↓ Skip to main content

Cognitive Emotion Regulation Strategies in Anxiety and Depression Understood as Types of Personality

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
53 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
153 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
Cognitive Emotion Regulation Strategies in Anxiety and Depression Understood as Types of Personality
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, June 2018
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00856
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ewa Domaradzka, Małgorzata Fajkowska

Abstract

The identification of distinctive and overlapping features of anxiety and depression remains an important scientific problem. Currently, the literature does not allow to determine stable similarities and differences in the use of cognitive emotion regulation strategies (CERS) in anxiety and depression, especially concerning the adaptive strategies. Consequently, the aim of this study was to identify the overlapping and distinctive patterns of CERS use in the recently proposed types of anxiety and depression in a general population. In this dimensional approach, types of anxiety and depression are considered as personality types and distinguished based on their specific structural composition and functional role (reactive or regulative) in stimulation processing. 1,632 participants from a representative sample completed the Anxiety and Depression Questionnaire (measuring the Arousal and Apprehension Types of anxiety and the Valence and Anhedonic Types of depression) and the Cognitive Emotion Regulation Questionnaire. Regression analyses were conducted with the affective types as predictors. The co-occurrence of the types was accounted for in order to examine their independent relationships with the CERS. We found that reactive arousal anxiety was not related to any strategies, while regulative apprehension anxiety primarily predicted the use of rumination, which is presumably related to the type's cognitive structural components. The strategy specific to reactive valence depression was other-blame (as predicted by the high negative affect in its structure), and the regulative, most structurally complex anhedonic depression predicted the use of the largest number of strategies, including the adaptive ones. The relationships between the types of depression and self-blame and refocus on planning were moderated by sex but the effects were small. These findings fit into the current trend of exploring the shared and specific features of anxiety and depression, which might facilitate their differentiation by identifying CERS that are characteristic for the specific types. This information can be used for supporting diagnosis and targeting selected strategies in therapy both in clinical and non-clinical populations.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users 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 153 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 153 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 28 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 12%
Student > Bachelor 15 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 5%
Researcher 7 5%
Other 18 12%
Unknown 60 39%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 57 37%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 5%
Social Sciences 6 4%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 3%
Computer Science 4 3%
Other 13 8%
Unknown 61 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 28 June 2018.
All research outputs
#6,050,862
of 23,342,092 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#8,668
of 31,066 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#103,943
of 329,093 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#275
of 674 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,342,092 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 31,066 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its peers.
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 329,093 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 674 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its contemporaries.