执行功能在认知再评价中的作用:元分析综述。

IF 3.4 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL
Emotion Pub Date : 2024-10-01 Epub Date: 2024-06-13 DOI:10.1037/emo0001373
Wei Xing Toh, Jun Sheng Keh, James J Gross, Laura L Carstensen
{"title":"执行功能在认知再评价中的作用:元分析综述。","authors":"Wei Xing Toh, Jun Sheng Keh, James J Gross, Laura L Carstensen","doi":"10.1037/emo0001373","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Cognitive reappraisal refers to the reinterpretation of a situation to alter its emotional meaning. Theoretically, executive functions (EFs), such as inhibition, updating, and shifting, are core elements of reappraisal processes. However, empirical studies have yielded inconsistent evidence as to whether and to what extent EFs are associated with reappraisal. To address this issue, we conducted a meta-analysis of the literature in which 179 effect sizes from 59 independent samples (<i>N</i> = 4,703) were included. Using random-effects metaregression with robust-variance estimates and small-sample corrections, we also examined whether variation in effect sizes could be accounted for by potential moderators, such as the way reappraisal was assessed (i.e., questionnaires vs. task-based measures) and the type of stimuli used in EF tasks (i.e., affective vs. nonaffective). Overall, results indicate relatively small to typical associations between reappraisal and all three EFs (<i>r</i>s = .13-.19). While the way reappraisal was measured did not moderate any of the relations between EF and reappraisal, we found stronger relations between inhibition and reappraisal when EF was assessed using tasks that involved affective, relative to nonaffective, stimuli. Our meta-analytic findings offer modest support for the idea that EFs are cognitive constituents of reappraisal processes. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":48417,"journal":{"name":"Emotion","volume":" ","pages":"1563-1581"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The role of executive function in cognitive reappraisal: A meta-analytic review.\",\"authors\":\"Wei Xing Toh, Jun Sheng Keh, James J Gross, Laura L Carstensen\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/emo0001373\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Cognitive reappraisal refers to the reinterpretation of a situation to alter its emotional meaning. Theoretically, executive functions (EFs), such as inhibition, updating, and shifting, are core elements of reappraisal processes. However, empirical studies have yielded inconsistent evidence as to whether and to what extent EFs are associated with reappraisal. To address this issue, we conducted a meta-analysis of the literature in which 179 effect sizes from 59 independent samples (<i>N</i> = 4,703) were included. Using random-effects metaregression with robust-variance estimates and small-sample corrections, we also examined whether variation in effect sizes could be accounted for by potential moderators, such as the way reappraisal was assessed (i.e., questionnaires vs. task-based measures) and the type of stimuli used in EF tasks (i.e., affective vs. nonaffective). Overall, results indicate relatively small to typical associations between reappraisal and all three EFs (<i>r</i>s = .13-.19). While the way reappraisal was measured did not moderate any of the relations between EF and reappraisal, we found stronger relations between inhibition and reappraisal when EF was assessed using tasks that involved affective, relative to nonaffective, stimuli. Our meta-analytic findings offer modest support for the idea that EFs are cognitive constituents of reappraisal processes. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48417,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Emotion\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1563-1581\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Emotion\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0001373\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/6/13 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Emotion","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0001373","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/6/13 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

认知再评价指的是对情境进行重新解释,以改变其情感含义。从理论上讲,抑制、更新和转移等执行功能(EFs)是再评价过程的核心要素。然而,关于执行功能是否以及在多大程度上与再评价相关,实证研究得出的证据并不一致。为了解决这个问题,我们对文献进行了荟萃分析,纳入了来自 59 个独立样本(N = 4703)的 179 个效应大小。通过使用随机效应元回归、稳健方差估计和小样本校正,我们还研究了效应大小的变化是否可以通过潜在的调节因素来解释,例如重新评价的评估方式(即问卷调查与基于任务的测量)以及在 EF 任务中使用的刺激类型(即情感性与非情感性)。总体而言,研究结果表明,再评价与所有三种 EF 之间的关联相对较小,但也很典型(rs = .13-.19)。虽然重评的测量方式并没有调节 EF 与重评之间的任何关系,但我们发现,当使用涉及情感性刺激的任务评估 EF 时,抑制与重评之间的关系比使用非情感性刺激时更强。我们的荟萃分析结果为 "EF 是再评价过程的认知成分 "这一观点提供了适度的支持。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, 版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The role of executive function in cognitive reappraisal: A meta-analytic review.

Cognitive reappraisal refers to the reinterpretation of a situation to alter its emotional meaning. Theoretically, executive functions (EFs), such as inhibition, updating, and shifting, are core elements of reappraisal processes. However, empirical studies have yielded inconsistent evidence as to whether and to what extent EFs are associated with reappraisal. To address this issue, we conducted a meta-analysis of the literature in which 179 effect sizes from 59 independent samples (N = 4,703) were included. Using random-effects metaregression with robust-variance estimates and small-sample corrections, we also examined whether variation in effect sizes could be accounted for by potential moderators, such as the way reappraisal was assessed (i.e., questionnaires vs. task-based measures) and the type of stimuli used in EF tasks (i.e., affective vs. nonaffective). Overall, results indicate relatively small to typical associations between reappraisal and all three EFs (rs = .13-.19). While the way reappraisal was measured did not moderate any of the relations between EF and reappraisal, we found stronger relations between inhibition and reappraisal when EF was assessed using tasks that involved affective, relative to nonaffective, stimuli. Our meta-analytic findings offer modest support for the idea that EFs are cognitive constituents of reappraisal processes. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Emotion
Emotion PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
8.40
自引率
7.10%
发文量
325
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊介绍: Emotion publishes significant contributions to the study of emotion from a wide range of theoretical traditions and research domains. The journal includes articles that advance knowledge and theory about all aspects of emotional processes, including reports of substantial empirical studies, scholarly reviews, and major theoretical articles. Submissions from all domains of emotion research are encouraged, including studies focusing on cultural, social, temperament and personality, cognitive, developmental, health, or biological variables that affect or are affected by emotional functioning. Both laboratory and field studies are appropriate for the journal, as are neuroimaging studies of emotional processes.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信