ArticleAffective science2022
Decoding the Regulator: Accuracy and Bias in Emotion Regulation Judgments.
Article in Affective science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trait emotion regulation similarity and well-being.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- The Impact of Suppressing and Amplifying Expressions on Personality Judgments.Journal of research in personality · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Accurately judging emotion regulation (ER) may help facilitate and maintain social relationships. We investigated the accuracy and bias of ER judgments and their social correlates in a two-part study with 136 married couples (ages 23-85 years). Couples completed trait measures of their own and their partner's suppression, reappraisal, and situation selection. On a separate day, they discussed a conflict, then rated their own and their partner's suppression during the discussion. Couples accurately judged their partner's trait level use of all ER strategies, but they were most accurate for suppression. In contrast, they did not accurately judge state suppression; they showed a similarity bias, such that their own use of state suppression predicted judgments of their partner's suppression. Greater relationship satisfaction predicted positive biases at the trait level (e.g., overestimating reappraisal, underestimating suppression), but not the state level. Relationship length did not predict ER accuracy or bias. Findings suggest ER is more detectable at the trait level than state level and for strategies with more behavioral cues. Greater relationship satisfaction may signal positive perceptions of partners' ER patterns. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s42761-022-00144-3.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.