Department of Psychological Sciences.
Department of Psychology.
Emotion. 2021 Mar;21(2):297-314. doi: 10.1037/emo0000585. Epub 2019 Mar 18.
[Correction Notice: An Erratum for this article was reported online in on Jan 7 2021 (see record 2021-06077-001). In the article, in the Results and Discussion sections for Study 2 and in Table 6, it was stated that RSPAN scores predicted spontaneous down-regulation of negative affect from one diary signal to the next. However, because RSPAN scores are a person-level variable, it is an error to describe the results in that way. RSPAN scores cannot predict variability within person (i.e., signal to signal) but rather predict variability between person (i.e., person to person). Hence, a corrected interpretation would be to state that the RSPAN predicted levels of negative affect across the experience sampling diary, even when considering trait and state levels of affect and variability in daily stress. The analysis remains correct and the findings remain meaningful.] We tested the association of 2 versions of the Reading Span Task of working memory capacity, a conventional neutral version (RSPAN-N) and an adapted task with incidental negative content (RSPAN-E), for predicting objective indicators (behavioral displays; autonomic activation) of negative emotion regulation during a laboratory provocation, as well as reported negative emotion in daily life experience sampling. Across 2 samples, both tasks demonstrated utility as estimates of spontaneous negative emotion regulation capacity, predicting down-regulation of negative emotion in daily life and during a lab challenge. In addition, scores from both tasks appear to be independent of self-reported distress, a confound often present in studies of emotion regulation. There was some incremental evidence that the RSPAN-E may have advantages over the RSPAN-N for predicting some indices of emotion processing. Together these findings provide further evidence for the role of working memory (among other executive-control abilities) in emotion regulatory processing and suggest that RSPAN tasks may have considerable potential as tools in research on emotion processing and emotion regulation in psychological health and adjustment. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).
[勘误通知：本文的勘误在线报道于 2021 年 1 月 7 日在《心理科学》杂志上（见记录 2021-06077-001）。在文章中，在研究 2 的结果和讨论部分以及表 6 中，指出 RSPAN 分数预测了从一个日记信号到下一个信号的负面情绪的自发调节。然而，由于 RSPAN 分数是一个个体水平的变量，用这种方式描述结果是错误的。RSPAN 分数不能预测个体内的变异性（即信号到信号），而是预测个体间的变异性（即人与人之间）。因此，一个修正后的解释应该是，RSPAN 预测了经验抽样日记中负面情绪的水平，即使考虑到特质和状态的情绪水平以及日常压力的变异性。分析仍然是正确的，结果仍然是有意义的。] 我们测试了工作记忆能力的两种阅读广度任务的关联，一种是传统的中性版本（RSPAN-N），另一种是带有偶然负面内容的适应任务（RSPAN-E），用于预测实验室刺激期间负面情绪调节的客观指标（行为表现；自主激活），以及日常生活经验抽样中的报告负面情绪。在两个样本中，这两个任务都可以作为自发的负面情绪调节能力的估计值，预测日常生活和实验室挑战中的负面情绪调节。此外，这两个任务的分数似乎与自我报告的痛苦无关，这是情绪调节研究中经常存在的一个混杂因素。有一些额外的证据表明，RSPAN-E 可能比 RSPAN-N 更有利于预测某些情绪处理指标。这些发现为工作记忆（以及其他执行控制能力）在情绪调节处理中的作用提供了进一步的证据，并表明 RSPAN 任务可能作为研究心理健康和适应中的情绪处理和情绪调节的有力工具。（PsycInfo 数据库记录（c）2021 APA，保留所有权利）。
