ArticleScientific reports2026
Task-based interpretation flexibility predicts real-world emotion regulation variability.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Adapting to daily emotional challenges requires flexibility including flexible interpretations of ambiguous situations and dynamic use of emotion regulation (ER) strategies. Understanding whether flexibility is a domain-general capacity that spans both cognition and emotion regulation has important implications. This study investigated whether baseline interpretation flexibility predicts day-to-day ER variability and affective outcomes using a multimethod design. Participants completed a lab-based Interpretation Inflexibility Task (IIT) to assess flexibility in revising interpretations of ambiguous social scenarios, followed by a 14-day tracking of daily emotions and ER strategy use. Multilevel modeling revealed that individuals with higher interpretation flexibility demonstrated greater ER variability and reported less intense negative and positive affect. Interpretation flexibility also accounted for unique variance in ER variability beyond self-reported ER difficulties. These findings show overlap between interpretation flexibility and healthy ER, suggesting that targeting interpretation flexibility may have transfer effects for improving ER.
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.