CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 174

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 20 of the 20 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Impact of Validating and Invalidating Responses on Emotional Reactivity

Shenk, Chad E., Fruzzetti, Alan E.·2011·Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology
DOI 10.1521/jscp.2011.30.2.163
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Along with individual factors, such as emotional reactivity and regulatory skill, a biosocial perspective of emotion regulation incorporates social factors, such as parent-child or romantic partner interactions, as key determinants of psychological outcomes. Consistent with this perspective, the current study tested whether two social factors, validating and invalidating responses, influenced affective and physiological reactions to stress while accounting for individual skill in regulating emotions. Hierarchical linear modeling demonstrated that participants exposed to invalidating responses experienced significantly higher levels of negative affect, heart rate, and skin conductance over time when compared to participants exposed to validating responses. Results are discussed as support for models incorporating social factors as key determinants of individual emotional reactivity and regulation.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1521/jscp.2011.30.2.163

Cites

20 of 20 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

  • The beneficial nature of self-disclosure is amplified when the listener responds with support and validation, rather than ignoring or blaming the discloser.

    “The beneficial nature of self-disclosure is amplified when the listener responds with support and validation, rather than ignoring or blaming the discloser (Shenk & Fruzzetti, 2011).”

    From Psychological, Relational, and Emotional Effects of Self-Disclosure After Conversations With a Chatbot (2018) · cites this paper as Shenk & Fruzzetti, 2011

  • Prior work has shown that disclosure followed by supportive responses without reciprocal disclosure still leads to strong effects and benefits for the participants.

    “Prior work has shown that disclosure followed by supportive responses without reciprocal disclosure still leads to strong effects and benefits for the participants (e.g., Shenk & Fruzzetti, 2011).”

    From Psychological, Relational, and Emotional Effects of Self-Disclosure After Conversations With a Chatbot (2018) · cites this paper as Shenk & Fruzzetti, 2011

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 21

  1. Benschop R. J., 1998, Psychosomatic Medicine, 60, 290, 10.1097/00006842-199805000-00015 · DOI
  2. Brain L., 1998, Archives of Suicide Research, 4, 227
  3. Carre S., 2005, Nursing Research, 54, 184
  4. Eisenberg N., 1994, Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 40, 138
  5. 10.1300/J002v34n03_04 · DOI
  6. 10.1037/0022-3514.63.2.221 · DOI · Paper page
  7. 10.1111/j.1545-5300.2002.40102000083.x · DOI
  8. 10.1111/j.1752-0606.2007.00037.x · DOI
  9. 10.1016/S0145-2134(02)00536-7 · DOI
  10. 10.1001/archpsyc.64.12.1393 · DOI · Paper page
  11. 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2004.11.009 · DOI · Paper page
  12. 10.1207/s15327558ijbm0401_3 · DOI
  13. 10.1037/0022-3514.67.1.56 · DOI
  14. 10.1016/j.acn.2003.08.001 · DOI
  15. 10.1037/a0013516 · DOI · Paper page
  16. 10.1177/0265407598156003 · DOI · Paper page
  17. 10.1007/s10566-008-9063-5 · DOI
  18. 10.1017/S0954579400001036 · DOI
  19. 10.1016/S0272-7358(01)00087-3 · DOI
  20. 10.1016/0301-0511(96)05183-6 · DOI
  21. 10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Shenk, C. E., & Fruzzetti, A. E.
Venue
Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology
Publisher
Guilford Publications
Published
2011-02
Volume
30
Issue
2
Pages
163-183
ISSN
0736-7236
DOI
10.1521/jscp.2011.30.2.163
Cited by
174
References
20
Language
en

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