Cited by 20Mindfulness and Compassion InterventionsPsychological Well-being and Life SatisfactionAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

Socioaffective versus sociocognitive mental trainings differentially affect emotion regulation strategies

Hildebrandt, Lea K., McCall, Cade, Singer, Tania·2019·Emotion

Abstract

= 332) took part in three distinct 3-month mental training modules cultivating attentional (the Presence module), sociocognitive (the Perspective module), and socioaffective, compassion-based skills (the Affect module). In addition, the participants completed the Cognitive Emotion Regulation Questionnaire and the Brief COPE Inventory at baseline and after every module. The Presence module did not notably change the use of any emotion regulation strategies, whereas the Perspective and the Affect modules both increased the use of acceptance. Moreover, the Perspective module was especially effective in increasing the use of adaptive, cognitive transformations such as reappraisal, perspective taking, and planning, whereas the Affect module uniquely led to decreases in maladaptive avoidant strategies such as distraction and refocusing. These findings imply that (a) cultivating present-moment focused attention might not be sufficient to change emotion regulation strategies, (b) different types of mental practices focusing on either cognitive perspective taking or sociomotivational capacities lead to adaptive emotion regulation via different strategies, and (c) specifically cultivating positive affect and compassion can decrease avoidance of difficult emotions. This research suggests that different mental training exercises affect the use of specific emotion regulation strategies and that clinical interventions should be designed accordingly. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/emo0000518

Cites

73 of 73 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hildebrandt, L. K., McCall, C., & Singer, T.
Affiliations
Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences (DE)
Venue
Emotion
Published
2019-12
Volume
19
Issue
8
Pages
1329-1342
ISSN
  • 1528-3542 (ISSN-L)
  • 1931-1516
OpenAlex
W2894982417
Cited by
20
References
73
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 5 · 2018: 1
FWCI
1.77
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Emotion (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) (submittedVersion)
  • Max Planck Digital Library (submittedVersion)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Psychological Well-being and Life Satisfaction
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Keywords
emotion regulation strategies, mental training, perspective taking, attention training, acceptance, cognitive reappraisal, avoidance, positive affect, cognitive transformation, emotion regulation interventions
MeSH terms
Emotional Regulation, Adult, Emotions, Empathy, Female, Humans, Longitudinal Studies, Male, Middle Aged, Surveys and Questionnaires, Young Adult, Mindfulness

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