4.5 Article

Cognitive Reappraisal Ability Buffers Against the Indirect Effects of Perceived Stress Reactivity on Type 2 Diabetes

期刊

HEALTH PSYCHOLOGY
卷 35, 期 10, 页码 1154-1158

出版社

AMER PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1037/hea0000359

关键词

emotion regulation; cognitive reappraisal; perceived stress reactivity; obesity; Type 2 diabetes

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Stress contributes to poor health outcomes; importantly, a stress reaction begins with the negative appraisal of a situation. The ability to use cognitive reappraisal, an emotion regulation strategy that involves reinterpreting an initial appraisal to change its emotional impact, could be a protective factor against the health consequences of stress reactivity. The present study investigated (a) if cognitive reappraisal ability (CRA) acts as a stress buffer against a body mass index (BMI) indicative of being overweight (>= 25 kg/m(2)) or obese (>= 30 kg/m(2)), and (b) if this buffering effect persists against the indirect influences of perceived stress reactivity (PSR) on Type 2 diabetes. Method: One hundred fifty participants (54% female; mean age = 40.4 years +/- 12.4 years) completed an online CRA task, self-report measures of PSR, height, weight, and Type 2 diabetes diagnosis on Amazon's Mechanical Turk. Results: Results revealed that CRA significantly interacted with PSR to predict BMI, which indirectly predicted Type 2 diabetes. Individuals with higher PSR and higher CRA exhibited BMIs within a normal weight range and lower incidence of Type 2 diabetes. In contrast, individuals with higher PSR and lower CRA were overweight or obese, with a higher incidence of Type 2 diabetes. Interestingly, higher CRA was not protective in those who had lower levels of PSR. Conclusions: Findings from this study suggest that emotion regulation interventions can be developed to indirectly target Type 2 diabetes and similar obesity-related illnesses, and that emotion regulation interventions should be tailored to the individual.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据