Cited by 31Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional DevelopmentNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies

How do people with social anxiety disorder manage daily stressors? Deconstructing emotion regulation flexibility in daily life

Open access
Goodman, Fallon R., Daniel, Katharine E., Eldesouky, Lameese, Brown, Bradley A., Kneeland, Elizabeth T.·2021·Journal of Affective Disorders Reports

Abstract

Emotion regulation flexibility is a person's tendency to shift their use of emotion regulation strategies in response to contextual demands. A lack of flexibility is thought to underlie affective disorders, yet conceptualizations of “flexibility” vary widely, and few studies have empirically assessed flexibility. In this study, we outline methods for measuring emotion regulation flexibility and then examine evidence for inflexibility in people with a common affective disorder: social anxiety disorder (SAD). Participants were community adults diagnosed with SAD and a psychologically healthy control group who completed a 14-day experience-sampling study. Participants recorded their most anxiety-provoking event each day, how they evaluated contextual demands (i.e., perceived controllability, emotional intensity) of these events, and their use of seven emotion regulation strategies to manage anxiety. Hypotheses and analyses were preregistered with the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/s7kqj/). Participants with SAD demonstrated some evidence of inflexibility. They used three disengagement strategies (rumination, thought suppression, expressive suppression) more often than controls and did so independently of contextual demands (specifically, perceived controllability). Nonetheless, participants with SAD largely demonstrated similar regulatory patterns as controls, most notably in their use of engagement strategies (acceptance, cognitive, reappraisal, problem-solving). We measured two of many possible contextual demands, did not compare to a mixed clinical group or other affective disorders (e.g., depression), and did not assess temporal sequences of strategy use. People with SAD demonstrate some inflexibility in their use of disengagement regulation strategies.

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 · 10.1016/j.jadr.2021.100210

Cites

92 of 92 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?

  • Goodman et al found that people with social anxiety disorder considered momentary assessments to be more anxiety provoking while presenting similar patterns to control participants when gauging contextual demands, particularly those related to perceived controllability.

    “The results indicated that people with SAD considered momentary assessments to be more anxiety provoking while presenting similar patterns to those of control participants when gauging contextual demands, particularly those related to perceived controllability.”

    From Studies of Social Anxiety Using Ambulatory Assessment: Systematic Review (2024) · cites this paper as [32]

    Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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: 3

  1. Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., Walker, S., Christensen, R.H.B., Singmann, H., Dai, B., Scheipl, F., Grothendieck, G., Green, P., Fox, J., Bauer, A., Krivitsky, P.N., Bolker, M. B., 2015. Package 'lme4'. Convergence 12 (1), 1-23.
  2. English, T., Eldesouky, L., 2019. Assessing emotion regulation flexibility: challenges and promise of using ecological momentary assessment. Eur. J. Psychol. Assess. 36 (3), 456-459.
  3. Wiley, J. F. (2016). Varian: Variability Analysis in R. R package version 0.2.2., https://C RAN.R-project.org/package=varian.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Goodman, F. R., Daniel, K. E., Eldesouky, L., Brown, B. A., & Kneeland, E. T.
Affiliations
  • University of South Florida (US)
  • University of Virginia (US)
  • American University in Cairo (EG)
  • Amherst College (US)
Corresponding author
Goodman, Fallon R.
Venue
Journal of Affective Disorders Reports
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-12
Volume
6
Pages
100210
ISSN
2666-9153 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3194365973
Cited by
31
References
92
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 5
FWCI
6.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Update notices
erratum (2022-12-01)
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Affective Disorders Reports (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • NIAAA (F31-AA024372)
  • National Institutes of Health
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
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Keywords
social anxiety disorder, emotion regulation flexibility, emotion regulation strategies, disengagement strategies, rumination, thought suppression, expressive suppression, engagement strategies, contextual demands, perceived controllability, daily hassles, cognitive reappraisal, acceptance

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