Trial reportPloS one2022
Affect labeling: The role of timing and intensity.
Trial report in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Affect labeling down-regulates amygdala only in a dominant native language.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026Article
- Affect Labeling During Pictorial Encoding Enhances Their Recognition and Reduces Amygdalar Responses to Negative Pictures.Brain and behavior · 2026Article
- Engagement and Disengagement: From the Basic Science of Emotion Regulation to an Anxiety Spectrum.Psychophysiology · 2025Review
- More than a feeling: emotional regulation strategies for simulation-based education.Advances in simulation (London, England) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A growing number of studies have shown that labeling negative feelings can down-regulate distress. The present study aimed to test the effectiveness of affect labeling while manipulating two factors known to influence the emotion regulation process, namely timing, and emotional intensity. In Experiment 1, sixty-three participants completed a performance-based affect labeling paradigm in which they had to choose between two labels that best describe their feeling. Participants were randomly assigned to one of three experimental conditions: (1) Simultaneous labeling- the labeling occurs while watching the aversive picture. (2) Subsequent labeling- the labeling occurs immediately after watching the aversive picture. (3) Delayed labeling- the labeling occurs 10 seconds after watching the aversive picture. We found that affect labeling efficiently down-regulated distress independent of the labeling timing. In Experiment 2, seventy-nine participants utilized simultaneous labeling for aversive pictures with low and high intensity. We revealed that while affect labeling reduces distress in high-intensity aversive conditions, it increases distress in low-intensity conditions. The results question the standard advice, which calls to count to 10 before you speak in highly aversive states. In addition, it suggests that affect labeling can be beneficial in high-intensity conditions. However, it should be used with caution in low-intensity conditions.
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.