Think again: the role of reappraisal in reducing negative valence bias

The role of trait reappraisal in response to emotional ambiguity: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

“…Individuals with a more positive valence bias seem to recruit—within the timescale of a single trial—a regulatory process that subsequently updates the default negativity in favor of positivity (Neta et al, 2011; Neta & Tong, 2016; Neta & Whalen, 2010; Petro et al, 2018). Recent evidence supports this notion, as a brief training in cognitive reappraisal seemingly cues use of the strategy in the valence bias task, resulting in a more positive valence bias (Neta et al, 2023). This explanation is consistent with our findings that individual differences in trait reappraisal are associated with valence bias.…”

“…Thus, individual differences in valence bias could arise, at least in part, from individual differences in trait reappraisal, although it is also possible that a more negative valence bias, for example, constrains reappraisal affordances and results in lower use of reappraisal. There exists some evidence that cueing individuals to use cognitive reappraisal results in a more positive bias (Neta et al, 2023). Future research with experimental designs that permit causal inferences—specifically, randomized controlled trials—will be required to understand the directionality of the effect.…”

“…One mechanism at play at the second stage of valence bias formation is cognitive reappraisal of the ambiguous stimulus that updates the initial negative response with a more positive (or less negative) one (Harp et al, 2022; Kim et al, 2003; Neta et al, 2009, 2011; Neta & Tong, 2016; Neta & Whalen, 2010; Petro et al, 2018; Petro, Tottenham, & Neta, 2021). The involvement of reappraisal is indicated by the finding mentioned earlier that cueing cognitive reappraisal—but not alternative emotion regulation strategies (e.g., expressive suppression)—results in a more positive valence bias (Neta et al, 2023). Furthermore, when the cognitive resources required for reappraisal are limited, a negative bias tends to remain.…”

“…Two articles included the same sample of participants (Brown et al, 2017; Raio et al, 2021) and are thus reported as a single effect size. Other articles included either a series of studies (Neta et al, 2023), subsamples with unique characteristics (e.g., caregiving status; Wilson et al, 2022), or “mega-analysis” across many studies (Brock et al, 2022; Neta & Brock, 2021); effect sizes for individual studies were used in the present analysis. Studies that appeared to meet inclusion criteria but failed to pass final review are shown in Table 1 ( k = 17)…”

“…Notably, research using repeated measures designs suggests that interventions that aim to foster well-being of both the mind and body by building adaptive strategies for mitigating stress reactivity (i.e., mindfulness-based stress reduction) result in a more positive valence bias (Harp et al, 2022). Similarly, cueing cognitive reappraisal use through a brief training in the strategy for clearly negative images induces a more positive bias, whereas cueing other strategies, like expressive suppression, does not (Neta et al, 2023). Given these myriad ties to well-being, it is important to understand the underlying mechanisms that support a particular valence bias.…”