal > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Participants complied with the emotion regulation instructions they received.
- Rests on an assumption: The brief acceptance instructions were strong enough to engage the intended acceptance process.
- Rests on an assumption: The speech task produced enough anticipatory anxiety to reveal group differences.
- Also stated in: § Effect of Emotion Regulation on Psychophysiological Arousal · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Moreover, the Suppression group reported more anxiety than the Reappraisal group.”
- Also stated in: § Effect of Emotion Regulation on Psychophysiological Arousal · plain
“Pairwise post-hoc group comparison (Least Square Difference) in the STAI changes from baseline showed that the Suppression group reported more anxiety than the Reappraisal group (mean difference: −1.77, SE = .67, p = .008).”
- Also stated in: § Discussion · plain
“Moreover, the Suppression group reported more anxiety than the Reappraisal group.”
§ How to Handle Anxiety: The Effects of Reappraisal, Acceptance, and Suppression Strategies on Anxious Arousal > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Participants complied with the emotion regulation instructions they received.
- Rests on an assumption: The speech task produced enough anticipatory anxiety to reveal group differences.
- Also stated in: § Effect of Emotion Regulation on Psychophysiological Arousal · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“No significant differences were observed in STAI changes between the Acceptance and Suppression groups (mean difference: .90, SE = .66, p = .18), or between the Acceptance and Reappraisal groups (mean difference: .88, SE = .66, p = .19).”
§ How to Handle Anxiety: The Effects of Reappraisal, Acceptance, and Suppression Strategies on Anxious Arousal > Results > Effect of Emotion Regulation on Psychophysiological Arousal
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Participants complied with the emotion regulation instructions they received.
- Rests on an assumption: The brief acceptance instructions were strong enough to engage the intended acceptance process.
- Rests on an assumption: The speech task produced enough anticipatory anxiety to reveal group differences.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, overall, reappraisal was the most effective strategy for regulating anxious arousal in the present study.”
§ How to Handle Anxiety: The Effects of Reappraisal, Acceptance, and Suppression Strategies on Anxious Arousal > Discussion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Participants complied with the emotion regulation instructions they received.
- Rests on an assumption: The brief acceptance instructions were strong enough to engage the intended acceptance process.
- Rests on an assumption: The speech task produced enough anticipatory anxiety to reveal group differences.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 12
- It may state two separate claims as one. 16
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, the three groups showed a small, but statistically significant difference in the STAI scores at baseline, F (2, 193) = 3.06, p = .049, partial η2 = 0.03. Pairwise post-hoc group comparisons (Least Square Difference) showed that the Acceptance group had slightly higher STAI scores at baseline than the Reappraisal group (mean difference: −1.39, SE = .65, p = .034) and the Suppression group”
§ How to Handle Anxiety: The Effects of Reappraisal, Acceptance, and Suppression Strategies on Anxious Arousal > Results > Randomization
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Based on Gross’ model of emotional processing (Gross, 1998), reappraisal may be considered an antecedent-focused strategy, whereas suppression and possibly acceptance (Hofmann & Asmundson, 2008) may be seen as response-focused strategies.”
§ How to Handle Anxiety: The Effects of Reappraisal, Acceptance, and Suppression Strategies on Anxious Arousal > Discussion
What the sources say
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“It has been suggested that antecedent-focused strategies are more effective and less effortful than response-focused strategies because the emotional response can be regulated before it has risen to an overwhelming peak (John & Gross, 2004).”
§ How to Handle Anxiety: The Effects of Reappraisal, Acceptance, and Suppression Strategies on Anxious Arousal > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites John & Gross, 2004 source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Eifert and Heffner (2003) compared the effects of acceptance versus control strategies on the avoidance of panic-relevant interceptive stimulation, elicited by carbon dioxide enriched air. The authors reported that participants assigned to the acceptance condition reported less intense fear and fewer catastrophic thoughts as compared to participants in the control or non-instruction condition.”
§ How to Handle Anxiety: The Effects of Reappraisal, Acceptance, and Suppression Strategies on Anxious Arousal > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Eifert and Heffner (2003) source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although the present study expands the emerging research on emotion regulation, the study is by no means a fair test of acceptance-based treatment strategies, cognitive reappraisal techniques, or of Acceptance and Commitment Therapy or Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy.”
§ How to Handle Anxiety: The Effects of Reappraisal, Acceptance, and Suppression Strategies on Anxious Arousal > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The SIAS is a measure of general level of social anxiety with good psychometric properties (Heimberg, Mueller, Holt, Hope, & Liebowitz, 1992).”
§ How to Handle Anxiety: The Effects of Reappraisal, Acceptance, and Suppression Strategies on Anxious Arousal > Method > Self-Report Measures
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Heimberg, Mueller, Holt, Hope, & Liebowitz, 1992 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Campbell-Sills, Barlow, Brown, and Hofmann (2006b) investigated perceived acceptability and suppression of negative emotion in participants with anxiety and mood disorders. Participants were instructed to either suppress or accept their emotional response to an emotion-provoking film. The results showed that participants in the acceptance condition showed less negative affect during the post-film”
§ How to Handle Anxiety: The Effects of Reappraisal, Acceptance, and Suppression Strategies on Anxious Arousal > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Campbell-Sills, Barlow, Brown, and Hofmann (2006b)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
- Not matched
In the paper
“The instrument shows excellent psychometric properties (Marteau & Bekker, 1992).”
§ How to Handle Anxiety: The Effects of Reappraisal, Acceptance, and Suppression Strategies on Anxious Arousal > Method > Self-Report Measures
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Marteau & Bekker, 1992 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“So far, very few laboratory studies have been conducted examining the effects of acceptance-based emotion regulation strategies, and no study to date has directly compared reappraisal and acceptance-based strategies.”
§ How to Handle Anxiety: The Effects of Reappraisal, Acceptance, and Suppression Strategies on Anxious Arousal > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As a result of the deviation from Gross’ reappraisal instructions, the speech task might have been less threatening to participants in the reappraisal condition than in the suppression condition.”
§ How to Handle Anxiety: The Effects of Reappraisal, Acceptance, and Suppression Strategies on Anxious Arousal > Discussion
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our study is the first to directly compare reappraisal, acceptance, and suppression strategies for regulating anxiety.”
§ How to Handle Anxiety: The Effects of Reappraisal, Acceptance, and Suppression Strategies on Anxious Arousal > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“As noted earlier, acceptance is only one of six processes in ACT, and reappraisal is only one of the many treatment components of CBT.”
§ How to Handle Anxiety: The Effects of Reappraisal, Acceptance, and Suppression Strategies on Anxious Arousal > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Hayes, Strohsahl, & Wilson, 1999
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“participants were randomly assigned to one of three groups by receiving one of three instructions orally and in written form.”
- Also stated in: § Randomization · plain
“Participants were randomly assigned to one of the three groups (Reappraisal, Acceptance, and Suppression).”
§ How to Handle Anxiety: The Effects of Reappraisal, Acceptance, and Suppression Strategies on Anxious Arousal > Method > Procedure
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Also stated in: § Randomization · plain
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The group comparisons in the SIAS and PANAS suggest that these effects are unlikely due to differences in trait levels of social anxiety or general affect.”
§ How to Handle Anxiety: The Effects of Reappraisal, Acceptance, and Suppression Strategies on Anxious Arousal > Discussion
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“The PANAS consists of two subscales measuring positive affect (PA) and negative affect (NA) and is a widely used instrument with good reliability and validity (Mackinnon et al., 1999; Watson et al., 1988).”
§ How to Handle Anxiety: The Effects of Reappraisal, Acceptance, and Suppression Strategies on Anxious Arousal > Method > Self-Report Measures
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In contrast to previous studies (Campbell-Sills et al., 2006a,b), the acceptance instructions were relatively brief, without the use of any metaphors and imagery.”
§ How to Handle Anxiety: The Effects of Reappraisal, Acceptance, and Suppression Strategies on Anxious Arousal > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Campbell-Sills et al., 2006a,b
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“For example, cognitive reappraisal strategies reduce the stress response and increase tolerance for emotional stimuli, without any detrimental effects (Gross, 1998; Richards & Gross, 2000).”
§ How to Handle Anxiety: The Effects of Reappraisal, Acceptance, and Suppression Strategies on Anxious Arousal > Abstract
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It should be noted, however, that acceptance could also be regarded as an antecedent-focused strategy in the sense that it changes the interpretation of the emotion-eliciting stimulus and its meaning.”
§ How to Handle Anxiety: The Effects of Reappraisal, Acceptance, and Suppression Strategies on Anxious Arousal > Discussion
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The three groups were comparable in the positive affect, F (2, 191) = 2.04, p > .13, and the negative affect, F (2, 191) = .48, p > .6, subscales of the PANAS, and the SIAS, F (2, 193) = .30, p > .7.”
§ How to Handle Anxiety: The Effects of Reappraisal, Acceptance, and Suppression Strategies on Anxious Arousal > Results > Randomization
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“These results support earlier research suggesting that suppressing emotions leads to a paradoxical increase in the unwanted emotional experience, whereas reappraisal is an effective method to moderate subjective and physiological arousal (Campbell-Sills et al., 2006a,b; Gross, 1998; Gross & Levenson, 1997).”
§ How to Handle Anxiety: The Effects of Reappraisal, Acceptance, and Suppression Strategies on Anxious Arousal > Discussion
What the sources say
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Participants complied with the emotion regulation instructions they received.
- Rests on an assumption: The speech task produced enough anticipatory anxiety to reveal group differences.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It should be noted, however, that this study only examined the short-term effects of these emotion regulation strategies in a nonclinical sample.”
§ How to Handle Anxiety: The Effects of Reappraisal, Acceptance, and Suppression Strategies on Anxious Arousal > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The acceptance strategy was as effective as the reappraisal strategy for regulating physiological arousal, but not more effective than the suppression strategy for reducing the subjective level of anxiety.”
§ How to Handle Anxiety: The Effects of Reappraisal, Acceptance, and Suppression Strategies on Anxious Arousal > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Participants complied with the emotion regulation instructions they received.
- Rests on an assumption: The brief acceptance instructions were strong enough to engage the intended acceptance process.
- Rests on an assumption: The speech task produced enough anticipatory anxiety to reveal group differences.
The paper relies on this without support.
Participants complied with the emotion regulation instructions they received.
“Another weakness was the lack of a manipulation check.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The brief acceptance instructions were strong enough to engage the intended acceptance process.
“Particularly challenging was the acceptance instructions. In contrast to previous studies (Campbell-Sills et al., 2006a,b), the acceptance instructions were relatively brief, without the use of any metaphors and imagery.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The speech task produced enough anticipatory anxiety to reveal group differences.
“It is possible that the differences might have been more pronounced if we had induced greater anticipatory anxiety by making the speech task more challenging.”
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Previous research could show that acceptance led to reduced subjective distress (e.g., [13,24]) as well as to a reduction of the associated psychophysiological response [24].”
From Effects of differential strategies of emotion regulation (2019) · cites this paper as [13]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“The impact of acceptance on affect is comparable to the impact of reappraisal, but further effects of accepting emotions seem to be less extensive in comparison to strategies of reappraisal or suppression (e.g., [13])”
From Effects of differential strategies of emotion regulation (2019) · cites this paper as [13]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Acceptance (vs.control, suppression, or no instruction) has generally been associated with improved anxiety-related outcomes including lower state anxiety, desired avoidance (Campbell-Sills et al., 2006;Levitt et al., 2004), and physiological arousal (Hofmann et al., 2009) in response to stressor tasks.”
From Evaluating Mechanisms: Mapping Weekly Dynamics between Experiential Avoidance and SAD Symptoms (2021) · cites this paper as Hofmann et al., 2009
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Sympathetic activation was found to be reduced by suppression in comparison to non-suppression (but see [11]), but seems to be less effective in sympathetic downregulation than other ER strategies (e.g., [12,13]).”
From Effects of differential strategies of emotion regulation (2019) · cites this paper as [13]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“First of all, the sample size is quite small compared to other studies (e.g., [10,11,13]).”
From Effects of differential strategies of emotion regulation (2019) · cites this paper as [13]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“However, the long-term effects of emotional acceptance are unclear [16, 17].”
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“For example, a randomised control trial comparing the effectiveness of suppression, reappraisal and acceptance on anxious arousal suggested that both reappraising and accepting anxiety are more effective for moderating physiological arousal than suppressing anxiety (Hofmann et al., 2009).”
From Exploring anxiety, uncertainty perception, treatment experiences and coping strategies: An interpretative phenomenological analysis. (2025) · cites this paper as Hofmann et al., 2009
Statistics recomputed
Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.
- ConsistentF(2, 191) = 2.04reported p > .13 · recomputed p = .133
“F (2, 191) = 2.04, p > .13”
- ConsistentF(2, 191) = 0.48reported p > .6 · recomputed p = .620
“F (2, 191) = .48, p > .6”
- ConsistentF(2, 193) = 0.3reported p > .7 · recomputed p = .741
“F (2, 193) = .30, p > .7”
- ConsistentF(2, 193) = 3.06reported p = .049 · recomputed p = .049
“F (2, 193) = 3.06, p = .049”
- ConsistentF(2, 193) = 2.13reported p = .12 · recomputed p = .122
“F (2, 193) = 2.13, p = .12”
- ConsistentF(4, 187) = 158.89reported p < .0001 · recomputed p < .001
“F (4, 187) = 158.89, p < .0001”
- ConsistentF(2, 190) = 3.46reported p = .033 · recomputed p = .033
“F (2, 190) = 3.46, p = .033”
- ConsistentF(2, 190) = 3.56reported p = .03 · recomputed p = .030
“F (2, 190) = 3.56, p = .03”
- ConsistentF(2, 199) = 1.88reported p > .15 · recomputed p = .155
“F (2, 199) = 1.88, p > .15”
- Consistentχ²(2) = 1.82reported p > .4 · recomputed p = .403
“χ2 (2) = 1.82, p > .4”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Self-check results appear here once an independent check has confirmed them.
Citations
Cites
Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063 · Cited by 32,433
Lazarus, R. S. (1991) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780195069945.001.0001 · Cited by 12,691
Gross, J. J., & John, O. P. (2003) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.85.2.348 · Cited by 11,929
(1975) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 7,245
Acceptance and commitment therapy: model, processes and outcomes
Hayes, S. C., Luoma, J. B., Bond, F. W., Masuda, A., & Lillis, J. (2006) · Behaviour Research and Therapy · doi:10.1016/j.brat.2005.06.006 · Cited by 6,587
(1999) · Cited by 5,934
Emotional processing of fear: Exposure to corrective information.
Foa, E. B., & Kozak, M. J. (1986) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.99.1.20 · Cited by 5,396
Emotion regulation: affective, cognitive, and social consequences.
Gross, J. J. (2002) · Psychophysiology · doi:10.1017/s0048577201393198 · Cited by 4,890
Gross, J. J. (1998) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037//0022-3514.74.1.224 · Cited by 4,671 · cited 10×
“, Gross J.J. (Ed), Guilford Press, New York Campbell-Sills, L., Barlow, D.H., Brown, T.A., Hofmann, S.G., Acceptability and suppression of negative emotion in anxiety and mood disorders (2006) Emotion, 6, pp. 587-595 Campbell-Sills, L., Barlow, D.H., Brown, T.A., Hofmann, S.G., Effects of suppression and acceptance on…”
InfluentialHayes, S. C., Wilson, K. G., Gifford, E. V., Follette, V. M., & Strosahl, K. (1996) · Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1037//0022-006x.64.6.1152 · Cited by 3,595
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Webb, T. L., Miles, E., & Sheeran, P. (2012) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/a0027600 · Cited by 2,006
“…Cont4 27 0.38 0.65 Henry, Rendell, et al. (2009) 1 Amusement S1 Cont4 20 0.50 1.48 Henry, Rendell, et al. (2009) 1 Amusement S1 Cont3 20 0.46 1.85 Hofmann et al. (2009) 1 Anxiety R2 Cont4 68 67 0.47 0.33 Hofmann et al. (2009) 1 Anxiety S1 Cont4 68 67 0.03 0.08 Hofmann et al. (2007) 1 Mixed S2…”
InfluentialThe Future of Emotion Regulation Research: Capturing Context
Aldao, A. (2013) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/1745691612459518 · Cited by 948
“Empirical examinations have largely consisted of comparisons between only one or two strategies (cf. Hofmann et al., 2009, and Szasz et al., 2011, who examined three strategies).”
BackgroundResultInfluentialThe Nature, Diagnosis, and Treatment of Neuroticism: Back to the Future
Barlow, D. H., Sauer-Zavala, S., Carl, J. R., Bullis, J. R., & Ellard, K. K. (2014) · Clinical Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/2167702613505532 · Cited by 850
Gullone, E., & Taffe, J. R. (2011) · Psychological Assessment · doi:10.1037/a0025777 · Cited by 768
Hofmann, S. G., Sawyer, A. T., Fang, A., & Asnaani, A. (2012) · Depression and Anxiety · doi:10.1002/da.21888 · Cited by 630
“[51,52,62–66] Suppression has been subsumed under the more general term of experiential avoidance, which is defined as the unwillingness to experience negatively evaluated feelings, physical sensations, and thoughts.”
BackgroundSelf-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Hofmann, S. G., Heering, S., Sawyer, A. T., & Asnaani, A.
- Affiliations
- Boston University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Hofmann, Stefan G.
- Venue
- Behaviour Research and Therapy
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2009-05
- Volume
- 47
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 389-394
- ISSN
- 0005-7967 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC2674518
- OpenAlex
- W2030217702
- Cited by
- 464
- References
- 63
- Citations by year
- 2026: 12 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 43 · 2022: 29 · 2021: 51 · 2020: 31 · 2019: 31 · 2018: 24 · 2017: 25 · 2016: 34 · 2015: 25 · 2014: 27 · 2013: 34 · 2012: 30
- FWCI
- 25.35
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Behaviour Research and Therapy (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH078308)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Child and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
- Keywords
- emotion regulation, anxiety, cognitive reappraisal, acceptance, expressive suppression, anxious arousal, heart rate, subjective anxiety, speaking anxiety, physiological arousal
- MeSH terms
- Adaptation, Psychological, Adult, Anxiety, Arousal, Female, Heart Rate, Humans, Internal-External Control, Male, Middle Aged, Repression, Psychology, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Young Adult
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-09-28, under version 3 of the claim definition (prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-09-28 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
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
