Cited by 79Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional DevelopmentPsychological Treatments and Assessments

Does cognitive reappraisal reduce anxiety? A daily diary study of a micro-intervention with individuals with high social anxiety.

Kivity, Yogev, Huppert, Jonathan D.·2016·Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To examine emotion regulation (ER) among individuals with high (HSA) and low social anxiety (LSA) and the effects of 1 week of practiced cognitive reappraisal using self-report, daily diary measures and lab tasks. METHOD: HSAs received reappraisal (HSA-R; n = 43) or monitoring (HSA-M; n = 40) instructions. LSAs received monitoring instructions (LSA-M; n = 41). Self-report measures of social anxiety and ER, and a lab task of reappraisal were administered at baseline and after 1 week. Daily diaries of anxiety and ER were also collected. RESULTS: At baseline, HSAs compared with LSAs reported lower self-efficacy of reappraisal and higher frequency and self-efficacy of suppression, but no differences emerged in the reappraisal task. Following the intervention, the HSA-R compared with the HSA-M reported lower symptom severity, greater self-efficacy of reappraisal but equal daily anxiety. HSA-R used reappraisal mostly combined with suppression (74.76% of situations). Post hoc analyses demonstrated that clinical diagnosis, but not severity, moderated the intervention effect. CONCLUSIONS: The results demonstrate the efficacy of a short intervention in social anxiety, and provide additional areas of research for improving its treatment.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/ccp0000075

Cites

22 of 22 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • In Kivity and Huppert, the group with high SA presented lower symptom severity and greater self-efficacy of reappraisal, but daily anxiety was not significantly different.

    “Although the group with high SA presented lower symptom severity and greater self-efficacy of reappraisal, daily anxiety was not significantly different.”

    From Studies of Social Anxiety Using Ambulatory Assessment: Systematic Review (2024) · cites this paper as Kivity and Huppert [72]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kivity, Y., & Huppert, J. D.
Affiliations
Hebrew University of Jerusalem (IL)
Venue
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology
Published
2016-03
Volume
84
Issue
3
Pages
269-283
ISSN
  • 0022-006X (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-2117
OpenAlex
W2268103296
Cited by
79
References
22
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 4
FWCI
7.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Israel Foundation Trustees
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 › Psychological Treatments and Assessments
Keywords
cognitive reappraisal, social anxiety, emotion regulation, emotion regulation training, emotional suppression, self-efficacy, micro-interventions, anxiety levels
MeSH terms
Adult, Anxiety, Cognition, Emotions, Female, Humans, Male, Phobic Disorders, Self Efficacy, Young Adult, Self Report

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