ArticleJournal of affective disorders2026
Regulatory flexibility and psychological health - Is more always better?
Article in Journal of affective disorders, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
Regulatory flexibility, defined as the ability to use strategies in accordance with contextual demands, is thought to be central to psychological health. In the current research, we test the boundaries of this claim by examining: (1) how broadly does regulatory flexibility relate to different facets of psychological health?, and (2) is more flexibility always better? Across six samples, participants (N = 2939) reported their ability to use strategies flexibly when managing impulses (e.g., temptations) and completed indicators of ill-being and well-being. Findings indicated that people who are more flexible report not only less anxiety and depression but also more positive functioning, including more life satisfaction, meaning, thriving, and positive mental health. There was some goal-to-goal variation, but the same pattern held when controlling for goal-specific covariates and replicated in both meta-analytic and mega-analytic approaches. Interestingly, there was a significant quadratic association between flexibility and well-being but not ill-being. This suggested diminishing returns, such that being more flexible was beneficial for well-being, but only to a certain point. Overall, these findings suggest that having the ability to use strategies flexibly has no apparent downside.
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.