↓ Skip to main content

Updating in working memory predicts greater emotion reactivity to and facilitated recovery from negative emotion-eliciting stimuli

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
111 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Updating in working memory predicts greater emotion reactivity to and facilitated recovery from negative emotion-eliciting stimuli
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, April 2015
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00372
Pubmed ID
Authors

Madeline L. Pe, Peter Koval, Marlies Houben, Yasemin Erbas, Dominique Champagne, Peter Kuppens

Abstract

That emotions change in response to emotion-eliciting events is a natural part of human life. However, it is equally important for emotions to return to baseline once the emotion-eliciting events have passed. This suggests that the ability to emotionally react to and recover from emotion-eliciting events is critical for healthy psychological functioning. But why do individuals differ in their emotion reactivity and recovery? The present work postulates that the ability to update emotional information in working memory (WM) may explain individual differences in emotion reactivity and recovery. Two studies are presented, which examined whether updating ability was related to emotion reactivity and recovery. In Study 1, we assessed participants' self-reported affect as they viewed negative and positive films. Our results revealed that better updating ability was related to greater emotion reactivity and facilitated (i.e., quicker) recovery from watching negative films. In Study 2, participants recalled a recent angering event, and were then instructed to either ruminate about or reappraise the event. Results revealed that updating ability was again related to greater emotion reactivity and facilitated (i.e., successful) emotion recovery in response to the angering event, and that this was unrelated to the emotion regulation strategy used. These findings identify the ability to update emotional information in WM as a possible mechanism in emotion responding.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 111 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Malaysia 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 107 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 23%
Student > Master 25 23%
Student > Bachelor 13 12%
Researcher 10 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 5%
Other 15 14%
Unknown 16 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 79 71%
Social Sciences 3 3%
Sports and Recreations 2 2%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 <1%
Philosophy 1 <1%
Other 3 3%
Unknown 22 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 March 2015.
All research outputs
#19,017,658
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#23,292
of 31,442 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#195,513
of 266,380 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#387
of 470 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 31,442 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.6. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 266,380 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 470 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.