Author ORCID Identifier

0000-0001-6721-0377

Date of Award

8-31-2026

Document Type

Open Access Dissertation

Degree Name

Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)

Department

Clinical Psychology

First Advisor

Sarah Hayes-Skelton, PhD

Second Advisor

Lizabeth Roemer, PhD

Third Advisor

Jonathan Stange, PhD

Abstract

Cognitive reappraisal is widely regarded as an adaptive emotion regulation strategy and a central strategy to promote cognitive change in psychological treatments. However, findings regarding its effectiveness have been inconsistent, potentially due to the tendency to conceptualize reappraisal as a uniform process. The present study sought to adopt a more fine-grained, process-oriented approach by examining variability in how reappraisal is implemented. Specifically, this study investigated (1) the overall effectiveness of cognitive reappraisal, (2) whether the perceived believability of reappraisals predicts emotional outcomes, and (3) whether different types of reappraisals are associated with differences in emotional outcomes. Participants completed a modified emotion regulation task in which they were assigned to either a cognitive reappraisal (CR) condition or a react naturally control condition. Across trials, participants viewed emotional images, provided an initial affect rating (AR1), and reported a second rating (AR2) following regulation. Participants in the CR condition also generated reappraisals and rated their believability. Reappraisals were coded into distinct types, and linear mixed-effects models were used to examine predictors of post-regulation affect. Consistent with hypotheses, participants using cognitive reappraisal reported lower post-regulation negative affect than those in the control condition, despite higher initial affect, indicating a robust regulatory effect. Beyond overall effectiveness, believability emerged as a significant predictor of emotional outcome, such that more strongly believed reappraisals were associated with lower post-regulation negative affect. Results also indicated that reappraisal is not a uniform strategy, as different reappraisal types were associated with different emotional outcomes. Reality Challenge was associated with the greatest reductions in negative affect, despite being rated as the least believable strategy. Additionally, trials in which participants were unable to generate a reappraisal were associated with the highest levels of negative affect. Together, these findings suggest that cognitive reappraisal is best understood as a multidimensional process in which effectiveness depends on both the characteristics and perceived credibility of the reappraisal generated. These results help clarify inconsistencies in prior research and highlight the importance of examining within-strategy variability in emotion regulation. The findings have implications for both research and clinical practice, suggesting that enhancing the believability and flexibility of reappraisals may improve emotion regulation outcomes. Future research may extend this work by examining reappraisal processes in naturalistic contexts and further refining the classification of reappraisal strategies.

Download

Share

COinS