Cited by 142Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesEmotions and Moral BehaviorAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

Using Neuroscience To Broaden Emotion Regulation: theoretical and methodological considerations

Open access
Berkman, Elliot T., Lieberman, Matthew D.·2009·Social and Personality Psychology Compass

Abstract

Behavioral research on emotion regulation thus far has focused on conscious and deliberative strategies such as reappraisal. Neuroscience investigations into emotion regulation have followed suit. However, neuroimaging tools now open the door to investigate more automatic forms of emotion regulation that take place incidentally and potentially outside of participant awareness that have previously been difficult to examine. The present paper reviews studies on the neuroscience of intentional/deliberate emotion regulation and identifies opportunities for future directions that have not yet been addressed. The authors suggest a broad framework for emotion regulation that includes both deliberative and incidental forms. This framework allows insights from incidental emotion regulation to address open questions about existing work, and vice versa. Several studies relevant to incidental emotion regulation are reviewed with the goal of providing an empirical and methodological groundwork for future research. Finally, several theoretical issues for incidental and intentional emotion regulation are discussed.

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 · 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2009.00186.x

Cites

47 of 47 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?

  • The dominant neurobiological model of anxiety disorders proposes that amygdala hyperreactivity corresponds to heightened emotional reactivity, while disrupted prefrontal processing corresponds to impaired emotion regulation.

    “The prevailing neurobiological model of anxiety disorders posits that amygdala hyperreactivity to fearful or threatening stimuli is associated with heightened emotional reactivity, while disrupted processing in prefrontal regions is linked to impairments in emotional regulation (Berkman and Lieberman, 2009; Freitas-Ferrari et al., 2010; Kim et al., 2011).”

    From Treatment for social anxiety disorder alters functional connectivity in emotion regulation neural circuitry (2017) · cites this paper as Berkman and Lieberman, 2009

    The Conclusion (page not provided) describes prefrontal involvement in down-regulating the amygdala, and the review section reports greater prefrontal and lower amygdala activity during reappraisal. These passages support the general emotion-regulation circuitry, but they do not present it as the prevailing model of anxiety disorders or establish amygdala hyperreactivity and disrupted prefrontal processing in those disorders. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The finding of increased dACC/dmPFC activation associated with emotion acceptance relative to worry or suppression aligns somewhat with findings for cognitive reappraisal, which have shown a strong correlation between dACC activation during reappraisal and reductions in distress ratings.

    “The finding of increased dACC/dmPFC activation associated with emotion acceptance relative to worry or suppression also aligns somewhat with findings for cognitive reappraisal, which have shown a strong correlation between dACC activation during reappraisal and reductions in distress ratings, indicating reappraisal success (Berkman and Lieberman, 2009; Buhle et al., 2014).”

    From Neural correlates of emotion acceptance<i>vs</i>worry or suppression in generalized anxiety disorder (2017) · cites this paper as Berkman and Lieberman, 2009

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Neurobiological models propose that prefrontal cortex regions regulate emotional reactivity in the amygdala through top-down connectivity.

    “Neurobiological models suggest that regions of the prefrontal cortex (PFC) are central to regulation of emotional reactivity in the amygdala through top-down connectivity (Berkman & Lieberman, 2009; Brühl, Delsignore, Komossa, & Weidt, 2014).”
  • CBT and ACT did not differ significantly in symptom reduction.

    “no significant difference between CBT and ACT (p = .81), also consistent with [3].”

    From Treatment for social anxiety disorder alters functional connectivity in emotion regulation neural circuitry (2017) · cites this paper as [3]

    The Review of Neuroscience Investigations of Emotion Regulation compares reappraisal with suppression, while the Broadening Emotion Regulation section discusses how few studies compare regulation strategies. Neither section reports a CBT-versus-ACT symptom-reduction comparison or a p-value of .81 (searched for CBT, ACT, their full names, and the reported p-value). (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Before treatment, LSAS-SR scores did not differ significantly by treatment group (CBT, ACT, or WL).

    “A one-way ANOVA confirmed no significant differences in LSAS-SR score based on allocation of treatment group (CBT, ACT or WL; F(2, 61) = 2.52, p = .09) prior to beginning of treatment, consistent with results for the full sample of the parent study [3].”

    From Treatment for social anxiety disorder alters functional connectivity in emotion regulation neural circuitry (2017) · cites this paper as [3]

    The Review of Neuroscience Investigations of Emotion Regulation discusses neural responses to regulation strategies, not baseline scores in a treatment trial. Searches for LSAS-SR, CBT, ACT, waitlist allocation, and baseline group differences found no passage addressing the claimed comparison. Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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
Berkman, E. T., & Lieberman, M. D.
Affiliations
University of California, Los Angeles (US)
Venue
Social and Personality Psychology Compass
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2009-07
Volume
3
Issue
4
Pages
475-493
ISSN
1751-9004 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2153586209
Cited by
142
References
47
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 9
FWCI
5.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Social and Personality Psychology Compass (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute on Drug Abuse (F31DA024904)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Emotions and Moral Behavior
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Keywords
emotion regulation, cognitive reappraisal, automatic emotion regulation, neuroimaging of emotion

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