CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 288Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesMental Health via Writing

Subjective responses to emotional stimuli during labeling, reappraisal, and distraction

Open access
Lieberman, Matthew D., Inagaki, Tristen K., Tabibnia, Golnaz, Crockett, Molly J.·2011·Emotion
DOI 10.1037/a0023503PMC PMC3444304
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Although multiple neuroimaging studies suggest that affect labeling (i.e., putting feelings into words) can dampen affect-related responses in the amygdala, the consequences of affect labeling have not been examined in other channels of emotional responding. We conducted four studies examining the effect of affect labeling on self-reported emotional experience. In study one, self-reported distress was lower during affect labeling, compared to passive watching, of negative emotional pictures. Studies two and three added reappraisal and distraction conditions, respectively. Affect labeling showed similar effects on self-reported distress as both of these intentional emotion regulation strategies. In each of the first three studies, however, participant predictions about the effects of affect labeling suggest that unlike reappraisal and distraction, people do not believe affect labeling to be an effective emotion regulation strategy. Even after having the experience of affect labels leading to lower distress, participants still predicted that affect labeling would increase distress in the future. Thus, affect labeling is best described as an incidental emotion regulation process. Finally, study four employed positive emotional pictures and here, affect labeling was associated with diminished self-reported pleasure, relative to passive watching. This suggests that affect labeling tends to dampen affective responses in general, rather than specifically alleviating negative affect.

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 · 10.1037/a0023503

Cites

54 of 54 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?

  • Affect labeling is regarded as an incidental or implicit form of emotion regulation.

    “Affect labeling, the act of putting feelings into words, is considered an ‘incidental’ or ‘implicit’ form of emotion regulation”

    From Treatment for social anxiety disorder alters functional connectivity in emotion regulation neural circuitry (2017) · cites this paper as Lieberman et al., 2011

    The General Discussion section, “Affect Labeling as Incidental Emotion Regulation,” describes affect labeling as incidental emotion regulation. It explicitly prefers “incidental” over “implicit,” however, because people are aware that they are labeling their feelings. (LLM, conf=0.92)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Reappraisal decreases the experience of negative emotion and the associated sympathetic response.

    “Reappraisal was shown to decrease the experience of negative emotion (e.g., [23,24,25,26,27]) and of the associated sympathetic response (e.g., [24,25,27]).”

    From Effects of differential strategies of emotion regulation (2019) · cites this paper as [23]

    Study 2’s Results and Discussion report less self-reported distress during reappraisal of negative images than during watching. The paper does not report a decrease in the associated sympathetic response; its discussion of diminished limbic activity concerns neural responses, not a measured sympathetic response (page numbers unavailable). (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Affect labeling has been demonstrated to be an effective regulatory strategy that reduces the intensity of emotional reactions to labeled stimuli.

    “has been shown to be an effective regulatory strategy, diminishing the intensity of emotional reactions to labeled stimuli (Kircanski et al., 2012; Lieberman et al., 2011; Niles et al., 2015; Tabibnia et al., 2008).”

    From Treatment for social anxiety disorder alters functional connectivity in emotion regulation neural circuitry (2017) · cites this paper as Lieberman et al., 2011

  • Affect labeling, or naming emotions, is an effective emotion regulation strategy that reduces the intensity of reactions to labeled stimuli.

    “Affect labeling, the process of naming emotions, has been demonstrated to be an effective emotion regulation strategy, resulting in reductions in the intensity of emotional reactions to labeled stimuli (Lieberman, Inagaki, Tabibnia, & Crockett, 2011).”

    From Changes in functional connectivity with cognitive behavioral therapy for social anxiety disorder predict outcomes at follow-up (2020) · cites this paper as Lieberman, Inagaki, Tabibnia, & Crockett, 2011

  • Affect labeling engages regions implicated in controlled processes (e.g., right vlPFC) and reduces behavioral and neural markers of affective responding.

    “The act of selecting the semantic label engages regions implicated in controlled processes (e.g. right vlPFC) and reduces behavioral (e.g. self-report) and neural (e.g. amygdala activity) markers of affective responding (Lieberman et al., 2007; Cohen and Lieberman, 2010; Lieberman et al., 2011; Payer et al., 2012; Torrisi et al., 2013; Burklund et al., 2014).”

    From Explicit and implicit emotion regulation: a multi-level framework (2017) · cites this paper as Lieberman et al., 2011

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. Burklund L. J., Creswell J. D., Irwin M. R., & Lieberman M. D. (under review). Labeling your own emotions and reappraisal produce overlapping neural activity.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Lieberman, M. D., Inagaki, T. K., Tabibnia, G., & Crockett, M. J.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Los Angeles (US)
  • Carnegie Mellon University (US)
  • University of Cambridge (GB)
ORCID
Venue
Emotion
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
2011-06
Volume
11
Issue
3
Pages
468-480
ISSN
  • 1528-3542 (ISSN-L)
  • 1931-1516
DOI
10.1037/a0023503
PMC
PMC3444304
OpenAlex
W2140028386
Cited by
288
References
52
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 28 · 2018: 26 · 2017: 22 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 23 · 2012: 7
FWCI
7.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Emotion (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
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 › Mental Health via Writing
Keywords
affect labeling, emotion regulation, cognitive reappraisal, distraction, subjective distress, amygdala
MeSH terms
Affect, Amygdala, Arousal, Attention, Emotions, Female, Humans, Judgment, Male, Photic Stimulation, Stress, Psychological, Young Adult, 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