ArticleFrontiers in psychology2025
Effects of self-discrepancy on emotional information processing in competitive tennis players.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: This study examined how self-discrepancy levels shape emotional information processing in competitive tennis players. Using a self-referential paradigm and a key-press/spatial-cueing task, we tested whether self-discrepancy biases the representation of valenced self-information and whether this negativity generalizes to attentional operations (spatial orienting/disengagement). Methods: A two-step design was adopted. A pilot phase was used only for participant screening/grouping and stimulus quality control (no inferential testing). In Experiment 1, a between-subjects design assessed athletes with high vs. low self-discrepancy across self-type (ideal/ought/actual) and word valence (positive/negative), indexing processing speed and self-descriptive endorsement. In Experiment 2, a mixed design tested discrepancy level (high/low; between-subjects) and emotion type (positive/negative/neutral) and cue type (valid/invalid; within-subjects) to quantify emotional processing speed and attentional bias (vigilance/disengagement). Results: In Experiment 1, high self-discrepancy athletes responded faster to negative words, whereas low self-discrepancy athletes responded faster to positive words; high self-discrepancy athletes also endorsed more negative self-descriptors. In Experiment 2, high self-discrepancy athletes responded faster to negative stimuli, slower to positive stimuli, and showed no reliable differences for neutral stimuli, consistent with a discrepancy-linked negativity extending from lexical self-reference to attentional processing. Discussion: Findings suggest that elevated self-discrepancy increases the accessibility and endorsement of negative self-referent content and may predispose athletes to negative cognitive schemas, yielding accelerated processing of negative information and stronger attentional bias toward negative stimuli. This work highlights the importance of individual differences in self-cognition for emotional regulation and offers a mechanistic bridge from self-structure to attentional bias in sports psychology.
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.