Cited by 173Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesEmotions and Moral Behavior

Regulating emotion through distancing: a taxonomy, neurocognitive model, and supporting meta-analysis

Open access
Powers, John P., LaBar, Kevin S.·2019·Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews

Abstract

Distancing is a type of emotion regulation that involves simulating a new perspective to alter the psychological distance and emotional impact of a stimulus. The effectiveness and versatility of distancing relative to other types of emotion regulation make it a promising tool for clinical applications. However, the neurocognitive mechanisms of this tactic are unclear, and inconsistencies in terminology and methods across studies make it difficult to synthesize the literature. To promote more effective research, we propose a taxonomy of distancing within the broader context of emotion regulation strategies; review the effects of this tactic; and offer a preliminary neurocognitive model describing key cognitive processes and their neural bases. Our model emphasizes three components-self-projection, affective self-reflection, and cognitive control. Additionally, we present results from a supporting meta-analysis of neuroimaging studies of distancing. These efforts are presented within the overarching goals of supporting effective applications of distancing in laboratory, clinical, and other real-world contexts, and advancing understanding of the relevant high-level cognitive functions in the brain.

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.neubiorev.2018.04.023

Cites

147 of 147 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?

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Powers, J. P., & LaBar, K. S.
Affiliations
Duke University (US)
Corresponding author
LaBar, Kevin S.
Venue
Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-01
Volume
96
Pages
155-173
ISSN
0149-7634 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2903225919
Cited by
173
References
147
Citations by year
2026: 22 · 2025: 28 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 31 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 29 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 9
FWCI
1.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (R01 MH113238)
  • National Science Foundation (DGE-1644868)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Emotions and Moral Behavior
Keywords
distancing, emotion regulation, psychological distance, perspective taking, self-projection, cognitive control, neurocognitive model
MeSH terms
Brain, Emotions, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Models, Neurological, Models, Psychological, Emotional Intelligence

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