Cited by 89Child Abuse and TraumaStress Responses and CortisolChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development

Emotion regulation strategies modulate the effect of adverse childhood experiences on perceived chronic stress with implications for cognitive flexibility

Open access
Kalia, Vrinda, Knauft, Katherine·2020·PLOS ONE

Abstract

Exposure to early life adversity is associated with chronic stress and a range of stress-related health problems in adulthood. Since chronic stress debilitates activity in the prefrontal cortex (pFC), maladaptive regulatory strategies in response to stress have been proposed as one explanation for the impact of early life adversity on health outcomes in adulthood. We conducted a study to examine the impact of adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) on cognitive flexibility, a key executive function implicated in activity in the pFC, in a sample of adults (N = 486). Additionally, we investigated whether perceptions of chronic stress in adulthood would mediate the influence of ACEs on cognitive flexibility. However, stress is a subjective experience, and emotion regulation strategies can attenuate the stress response. So, we also examined if individual differences in emotion regulation strategies would modulate the relationship between ACEs and chronic stress. Our results demonstrate that early life adversity, as characterized by ACEs, is associated with decreased cognitive flexibility in adulthood. Additionally, number of ACEs was positively correlated with perceived stress, which in turn was negatively correlated with cognitive flexibility. But, individual differences in the habitual use of emotion regulation strategies moderated the influence of ACEs on chronic stress. Specifically, habitual use of cognitive reappraisal attenuated the stress levels whereas habitual use of expressive suppression exacerbated stress levels. Overall, our study highlights the importance of examining emotion regulation in individuals who have experienced early life adversity.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0235412

Cites

76 of 77 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?

  • A consensus appears to be emerging that what is most needed is enough healthy psychological distance from thought, so that beliefs and cognitive constructions are not excessively entangling, either through avoidance and suppression, or attachment and rigid adoption.

    “A consensus appears to be emerging that what is most needed is enough healthy psychological distance from thought, so that beliefs and cognitive constructions are not excessively entangling, either through avoidance and suppression, or attachment and rigid adoption 81,82 .”

    From “Third-wave” cognitive and behavioral therapies and the emergence of a process-based approach to intervention in psychiatry (2021) · cites this paper as [82]

    The Introduction describes reappraisal as changing how one frames an event, and the Discussion links expressive suppression to inflexible appraisal of stressors. These passages support a preference for flexible reappraisal over suppression, but they do not establish an emerging consensus that healthy psychological distance from thought is what is most needed, or address attachment to beliefs and their rigid adoption. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The most frequently supported affective process is acceptance.

    “The most frequently supported is acceptance 82,84,85 -the willingness to experience affect without needless escape, avoidance or constraint.”

    From “Third-wave” cognitive and behavioral therapies and the emergence of a process-based approach to intervention in psychiatry (2021) · cites this paper as [82]

    The Introduction’s “Emotion regulation strategies” section discusses cognitive reappraisal and expressive suppression, but does not identify acceptance as an affective process or compare how frequently processes are supported. Searches for acceptance and its description as willingness to experience affect found no passage addressing the claim. The indexed passages provide no page numbers. (LLM, conf=0.74)

    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

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [15]Troy A. S., & Mauss I. B. (2011). Resilience in the face of stress: Emotion regulation ability as a protective factor. In Southwick S., Charney D., Friedman M., & Litz B. (Eds.), Resilience to stress (pp. 30– 44). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press
  2. [43]Troy A. S., Mauss I. B. (2011). Resilience in the face of stress: Emotion regulation ability as a protective factor. In Southwick S., Charney D., Friedman M., Litz B., (Eds.), Resilience to stress (pp. 30– 44). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kalia, V., & Knauft, K.
Affiliations
Miami University (US)
Corresponding author
Kalia, Vrinda
Venue
PLOS ONE
Published
2020-06-26
Volume
15
Issue
6
Pages
e0235412
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3037439589
Cited by
86
References
76
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 3
FWCI
4.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Child Abuse and Trauma
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Behavioral Neuroscience › Stress Responses and Cortisol
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Child and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Keywords
adverse childhood experiences, emotion regulation strategies, cognitive flexibility, childhood adversity, cognitive reappraisal, expressive suppression, prefrontal cortex, executive function, stress response, mediation
MeSH terms
Adverse Childhood Experiences, Emotional Regulation, Adult, Child, Chronic Disease, Cognition, Female, Humans, Male, Perception, Stress, Psychological

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