Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 322

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 87 of the 87 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Cognitive reappraisal and acceptance: Effects on emotion, physiology, and perceived cognitive costs.

Open access
Troy, Allison S., Shallcross, Amanda J., Brunner, Anna, Friedman, Rachel, Jones, Markera C.·2018·Emotion

Abstract

Two emotion regulation strategies-cognitive reappraisal and acceptance-are both associated with beneficial psychological health outcomes over time. However, it remains unclear whether these 2 strategies are associated with differential consequences for emotion, physiology, or perceived cognitive costs in the short-term. The present study used a within-subjects design to examine the effects of reappraisal (reframing one's thoughts) and acceptance (accepting feelings without trying to control or judge them) on the subjective experience of negative emotions, positive emotions, and physiological responses during and following recovery from sad film clips shown in the laboratory. Participants also reported on perceived regulatory effort, difficulty, and success after deploying each emotion regulation strategy. In 2 samples of participants (N = 142), reappraisal (vs. acceptance) was associated with larger decreases in negative and larger increases in positive emotions, both during the film clips and recovery period. However, acceptance was perceived as less difficult to deploy than reappraisal, and was associated with a smaller dampening of skin conductance level (indicating more successful regulation) during the film clips in 1 sample. These results suggest that reappraisal and acceptance may exert differential short-term effects: Whereas reappraisal is more effective for changing subjective experiences in the short term, acceptance may be less difficult to deploy and be more effective at changing one's physiological response. Thus, these 2 strategies may both be considered "effective" for different reasons. (PsycINFO Database Record

Overview

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/emo0000371

Cites

87 of 87 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 87 references

Cited by

See all 322

Metadata

Authors
Troy, A. S., Shallcross, A. J., Brunner, A., Friedman, R., & Jones, M. C.
Venue
Emotion
Published
2018-02
Volume
18
Issue
1
Pages
58-74
ISSN
  • 1528-3542 (ISSN-L)
  • 1931-1516
OpenAlex
W2770123194
Cited by
322
References
87
FWCI
11.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Cognitive reappraisal and acceptance: Effects on emotion, physiology, and perceived cognitive costs. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1037/emo0000371
The paper
Troy, A. S., Shallcross, A. J., Brunner, A., Friedman, R., & Jones, M. C. (2018). Cognitive reappraisal and acceptance: Effects on emotion, physiology, and perceived cognitive costs. Emotion. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000371

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.