Cited by 222Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional DevelopmentPersonality Disorders and Psychopathology

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 82 of the 90 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 4 of the 31 sources its claims cite were checked for support.

Adaptive and maladaptive emotion regulation strategies: Interactive effects during CBT for social anxiety disorder

Open access
Aldao, Amelia, Jazaieri, Hooria, Goldin, Philippe R., Gross, James J.·2014·Journal of Anxiety Disorders

Abstract

There has been a increasing interest in understanding emotion regulation deficits in social anxiety disorder (SAD; e.g., Hofmann, Sawyer, Fang, & Asnaani, 2012). However, much remains to be understood about the patterns of associations among regulation strategies in the repertoire. Doing so is important in light of the growing recognition that people's ability to flexibly implement strategies is associated with better mental health (e.g., Kashdan et al., 2014). Based on previous work (Aldao & Nolen-Hoeksema, 2012), we examined whether putatively adaptive and maladaptive emotion regulation strategies interacted with each other in the prediction of social anxiety symptoms in a sample of 71 participants undergoing CBT for SAD. We found that strategies interacted with each other and that this interaction was qualified by a three-way interaction with a contextual factor, namely treatment study phase. Consequently, these findings underscore the importance of modeling contextual factors when seeking to understand emotion regulation deficits in SAD. © 2014 Elsevier Ltd.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.janxdis.2014.03.005

Cites

82 of 82 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

4 of 31 cited sources checked · 4 supported · 0 flagged

Show all 46 claims

  • Probably not a substantial claim. 14
  • It may state two separate claims as one. 13
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 3
24 of 24
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The weekly self-report measures adequately capture social anxiety symptoms and the use of adaptive engagement and maladaptive avoidance strategies.

    “participants completed single-item measures of strategies, which can be problematic because such measures might not capture the complexity of psychological processes.”
1 of 1

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?

Self-check

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

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Follow-up sample size is 51 in one place and 53 in another

    Minor

    The paper gives two different participant counts for the follow-up phase. One results paragraph reports 51 participants, while another preliminary-analyses paragraph reports 53 participants for the same follow-up phase.

  • Follow-up participant counts conflict

    Minor

    The follow-up trend analysis reports data from 53 participants, but the limitations section says follow-up data were collected from only 51 of the original participants. The text does not reconcile these counts.

2 of 2

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 90 references

8 of the 90 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–200 of 221

Metadata

Authors
Aldao, A., Jazaieri, H., Goldin, P. R., & Gross, J. J.
Affiliations
  • The Ohio State University (US)
  • University of California, Berkeley (US)
  • Stanford University (US)
Corresponding author
Aldao, Amelia
Venue
Journal of Anxiety Disorders
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-05
Volume
28
Issue
4
Pages
382-389
ISSN
0887-6185 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2149676985
Cited by
222
References
90
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 29 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 3
FWCI
15.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Anxiety Disorders (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH076074)
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 › Clinical Psychology › Personality Disorders and Psychopathology
Keywords
emotion regulation strategies, social anxiety disorder, cognitive behavioral therapy, interaction effects, contextual factors, social anxiety symptoms, cognitive flexibility
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Adult, Emotions, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Phobic Disorders, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Treatment Outcome, 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 (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, 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