Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34704072›Full record

ArticleAffective science2021

Reappraisal-but not Suppression-Tendencies Determine Negativity Bias After Laboratory and Real-World Stress Exposure.

Candace M Raio, Nicholas R Harp, Catherine C Brown, Maital Neta

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Affective science, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Shared and unique neural correlates of reappraisal generation and implementation.Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience · 2026
    Article
  4. Unmet Health-Related Social Needs Among Black Adults Who Smoke.Journal of racial and ethnic health disparities · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Chronic Stress May Amplify Gender/Sex Differences in Amygdala Reactivity to Ambiguous Emotional Stimuli.Stress and health : journal of the International Society for the Investigation of Stress · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Candace M RaioDepartment of Psychiatry, New York University Grossman School of Medicine, New York, NY USA.ORCID 0000-0001-5220-2737
Nicholas R HarpDepartment of Psychology, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE USA.
Catherine C BrownDepartment of Psychology, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE USA.
Maital NetaDepartment of Psychology, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE USA.

Funding

Functional Brain Networks Mediating Individual Differences in Valence BiasR01MH111640 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA LINCOLN · PI NETA, MAITAL · 2017 to 2022
$1.8M
NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH111640
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Higher reactivity to stress exposure is associated with an increased tendency to appraise ambiguous stimuli as negative. However, it remains unknown whether tendencies to use emotion regulation strategies-such as cognitive reappraisal, which involves altering the meaning or relevance of affective stimuli-can shape individual differences regarding how stress affects perceptions of ambiguity. Here, we examined whether increased reappraisal use is one factor that can determine whether stress exposure induces increased negativity bias. In Study 1, healthy participants ( SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s42761-021-00059-5.

Indexed as

AmbiguityCOVID-19Negativity biasReappraisalStress

Identifiers

PMID34704072
PMCPMC8531907

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.