Content uploaded by Matthew Lieberman
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Matthew Lieberman
Content may be subject to copyright.
http://pss.sagepub.com/
Psychological Science
http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/08/16/0956797612443830
The online version of this article can be found at:
DOI: 10.1177/0956797612443830
published online 16 August 2012Psychological Science
Katharina Kircanski, Matthew D. Lieberman and Michelle G. Craske
Feelings Into Words : Contributions of Language to Exposure Therapy
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
Association for Psychological Science
can be found at:Psychological ScienceAdditional services and information for
http://pss.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:
http://pss.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:
What is This?
- Aug 16, 2012OnlineFirst Version of Record >>
at Stanford University Libraries on August 20, 2012pss.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Psychological Science
XX(X) 1 –6
© The Author(s) 2012
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0956797612443830
http://pss.sagepub.com
Humans are distinctively able to think symbolically and to use
language to express and regulate emotion. Several types of lin-
guistic processing have been shown to attenuate negative
emotional processes on neural, physiological, and subjective
levels (e.g., Antony, McCabe, Leeuw, Sano, & Swinson, 2001;
Craske, Street, Jayaraman, & Barlow, 1991; Gross, 1998;
Hariri, Bookheimer, & Mazziotta, 2000; Lieberman et al.,
2007; Ochsner, Bunge, Gross, & Gabrieli, 2002; Pennebaker,
1997; Tabibnia, Lieberman, & Craske, 2008). In particular, the
emotion-regulating functions of affect labeling, reappraisal,
and distraction have each been examined. Affect labeling
refers to verbalization of current emotional experience—
putting feelings into words (Lieberman, 2011; Pennebaker,
1997). Reappraisal refers to verbalization with the intent to
regulate emotion by construing an evocative stimulus in a way
that reduces its emotional significance (Gross, 1998; Gross &
John, 2003). Distraction in this context refers to verbalization
unrelated to affective material (e.g., Pennebaker, 1997).
Whereas reappraisal (e.g., Eippert et al., 2007; Gross, 1998,
2002; Ochsner et al., 2002) and distraction (e.g., Antony et al.,
2001; Craske et al., 1991) are considered intentional and often
effective forms of emotion regulation, affect labeling is rela-
tively unintentional (Lieberman, 2011), and individuals may
not expect or believe labeling to be useful for downregulating
negative affect (Lieberman, Inagaki, Tabibnia, & Crockett,
2011). However, there is increasing support for affect labeling
as a viable form of emotion regulation. For example, experi-
mental studies have found that when current emotional experi-
ence is verbalized, whether in spoken or written form, distress
is reduced relative to conditions in which no verbalization or
verbalization of nonaffective material occurs (for reviews, see
Frattaroli, 2005; Pennebaker & Chung, 2011).
Of particular relevance to fear and anxiety, results of neuro-
imaging research have demonstrated that self-reflective cogni-
tive processing, such as affect labeling, can reduce limbic
responses to negative emotional stimuli via a neurocognitive
feedback mechanism. For instance, Lieberman and his col-
leagues (2007) demonstrated that the amygdala activity nor-
mally present while viewing an evocative image was diminished
while participants performed affect labeling (e.g., choosing the
word “scared”), whereas right ventrolateral prefrontal cortex
(RVLPFC) was selectively activated during affect labeling.
Corresponding Author:
Katharina Kircanski, Department of Psychology, Stanford University, Jordan
Hall, Building 420, Stanford, CA 94305-2130
E-mail: katharina.kircanski@gmail.com
Feelings Into Words: Contributions of
Language to Exposure Therapy
Katharina Kircanski, Matthew D. Lieberman, and
Michelle G. Craske
University of California, Los Angeles
Abstract
A growing body of research has revealed that labeling an emotion, or putting one’s feelings into words, can help to
downregulate that affect, as occurs with intentional forms of emotion regulation, such as reappraisal and distraction. We
translated this basic research to a real-world clinical context, in which spider-fearful individuals were repeatedly exposed
to a live spider. Using a between-subjects design, we compared the effects of affect labeling, reappraisal, distraction from
the feared stimulus, and exposure alone during this brief course of exposure therapy on subsequent fear responding. At a
1-week posttest involving a different spider in another context, the affect-labeling group exhibited reduced skin conductance
response relative to the other groups and marginally greater approach behavior than the distraction group; however, the
affect-labeling group did not differ from the other groups in self-reported fear. Additionally, greater use of anxiety and fear
words during exposure was associated with greater reductions in fear responding. Thus, perhaps surprisingly, affect labeling
may help to regulate aspects of emotion in a clinical context.
Keywords
fear, language, affect labeling, reappraisal, distraction, exposure therapy, skin conductance, approach behavior
Received 6/25/11; Revision accepted 2/29/12
Research Report
Psychological Science OnlineFirst, published on August 16, 2012 as doi:10.1177/0956797612443830
at Stanford University Libraries on August 20, 2012pss.sagepub.comDownloaded from
2 Kircanski et al.
RVLP FC wa s no t ac ti va te d du ri ng nonaf fective labeling. A
subsequent study (Tabibnia et al., 2008) investigated the effects
of labeling on skin conductance response (SCR) as a peripheral
index of emotional arousal. Participants viewed evocative
images with or without a variety of one-word negative-affect
labels as SCRs to the images were measured. At a retest con-
ducted 1 week later, the images were shown with no labels as
SCRs were again measured. SCR attenuation was significantly
greater for participants in the labeling condition than for par-
ticipants in the no-label condition. Moreover, this effect was
replicated in a spider-fearful sample during exposure to spider
images.
To da te, no st udi es ha ve co mp are d the eff ects o f a ffec t la be l-
ing, reappraisal, and distraction on fear responding. This over-
sight is conspicuous given that psychological treatments for
emotional disorders involve language (i.e., talking) as well
as behavioral interventions. We examined these verbalization
methods during a brief course of exposure therapy, the most
widely used psychological treatment for phobias and other anxi-
ety disorders. Traditional cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT)
for anxiety disorders (Beck & Emery, 1985; Emmelkamp, 1982)
emphasizes reappraisal, or the replacement of negative thoughts
with neutral thoughts about a feared stimulus, to reduce fearful
responding. However, there has been debate about whether cog-
nitive reappraisal adds significant value to exposure without
reappraisal (Longmore & Worrell, 2007). On the basis of previ-
ous neuroimaging and psychophysiological research (Lieberman
et al., 2007; Tabibnia et al., 2008), we hypothesized that affect
labeling would lead to greater decreases in SCR and self-
reported fear and greater increases in approach behavior relative
to the other conditions in our study, with the potential exception
of reappraisal.
Method
Design
This study had a 4 (group: affect labeling, reappraisal, distrac-
tion, and exposure alone) × 3 (measurement occasion: pretest,
immediate posttest, 1-week posttest) mixed design.
Participants
Eighty-eight participants (mean age = 20.5 years, SD = 4.6)
who scored in the top quartile on the Spider Phobia Question-
naire (M = 14.38, SD = 3.78; Klorman, Weerts, Hastings,
Melamed, & Lang, 1974) completed the study. Participants
were drawn from an undergraduate psychology course and the
community and were given 1 hour of experiment credit to be
used toward filling a course requirement or $10 payment,
respectively, for every hour of participation. Participants were
82% female and 18% male. The sample was 24% White, 41%
Asian/Pacific Islander, 14% Latino/Hispanic, 5% African
American, 7% biracial, and 9% other.
Procedure
On Day 1, participants signed informed consent and com-
pleted a pretest outdoors, in which they were instructed to
approach a live Chilean rose-haired tarantula (Phrixotrichus
spatulata; leg span = 6 in.; see Fig. 1). The tarantula was in a
container, and participants were instructed to approach the spi-
der as closely as possible according to a series of 10 standard-
ized steps lasting 30 s each. On the first step, participants were
instructed to stand at a 5-ft distance from the spider. On the
last step, participants were instructed to touch the spider con-
tinuously with the tip of their index finger.
Participants were then randomly assigned to four groups
(affect labeling, reappraisal, distraction, exposure alone) of 22
participants each. Participants were brought indoors, where
they sat 2 ft from a screen covering a live tarantula (leg span =
6 in.) different from the one they saw in the pretest. They
underwent 10 exposure trials for durations of 38 s each. The
pretest and exposure contexts were different in order to maxi-
mize sensitivity of the dependent measures and examine gen-
eralizability to a naturalistic outdoor setting (e.g., Bouton,
1993). After the first 8 s of each trial, a tone was presented to
prompt participants to follow group-specific instructions.
Participants in the affect-labeling group were instructed to
create and speak a sentence including a negative word to
describe the spider and a negative word or two to describe
their emotional response to the spider (e.g., “I feel anxious the
disgusting tarantula will jump on me”). In the reappraisal
group, participants were instructed to create and speak a sen-
tence including a neutral word to describe the spider and a
neutral word or two to describe a way of thinking about the
Fig. 1. Spider and container used in the pretest, immediate posttest, and
1-week posttest.
at Stanford University Libraries on August 20, 2012pss.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Language and Emotion in Exposure Therapy 3
spider in order to feel less negatively about it (e.g., “Looking
at the little spider is not dangerous for me”). In the distraction
group, participants were instructed to create and speak a sen-
tence including an object or piece of furniture found in their
home and a room or location in which the furnishing is found
(e.g., “There is a television in front of my couch in the den”).
Participants in the affect-labeling, reappraisal, and distraction
groups were also instructed to vary their sentences across
exposure trials. Participants in the exposure-alone group
received no verbalization instructions.
After participants heard the tone, exposure lasted an addi-
tional 30 s. Intertrial intervals lasted 60 s, during which the
screen was placed in front of the spider.
On Day 2, participants underwent 10 exposure trials for
38 s each, in the same manner as on Day 1. Participants then
completed an immediate posttest, which followed the same
procedure as the pretest, with instructions to remain silent
throughout. On Day 9, participants completed a 1-week post-
test following the same procedure as the pretest and immediate
posttest.
Measures
SCR. At each test, SCR was utilized as the physiological mea-
sure of fearful arousal. SCR was recorded using an ambulatory
monitoring device (LifeShirt, VivoMetrics, Ventura, CA;
Wilhelm, Roth, & Sackner, 2003). Skin conductance signals
were transmitted using two electrodes attached to the ring and
middle fingers of the nondominant hand, and amplitude was
recorded to the nearest microsiemens. Data were cleaned,
inspected, and analyzed using VivoLogic software (Version
3.1; VivoMetrics). Baseline skin conductance for each test was
calculated during the 3-min period prior to each test. SCR for
each test was scored as the number of peak skin conductance
values for the final step completed by each participant. Peak
values of less than 2 s were discarded as artifacts (Davis,
Barad, Otto, & Southwick, 2006; Ressler et al., 2004).
Behavioral approach. Behavioral approach was measured
during the tests as the number of test steps fully completed.
The raw number of additional steps completed from each test
to the next (negative or positive) was also computed.
Reported fear. Self-reported fear was assessed using a visual
analogue scale ranging from 0 (no fear) to 100 (extreme fear)
following the final step of each test trial.
Word use. Participants’ sentences across all exposure trials
were transcribed and analyzed using Pennebaker’s Linguistic
Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) software (Pennebaker &
Francis, 1999). LIWC includes a text processor and dictionary
of words and word stems organized along separate scales.
Analyses were limited to the scale of anxiety and fear words
(e.g., nervous, afraid, tense).
Results
Baseline group differences
One-way analyses of variance (ANOVAs) indicated no sig-
nificant group differences in Spider Phobia Questionnaire
score or in SCR, behavioral approach, or reported fear at
pretest.
SCR
Table 1 shows raw SCR scores. A univariate analysis of cova-
riance (ANCOVA) was conducted on SCR change from the
Table 1. Mean Raw Scores for the Three Dependent Measures at the Three Test Occasions
Group
Measure and test Affect labeling Reappraisal Distraction Exposure alone
Skin conductance response (µS)
Pretest 1.76 (1.09) 1.73 (0.77) 1.59 (0.85) 2.00 (0.73)
Immediate posttest 2.18 (0.80) 1.91 (0.97) 1.82 (1.01) 1.83 (0.85)
One-week posttest 1.58 (0.80) 2.18 (1.01) 1.95 (1.29) 1.90 (0.98)
Behavioral approach
Pretest 5.18 (2.44) 5.68 (2.97) 6.36 (2.46) 6.14 (2.12)
Immediate posttest 6.36 (2.84) 6.36 (3.03) 7.18 (2.46) 7.00 (2.39)
One-week posttest 7.82 (2.44) 7.45 (2.84) 7.68 (2.59) 8.05 (2.50)
Reported fear
Pretest 79.75 (20.77) 65.49 (20.39) 74.49 (22.02) 67.34 (24.89)
Immediate posttest 68.99 (31.34) 60.26 (22.70) 63.94 (26.50) 52.42 (30.15)
One-week posttest 56.52 (29.16) 44.98 (31.96) 40.64 (25.33) 40.22 (30.79)
Note: Standard deviations are given in parentheses. Behavioral approach was indexed by measuring the number of test
steps that participants fully completed. Self-reported fear was assessed using a visual analogue scale ranging from 0 (no
fear) to 100 (extreme fear) following the final step of each test trial.
at Stanford University Libraries on August 20, 2012pss.sagepub.comDownloaded from
4 Kircanski et al.
pretest to the immediate posttest, with baseline skin conduc-
tance and the number of steps completed for each test entered
as covariates. Planned pairwise comparisons indicated no sig-
nificant differences between the affect-labeling group (M =
0.53 µS) and the reappraisal group (M = 0.22 µS), distraction
group (M = 0.23 µS), or exposure-alone group (M = –0.24
µS), ds = –0.63 to –0.25, ps = .06–.41.
A univariate ANCOVA was conducted on SCR change
from the immediate posttest to the 1-week posttest, with base-
line skin conductance and the number of steps completed for
each test entered as covariates. Planned pairwise comparisons
indicated significantly greater SCR decrease for the affect-
labeling group (M = –0.66, SE = 0.24) than for the reappraisal
group (M = 0.31, SE = 0.24; p = .005, d = 0.85), distraction
group (M = 0.18, SE = 0.24; p = .017, d = 0.74), and exposure-
alone group (M = 0.08, SE = 0.25, p = .044, d = 0.64). A con-
trast analysis comparing the affect-labeling group with all
other groups combined was significant (p = .004; see Fig. 2).
Behavioral approach
Table 1 shows raw behavioral-approach scores. A univariate
ANOVA was conducted on the number of additional steps
completed from the pretest to the immediate posttest. Planned
pairwise comparisons indicated no significant differences
between the affect-labeling group (M = 1.18) and the reap-
praisal group (M = 0.68), distraction group (M = 0.82), or
exposure-alone group (M = 0.86), ds = 0.18–0.28.
A univariate ANOVA was conducted on the number of
additional steps completed from the immediate posttest to the
1-week posttest. Planned pairwise comparisons indicated that
a marginally greater number of additional steps were com-
pleted by the affect-labeling group (M = 1.46, SE = 0.35) than
by the distraction group (M = 0.50, SE = 0.35), p = .054, d =
0.59 (see Fig. 3).
Reported fear
Table 1 shows raw self-reported fear scores. For the analysis,
we removed four change scores that were statistical outliers
(> 3 SD from the mean). A univariate ANCOVA was con-
ducted on change in reported fear from the pretest to the
immediate posttest, with the number of steps completed for
each test entered as covariates. Planned pairwise comparisons
indicated no significant differences between the affect-label-
ing group (M = –14.69) and the reappraisal group (M = –5.47),
distraction group (M = –10.92), or exposure-alone group (M =
–11.13), ds = 0.18–0.48.
A univariate ANCOVA was conducted on change in
reported fear from the immediate posttest to the 1-week post-
test, with the number of steps completed for each test entered
as covariates. Planned pairwise comparisons indicated no sig-
nificant differences between the affect-labeling group (M =
–15.82) and the reappraisal group (M = –16.21), distraction
group (M = –19.55), or exposure-alone group (M = –11.78),
ds = –0.18–0.20.
Word use
A uni varia te ANO VA wa s con ducte d on th e per centa ge of a nxi-
ety and fear words used during exposure by the affect-labeling,
reappraisal, and distraction groups. Pairwise comparisons
–1.0
–0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
SCR Change (µS)
Affect
Labeling
Reappraisal Distraction
Exposure
Alone
Group
*
*
**
Fig. 2. Change in skin conductance response (SCR) from the immediate
posttest to the 1-week posttest as a function of group. Error bars indicate
±1 SE. Asterisks indicate that pairwise comparisons between groups were
significant (*p < .05, **p < .01).
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
Number of Additional Steps Completed
Affect
Labeling
Reappraisal Distraction
Exposure
Alone
Group
†
Fig. 3. Number of additional steps completed from the immediate posttest
to the 1-week posttest as a function of group. Error bars indicate ±1 SE. The
dagger indicates that a pairwise comparison between groups was marginally
significant (†p = .05).
at Stanford University Libraries on August 20, 2012pss.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Language and Emotion in Exposure Therapy 5
indicated greater use of anxiety and fear words by the affect-
labeling group (M = 6.00%, SE = 0.40%) than by the reappraisal
group (M = 0.35%, SE = 0.40%), p < .001, d = 3.00, and the
distraction group (M = 0.02%, SE = 0.40%), p < .001, d = 3.18.
Bivariate correlational analyses across the three groups indi-
cated that a greater percentage of anxiety and fear words was
associated with greater reduction in SCR from the immediate
posttest to the 1-week posttest, r = –.288, p = .019, and with a
marginally greater number of additional test steps completed
from the pretest to the immediate posttest, r = .234, p = .059,
and from the immediate posttest to the 1-week posttest, r = .219,
p = .077.
Discussion
The goal of this study was to extend findings reported in the
growing basic-science literature on word use and emotion
regulation to a real-world clinical context—in this case, expo-
sure therapy for individuals fearful of spiders. Overall, our
results highlight the potential value of affect labeling in psy-
chological treatments for phobias and other anxiety disorders.
Affect labeling was shown to be more effective than reap-
praisal, distraction, and exposure alone in attenuating SCR
from the immediate posttest to the 1-week posttest, and mar-
ginally more effective than distraction in increasing behavioral
approach from the immediate posttest to the 1-week posttest.
Additionally, the greater percentage of anxiety and fear words
that participants verbalized during exposure, the essence of
affect labeling in this setting, the relatively greater the SCR
reduction they exhibited at the 1-week posttest and the margin-
ally closer they approached the spider at both posttests. These
results support prior psychophysiological findings (Tabibnia
et al., 2008) and appear to be the first to document benefits for
affect labeling on a behavioral measure of fear and anxiety.
In contrast, affect labeling was not shown to be more effec-
tive than the other conditions in reducing reported fear. Indi-
viduals may not expect or believe labeling to be useful for
downregulating negative affect (Lieberman et al., 2011), and
this may have differentially impacted the self-report measure
used in this study, relative to the more objective SCR and
behavioral-approach measures. In addition, reported fear was
assessed after the participant ended each test, which makes
this measure difficult to interpret because multiple affective
processes (e.g., residual fear, relief) were likely involved.
It is perhaps counterintuitive that affect labeling was more
effective than reappraisal in reducing psychophysiological
arousal, as traditional CBT emphasizes reappraisal. Affect
labeling recruits RVLPFC (Lieberman, 2011) and may enhance
inhibitory learning through mediation by medial prefrontal
cortex (Lieberman et al., 2007), which has been shown to
downregulate the amygdala in fear-extinction studies (e.g.,
Phelps, Delgado, Nearing, & LeDoux, 2004). Thus, RVLPFC
activation through labeling of affective experience may
enhance the normal processes of fear extinction, which is
important because anxious individuals exhibit deficits in
inhibitory regulation during extinction (e.g., Sehlmeyer et al.,
2011). Indeed, affect labeling may enhance outcomes by
increasing exposure to one’s own fear and anxiety. Such a pro-
cess may be similar to mindfulness, in which one becomes
more aware and accepting of ongoing experience, and for
which data support its relationship to reduced amygdala activ-
ity (e.g., Creswell, Way, Eisenberger, & Lieberman, 2007) and
improved psychiatric outcomes (e.g., Roemer & Orsillo, 2009;
Segal, Williams, & Teasdale, 2002). In contrast, the instruc-
tions we gave to participants were rather limited relative to the
more in-depth guidelines often provided in clinical practice.
Therefore, it is likely that the skill-based application of reap-
praisal was not optimized relative to a full course of CBT.
It should also be noted that participants in the exposure-
alone group may have internally verbalized their affect natu-
rally in response to the spider, thus possibly benefiting
marginally from the effects of affect labeling. However, the
results suggest that instruction in explicit affect labeling pro-
duces more pronounced effects than simply allowing for the
possibility that individuals may internally label their affect.
Another limitation of this study is that the experimenters who
attached the psychophysiological equipment and coded behav-
ioral approach were not blind to the study conditions.
Future investigations should examine the effects of affect
labeling, reappraisal, and distraction on fear responding in a
larger clinical sample over a longer time period. It is possible
that word use may have differing effects across various sam-
ples and time intervals. Together, the findings reported here
suggest that verbalizing fear and anxiety during exposure to a
feared stimulus can improve the subsequent ability to effec-
tively manage aspects of one’s emotional experience and
behavior.
Acknowledgments
Katharina Kircanski is now at Stanford University. The authors wish
to acknowledge the contributions of Robert Bjork, John Piacentini,
Steven Reise, and Golnaz Tabibnia to the conception and design of
this study.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared that they had no conflicts of interest with
respect to their authorship or the publication of this article.
Funding
This research was supported by National Institutes of Health Grant
No. 1F31MH084380 (to Katharina Kircanski) and by the American
Psychologi cal Association.
References
Antony, M. M., McCabe, R. E., Leeuw, I., Sano, N., & Swinson, R. P.
(2001). Effect of distraction and coping style on in vivo exposure
for specific phobia of spiders. Behaviour Research and Therapy,
39, 1137–1150. doi:10.1016/S0005-7967(00)00089-9
Beck, A. T., & Emery, G. (1985). Anxiety disorders and phobias: A
cognitive perspective. New York, NY: Basic Books.
at Stanford University Libraries on August 20, 2012pss.sagepub.comDownloaded from
6 Kircanski et al.
Bouton, M. E. (1993). Context, time and memory retrieval in the
interference paradigms of Pavlovian learning. Psychological
Bulletin, 114, 90–99. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.114.1.80
Craske, M. G., Street, L. L., Jayaraman, J., & Barlow, D. H. (1991).
Attention versus distraction during in vivo exposure: Snake
and spider phobias. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 5, 199–211.
doi:10.1016/0887-6185(91)90001-A
Creswell, J. D., Way, B. M., Eisenberger, N. I., & Lieberman,
M. D. (2007). Neural correlates of dispositional mindfulness
during affect labeling. Psychosomatic Medicine, 69, 560–565.
doi:10.1097/PSY.0b013e3180f6171f
Davis, M., Barad, M., Otto, S., & Southwick, S. (2006). Combining
pharmacotherapy with cognitive behavioral therapy: Traditional
and new approaches. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 19, 571–581.
doi:10.1002/jts.20149
Eippert, F., Veit, R., Weiskopf, N., Erb, M., Birbaumer, N., &
Anders, S. (2007). Regulation of emotional responses elicited
by threat-related stimuli. Human Brain Mapping, 28, 409–423.
doi:10.1002/hbm.20291
Emmelkamp, P. (1982). Phobic and obsessive-compulsive disorders:
Theory, research and practice. New York, NY: Plenum.
Frattaroli, J. (2005). Experimental disclosure and its modera-
tors: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 823–865.
doi:10.1037/0033-2909.132.6.823
Gross, J. J. (1998). Antecedent- and response-focused emotion regu-
lation: Divergent consequences for experience, expression, and
physiology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74,
224–237. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.74.1.224
Gross, J. J. (2002). Emotion regulation: Affective, cognitive, and
social consequences. Psychophysiology, 39, 281–291. doi:10
.1017/S0048577201393198
Gross, J. J., & John, O. P. (2003). Individual differences in two emo-
tion regulation processes: Implications for affect, relationships,
and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
85, 348–362. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.85.2.348
Hariri, A. R., Bookheimer, S. Y., & Mazziotta, J. C. (2000). Modulat-
ing emotional response: Effects of a neocortical network on the
limbic system. NeuroReport, 11 , 43–48. doi:10.1097/00001756-
200001170-00009
Klorman, R., Weerts, T. C., Hastings, J. E., Melamed, B. G., & Lang,
P. J. (1974). Psychometric description of some specific fear
questionnaires. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 5, 401–409.
doi:10.1016/S0005-7894(74)80008-0
Lieberman, M. D. (2011). Why symbolic processing of affect can dis-
rupt negative affect: Social cognitive and affective neuroscience
investigations. In A. Todorov, S. T. Fiske, & D. Prentice (Eds.),
Social neuroscience: Toward understanding the underpinnings of
the social mind (pp. 188–209). Oxford, England: Oxford Univer-
sity Press.
Lieberman, M. D., Eisenberger, N. I., Crockett, M. J., Tom, S. M.,
Pfeifer, J. H., & Way, B. M. (2007). Putting feelings into words:
Affect labeling disrupts amygdala activity to affective stim-
uli. Psychological Science, 18, 421–428. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
9280.2007.01916.x
Lieberman, M. D., Inagaki, T. K., Tabibnia, G., & Crockett, M. J.
(2011). Subjective responses to emotional stimuli during labeling,
reappraisal, and distraction. Emotion, 3, 468–480. doi:10.1037/
a0023503
Longmore, R. J., & Worrell, M. (2007). Do we need to challenge
thoughts in cognitive behavior therapy? Clinical Psychology
Review, 27, 173–187. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2006.08.001
Ochsner, K. N., Bunge, S. A., Gross, J. J., & Gabrieli, J. D. E. (2002).
Rethinking feelings: An fMRI study of the cognitive regulation
of emotion. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 14, 1215–1229.
doi:10.1162/089892902760807212
Pennebaker, J. W. (1997). Writing about emotional experiences
as a therapeutic process. Psychological Science, 8, 162–166.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1997.tb00403.x
Pennebaker, J. W., & Chung, C. K. (2011). Expressive writing: Con-
nections to physical and mental health. In H. S. Friedman (Ed.),
The Oxford handbook of health psychology (pp. 417–437). New
York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Pennebaker, J. W., & Francis, M. E. (1999). Linguistic inquiry and
word count (LIWC): A computerized text analysis program. Mah-
wah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Phelps, E. A., Delgado, M. R., Nearing, K. I., & LeDoux, J. E.
(2004). Extinction learning in humans: Role of the amygdala and
vmPFC. Neuron, 43, 897–905. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2004.08
.042
Ressler, K. J., Rothbaum, B. O., Tannenbaum, L., Anderson, P.,
Graap, K., Zimand, E., . . . Davis, M. (2004). Cognitive enhanc-
ers as adjuncts to psychotherapy: Use of D-cycloserine in phobic
individuals to facilitate extinction of fear. Archives of General
Psychiatry, 61, 1136. doi:10.1001/archpsyc.61.11.1136–1144
Roemer, L., & Orsillo, S. M. (2009). Mindfulness and acceptance-
based behavioral therapies in practice. New York, NY: Guilford
Press.
Segal, Z. V., Williams, J. M. G., & Teasdale, J. D. (2002). Mindfulness-
based cognitive therapy for depression. New York, NY: Guilford
Press.
Sehlmeyer, C., Dannlowski, U., Schöning, S., Kugel, H., Pyka, M.,
Pfleiderer, B., . . . Arolt, V. (2011). Neural correlates of trait
anxiety in fear extinction. Psychological Medicine, 41, 789–798.
doi:10.1017/S0033291710001248
Tabibnia, G., Lieberman, M. D., & Craske, M. G. (2008). The lasting
effect of words on feelings: Words may facilitate exposure effects
to threatening images. Emotion, 8, 307–317. doi:10.1037/1528-
3542.8.3.307
Wilhelm, F. H., Roth, W. T., & Sackner, M. A. (2003). The LifeShirt:
An advanced system for ambulatory measurement of respira-
tory and cardiac function. Behavior Modification, 27, 671–691.
doi:10.1177/0145445503256321
at Stanford University Libraries on August 20, 2012pss.sagepub.comDownloaded from
