Trait Reappraisal Amplifies Subjective Defeat, Sadness, and Negative Affect in Response to Failure Versus Success in Nonclinical and Psychosis Populations

Abstract

Perceptions of defeat have been linked to a range of clinical disorders including psychosis. Perceived defeat sometimes increases in response to failure, but the strength of this association varies between individuals. The present research investigated whether trait reappraisal, a thought-focused coping style, amplified response to stressful events. Two studies (Study 1, n = 120 nonclinical participants; Study 2, n = 77 participants with schizophrenia-spectrum disorders) investigated whether trait reappraisal amplified feelings of defeat following an experience of failure versus success. Frequent reappraisers showed the largest increases in subjective defeat after failure versus success in both studies, with nonclinical participants with greater habitual reappraisal also showing larger increases in sadness and general negative affect. Frequent use of reappraisal may confer vulnerability to subjective defeat in response to stressful life events among nonclinical and clinical populations and could be an area for relapse prevention interventions to target.

Full text

Journal of Abnormal Psychology
Trait Reappraisal Amplifies Subjective Defeat, Sadness,
and Negative Affect in Response to Failure Versus
Success in Nonclinical and Psychosis Populations
Judith Johnson, Patricia A. Gooding, Alex M. Wood, Peter J. Taylor, and Nicholas Tarrier
Online First Publication, May 16, 2011. doi: 10.1037/a0023737
CITATION
Johnson, J., Gooding, P. A., Wood, A. M., Taylor, P. J., & Tarrier, N. (2011, May 16). Trait
Reappraisal Amplifies Subjective Defeat, Sadness, and Negative Affect in Response to
Failure Versus Success in Nonclinical and Psychosis Populations. Journal of Abnormal
Psychology. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1037/a0023737

Trait Reappraisal Amplifies Subjective Defeat, Sadness, and Negative
Affect in Response to Failure Versus Success in Nonclinical
and Psychosis Populations
Judith Johnson
University of Birmingham
Patricia A. Gooding, Alex M. Wood,
Peter J. Taylor,
and Nicholas Tarrier
University of Manchester
Perceptions of defeat have been linked to a range of clinical disorders including psychosis. Perceived
defeat sometimes increases in response to failure, but the strength of this association varies between
individuals. The present research investigated whether trait reappraisal, a thought-focused coping style,
amplified response to stressful events. Two studies (Study 1, n⫽120 nonclinical participants; Study 2,
n⫽77 participants with schizophrenia-spectrum disorders) investigated whether trait reappraisal
amplified feelings of defeat following an experience of failure versus success. Frequent reappraisers
showed the largest increases in subjective defeat after failure versus success in both studies, with
nonclinical participants with greater habitual reappraisal also showing larger increases in sadness and
general negative affect. Frequent use of reappraisal may confer vulnerability to subjective defeat in
response to stressful life events among nonclinical and clinical populations and could be an area for
relapse prevention interventions to target.
Keywords: defeat, reappraisal, schizophrenia, psychosis, suicidality
Psychological defeat has been described as a sense of failed
struggle or loss of social rank (Gilbert & Allan, 1998) that has been
implicated in the development of a number of psychological dis-
orders (Ehlers, Maercker, & Boos, 2000; Gilbert & Allan, 1998)
including psychosis (Selten & Cantor-Graae, 2005, 2007). The
extent to which perceived defeat increases after experiences of
failure varies between individuals (Johnson, Tarrier, & Gooding,
2008b), but the role of emotional regulation strategies in moder-
ating defeat is currently unknown. If such strategies either exac-
erbate or counter the effects of failure upon defeat then this
information could be important for informing clinical interven-
tions. Thus, the aim of the current research was to investigate the
extent to which the emotion regulation strategy of reappraisal
(Gross, 1998; Gross & John, 2003) moderated the impact of failure
on perceived defeat among both a nonclinical sample and individ-
uals diagnosed with a schizophrenia-spectrum disorder, for whom
perceived defeat may be particularly important (Selten & Cantor-
Graae, 2005, 2007).
Perceptions of defeat have been associated with the onset and
exacerbation of a range of psychiatric conditions and disorders,
including depression, anxiety, and suicide (Taylor, Gooding,
Wood, & Tarrier, in press; Taylor, Wood, Gooding, & Tarrier,
2010c). Defeat may also contribute to the development and main-
tenance of schizophrenia (Selten & Cantor-Graae, 2005, 2007).
This hypothesis is based on observations that factors that can lower
social status, potentially increasing subjective defeat, are known to
be linked to the onset and maintenance of schizophrenia. For
example, epidemiological research has found that having a lower
IQ (Zammit et al., 2004), living in an urban area (Kelly et al.,
2010; Krabbendam & van Os, 2005), and migrating from a lower-
income country to a higher-income country (Cantor-Graae &
Selten, 2005) increase risk for schizophrenia. It has been suggested
that these factors may increase feelings of defeat by reducing the
likelihood of employment and the elevated social status that ac-
companies this (Selten & Cantor-Graae, 2005). Supporting this
hypothesis is evidence that among nonclinical populations, higher
levels of paranoid thoughts, a common feature of schizophrenia,
are associated with lower levels of social status (Freeman et al.,
2005). Furthermore, among individuals with schizophrenia it has
been proposed that feelings of defeat may drive suicidality (John-
son, Gooding, & Tarrier, 2008a). This possibility has been sup-
Judith Johnson, School of Psychology, University of Birmingham; Pa-
tricia A. Gooding, Alex M. Wood, Peter J. Taylor, and Nicholas Tarrier,
School of Psychological Sciences, University of Manchester.
Nicholas Tarrier is now affiliated with the Institute of Psychiatry, Kings
College, London.
We also gratefully acknowledge Isabel Peters, Natasha Snelson, Kelly
Hodgkinson, Charlotte Stephenson, Catherine Sawyer, and Maria Long for
their assistance with recruitment and data collection. This research was
conducted whilst the lead author and fifth author were based at the
University of Manchester. This paper outlines independent research com-
missioned by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) under its
Programme Grants for Applied Research. The views expressed in this
publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS,
the NIHR or the Department of Health. The authors would also like to
thank the NIHR RECOVERY Programme Group and the Mental Health
Research Network for their support.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Judith
Johnson, School of Psychology, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston,
Birmingham, B15 2TT. E-mail: Jxj007@bham.ac.uk
Journal of Abnormal Psychology © 2011 American Psychological Association
2011, Vol. ●●, No. ●, 000– 000 0021-843X/11/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0023737
1

ported by a recent empirical study, which found that higher levels
of defeat were associated with elevated rates of suicidal ideation in
this group (Taylor et al., 2010b). Interestingly, this study found
that feelings of defeat mediated the association between positive
psychotic symptoms and suicidal ideation, indicating a key role for
perceptions of defeat in the development of suicide risk (Taylor et
al., 2010b). Thus, it appears that subjective defeat may be an
important factor to investigate to further understand both the
etiology of schizophrenia and the risks it presents. However, as yet
only minimal empirical research has directly investigated defeat
among individuals with schizophrenia and no research has studied
potential moderators of the association between risk factors for
defeat and the subsequent subjective experience of this emotion.
Given the central role that defeat is thought to play in the onset
and maintenance of clinical disorders, it is important to determine
factors which moderate the perception of defeat in response to
failure (cf., Johnson, Wood, Gooding, Taylor, & Tarrier, in press).
It has been suggested that an appraisal system may underlie
feelings of defeat (Johnson et al., 2008a), and if this is the case,
then those cognitive-emotional processes that impact on appraisals
are an important area for investigation in relation to moderating
feelings of defeat (cf., Johnson, Gooding, Wood, & Tarrier, 2010a;
Johnson et al., 2010b). One such process could be reappraisal,
which is a component of a recently proposed emotion regulation
theory (Gross & Thompson, 2007). According to emotion regula-
tion theory, reappraisal is conceived of as an antecedent-focused
strategy acting at the level of cognitive change to modulate the
emotion before it arises (Gross & Thompson, 2007). Because
reappraisal occurs early on in the sequence of cognitive-emotional
processes arising in response to an emotion inducing event, it is
thought to be an adaptive strategy that does not demand a high
level of cognitive resources. Reappraisal has been contrasted with
emotional suppression that involves concealing the expression of
emotions being experienced. Suppression is characterized as
response-focused, late occurring, and as being resource demand-
ing. It is, therefore, considered a maladaptive regulation strategy
(Gross & Thompson, 2007).
Reappraisal has been studied in two different forms. The first of
these is instructed reappraisal, where participants are instructed to
reappraise a stressor before exposure. Studies investigating this
form of reappraisal have tended to support emotion regulation
theory, showing a reduced increase in negative emotions and
physiological reactivity among individuals who reappraise (Gol-
din, Manber-Ball, Werner, Heimberg, & Gross, 2009; Gross,
1998). For example, in an experiment where participants watched
a film clip of the treatment of burn victims, those instructed to
reappraise reported lower levels of subsequent disgust than those
who were instructed to suppress their emotions (Gross, 1998). The
second is naturally occurring, or “trait” reappraisal, which can be
understood as the frequency with which individuals use reap-
praisal. It can be measured using the Emotion Regulation Ques-
tionnaire (ERQ; Gross & John, 2003).
Findings from research into trait reappraisal have been less
clear. There have been several studies that have examined cross-
sectional associations between trait reappraisal and self-reported
affect, but results from these have been somewhat inconclusive.
Although some research has found that higher levels of trait
reappraisal are related to more positive patterns of affect (Bal-
zarotti, John, & Gross, 2010; Gross & John, 2003), these results
have not been consistent. For example, three studies have failed to
find a correlation between reappraisal and measures of depressed
mood among nonclinical participants (Abler, Hofer, & Viviani,
2008; Dennis, 2007; Henry, Rendell, Green, McDonald, &
O’Donnell, 2008) and one study failed to find an association
between reappraisal and negative affect among older adults, al-
though a negative association was found among young adults
(Kafetsios & Loumakou, 2007). Potentially, it may be that the
association between reappraisal and affect is moderated by the
presence other factors, but further research is necessary to assess
this.
Only a small number of studies have investigated the impact of
trait reappraisal on response to a stressor, and some findings from
these have suggested that a more frequent tendency to reappraise
may in fact have a negative impact upon subsequently experienced
stressors (Butler, Wilhelm, & Gross, 2006; Lam, Dickerson, Zoc-
cola, & Zaldivar, 2009). For example, in an experiment where
individuals took part in a speech task, it was found that a more
frequent tendency to reappraise predicted increased cortisol reac-
tivity (Lam et al., 2009). This has led to the suggestion that while
reappraising under instruction may have an attenuating impact
upon stressful events, the natural tendency to reappraise situations
or trait reappraisal, may have an amplifying impact (Lam et al.,
2009). Thus, although a wide body of research suggests that
instructed reappraisal is beneficial, research into trait reappraisal is
much less clear and it appears that this form of reappraisal may
have a negative impact on response to stressors. This divergence
between instructed reappraisal and trait reappraisal suggests that
while a single act of reappraising can be beneficial, the persistent
drive to change emotions by changing thoughts, as in trait reap-
praisal, could potentially have a negative impact.
In contrast to the research into reappraisal, research investigat-
ing the impact of suppression has been more consistent and studies
investigating both the impact of instructed suppression (Butler,
Wilhelm, & Gross, 2006; Gross, 1998) and naturally occurring or
trait suppression suggest that it serves to amplify negative re-
sponses to stressors (Lam et al., 2009). For example, in a study
where participants were instructed to either suppress emotional
expression while watching a disgust-eliciting film or to reappraise
the experience, it was found that those in the suppression condition
demonstrated elevated levels of physiological arousal (Gross,
1998). Similarly, in a study investigating the impact of trait sup-
pression on response to a social-evaluative task, it was found that
high-trait suppressors showed an exaggerated level of stress re-
sponse (Lam et al., 2009). However, as with reappraisal, research
has yet to investigate suppression in relation to feelings of defeat
and among individuals with schizophrenia-spectrum disorders.
Study 1
The main aim of Study 1 was to investigate the impact of trait
reappraisal and suppression on the association between a stressful
experience and subsequent subjective defeat. In line with recent
findings suggesting that trait reappraisal exacerbates the impact of
stress (Lam et al., 2009), it was predicted that more frequent
reappraisal would amplify the difference in defeat between the
success and failure conditions. It was also predicted that higher
levels of suppression would amplify the difference in defeat be-
tween the success and failure conditions. If found, these amplifi-
2JOHNSON, GOODING, WOOD, TAYLOR, AND TARRIER

cation effects would suggest that the relative impact of failure and
success upon subsequent defeat was moderated by emotion reap-
praisal strategy (trait reappraisal or suppression). The second aim
of the study was to investigate any significant interactions to assess
whether there were specific associations between emotion regula-
tion strategy (trait reappraisal or suppression) and defeat among
individuals in either the success or failure condition. If found,
these associations would suggest that in the presence of an expe-
rience of either success or failure, there was a linear association
between emotion regulation strategy (trait reappraisal or suppres-
sion) and defeat. The third aim of the study was to investigate
whether these results were specific to feelings of defeat, or whether
they generalized to other emotions and general affect. These aims
were investigated using a quasi-experimental design, whereby
participants completed measures of trait reappraisal and suppres-
sion together with measures of current affect at baseline, before
random allocation to a condition with either a task with a fixed
success outcome, or a task with a fixed failure outcome. After the
task, current affect was measured a second time.
Method
Participants. Participants were 120 undergraduate students
from a university in the north–west of England (28 male, Mage ⫽
20.53, SD ⫽2.82). Sixty participants (14 male, Mage ⫽20.60,
SD ⫽3.00) were randomly assigned to the failure condition and 60
participants (14 male, Mage ⫽20.47, SD ⫽2.64) were randomly
assigned to the success condition. Participants were recruited using
a poster advertising the study and received course credits in
exchange for taking part. The study was approved by a university
ethics committee and all participants provided informed consent.
After completion of the experiment participants were debriefed
and provided with an information sheet listing contact details for
help-lines and counseling services.
Materials
Emotion Regulation Questionnaire. The ERQ (Gross &
John, 2003) contains two subscales measuring emotion reappraisal
and emotion suppression. The six-item reappraisal subscale as-
sesses the frequency with which individuals regulate their emo-
tions through the use of thought-change strategies. Items for this
subscale include “When I want to feel more positive emotion (such
as joy or amusement), I change what I’m thinking about” and
“When I want to feel less negative emotion, I change the way I’m
thinking about the situation.” The four-item suppression subscale
measures the extent to which individuals regulate their emotions
through the use of suppression strategies, and includes items such
as “I keep my emotions to myself” and “I control my emotions by
not expressing them.” Reappraisal subscale scores have been found
to be significantly associated with higher levels of peer-rated
positive emotion expression (r⫽.44) and suppression subscale
scores have been found to be associated with lower levels of
peer-rated positive emotion expression (r⫽⫺.62). Test–retest
reliability for both subscales was found to be r⫽.69 across 3
months (Gross & John, 2003).
Measure of current mood. Participants were asked to mark
their mood on five visual analogue scales (VASs) measuring how
defeated, sad, calm, happy, and frustrated they were feeling at that
moment. As the study sought to examine participants’ existing
concepts of emotions, definitions were not provided as standard.
However, a small number of participants did ask for the meaning
of the word “defeat” to be described to them. When this occurred
defeat was described as “the feeling that you have lost your fight,
feeling that you have failed or feeling down and out,” consistent
with previous definitions in the literature (Gilbert & Allan, 1998;
Taylor et al., 2010b). Each VAS was a 10 cm vertical line, with the
bottom of the line representing an absence of the emotion (e.g.,
“Not at all defeated”) and the top of the line representing high
levels of the emotion (e.g., “Very defeated”). Participants were
required to draw a dash across the line at any point that reflected
their current mood. VASs were used as previous research indicates
that they are an optimal method for capturing mood fluctuations
that occur in response to experimental tasks (Goldstein & Willner,
2002; Johnson et al., 2008b). Furthermore, they are a brief method
for measuring mood that converges with longer mood scales such
as the Beck Depression Inventory (Beck, Steer, & Brown, 1996;
Folstein & Luria, 1973). Test–retest reliability for VASs has been
found to be r⫽.85 over the space of 1 hr (Ahearn & Carroll,
1996).
Positive and Negative Affect Scales. The Positive and Neg-
ative Affect Scales (PANAS; Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988)
comprises of 20 items measuring different feelings and emotions
during a time period specified by the researcher (e.g., “During the
past few weeks” or “During the past few days”). To detect mood
fluctuations occurring in response to the task, the version used in
the current study specified, “At the moment.” The PANAS con-
tains two 10-item subscales. One of these measures positive affect
(PA) and includes items such as “enthusiastic” and “proud.” The
other measures negative affect (NA) and includes items such as
“upset” and “guilty.” The NA scale has been found to be correlated
with measures of depression (r⫽.60), and the PA scale has been
found to be negatively correlated with depression (r⫽.48; Craw-
ford & Henry, 2004). The trait version of the PA scale has been
found to have a 2-month test–retest reliability of .68, and the trait
version of the NA scale has been found to have a 2-month
test–retest reliability of .71 (Watson et al., 1988).
Puzzles to induce success or failure. There were two tasks
used to induce either success or failure. Both of these were
variations of the Remote Associates Test (McFarlin & Blascovich,
1984; Mednick, 1962). This requires participants to read three
words presented on a slide, which are all related to a fourth word,
which is not presented. The task is to identify this fourth word. For
example, participants may be presented with “Soap,” “Shoe,” and
“Tissue,” where the correct answer is “Box.” Each task comprised
of 20 items, and after each item participants were informed if their
response was correct or incorrect. As participants were allowed up
to 30 s to solve each item, the tasks took up to 10 min to complete.
Items on the failure version of the task were not insoluble, but were
designed to be so difficult that participants were unlikely to be able
to identify the fourth word on any of the trials. In the success
version, items were set to be easier, and participants were offered
the option of receiving an additional “hint” to help them.
Procedure
Participants provided written consent to the take part in the
study. The testing session then began with the completion of the
3
TRAIT REAPPRAISAL AMPLIFIES DEFEAT

ERQ (Gross & John, 2003), the VASs and the PANAS scales.
After this, participants were randomly allocated to either the suc-
cess task or the failure task. After taking part in the tasks, partic-
ipants completed all the measures of mood a second time.
Analysis Strategy
First, independent samples ttests were conducted to investigate
differences between the two groups on baseline levels of emotion
reappraisal, emotion suppression, and the VAS emotions. After
this, a hierarchical regression analysis was conducted to examine
(a) whether condition predicted posttask defeat and (b) whether
emotion regulation strategy (reappraisal or suppression) moderated
the association between condition (success or failure) and posttask
defeat. Both of these were conducted while controlling for baseline
levels of defeat. In the first step of this analysis, baseline levels of
defeat were entered into the regression model so as to control for
any residual differences between experimental groups. In the sec-
ond step, condition (failure or success) was entered. In the third
step, emotion regulation strategies, reappraisal, and suppression,
were entered. In the final step, the interaction terms between
condition and reappraisal and condition and suppression were
entered. Within each step, variables were entered simultaneously,
and standardized variables were used to avoid multicollinearity
(Frazier, Tix, & Barron, 2004). If either of the interaction terms in
the fourth step (reappraisal and condition or suppression and
condition) were significant predictors, it indicated a moderating
effect of that emotion regulation strategy (reappraisal or suppres-
sion) on the association between condition and subsequent feelings
of defeat (Cohen & Cohen, 1983). This analysis was then repeated
for each of VAS scales and the positive and negative emotion
subscales of the PANAS, to investigate (a) whether the impact of
failure was specific to feelings of defeat and (b) whether the
interaction between reappraisal and condition was specific to feel-
ings of defeat, or whether it had an impact on a range of moods.
Furthermore, if results found using the PANAS replicated those of
the VAS scales, then this would validate the use of the VAS scales
for further research.
Finally, any significant interactions that were found were inves-
tigated using simple slopes analyses. Whereas the regression anal-
yses assessed whether emotion regulation strategy (trait reap-
praisal or suppression) moderated the association between an
experience of failure versus success and subsequent mood, these
tested whether the slope for each condition (failure and success)
varied significantly from zero. If the slope of a particular condition
was significant, it suggested a linear association between emotion
regulation strategy (trait reappraisal or suppression) and mood in
the presence of an experience of either failure or success. The
simple slopes analyses were conducted using modprobe computa-
tional aide for SPSS (Hayes & Matthes, 2009). As the moderation
regression included a dichotomous variable (condition), the
Johnson-Neyman method was used.
Results
Baseline scores. Baseline scores on reappraisal and suppres-
sion are displayed in Table 1, and measures of mood for each
condition and across conditions are displayed in Table 2. Corre-
lation analyses revealed significant negative associations between
reappraisal and baseline defeat, sadness, and negative affect, sig-
nificant positive associations between reappraisal and positive
affect, significant negative associations between suppression and
baseline happiness, and significant positive associations between
suppression and frustration (see Table 2). Results from the inde-
pendent samples ttests suggested that there were no differences
between groups on levels of either emotion suppression or emotion
reappraisal, or any of the VAS or PANAS emotion scales (all ps⬎
.05).
Reappraisal and suppression as moderators of defeat. A
regression analysis was conducted to investigate (a) whether con-
dition (success or failure) predicted subsequent feelings of defeat,
and (b) whether emotion regulation strategy (reappraisal or sup-
pression) could moderate this association. As can be seen in Table
3, condition (success or failure) predicted posttask defeat when
controlling for baseline defeat, with individuals in the failure
condition reporting higher posttask levels of defeat compared to
those in the success condition (see Table 2). Reappraisal was also
found to moderate the impact of condition upon subsequent feel-
ings of defeat. The graph of this interaction (Figure 1A) shows that
individuals in the failure condition who reported more frequent use
of reappraisal showed the highest levels of posttask defeat, but
frequent reappraisers who were in the success condition reported
the lowest levels of defeat. Suppression was not found to moderate
the impact of condition upon defeat.
Reappraisal and suppression as moderators of sadness,
calmness, happiness, and frustration. This regression analysis
was then repeated with each of the remaining emotions measured
using VAS, to examine whether this pattern was specific to defeat
or generalized to other emotions. These found that condition was
a significant predictor of each of these emotions. Specifically,
participants in the failure condition reported higher levels of sad-
ness and frustration and lower levels of calmness and happiness
posttask (see Table 2). Furthermore, reappraisal was found to
moderate the impact of condition upon both feelings of sadness
and calmness (see Table 3). The graphs of these interactions
suggest that frequent reappraisers in the failure condition reported
Table 1
Means and SDs
a
for Reappraisal and Suppression
b
in Study 1
Variable Failure condition Success condition Across conditions
Reappraisal (ERQ) 29.63 (7.23) 29.05 (6.41) 29.34 (6.81)
Suppression (ERQ) 13.13 (6.32) 12.57 (5.23) 12.85 (5.81)
Transformed suppression (ERQ) 3.53 (0.82) 3.47 (0.75) 3.50 (0.80)
a
SDs appear in parentheses below the means.
b
Scores on the Suppression subscale of the ERQ were
transformed to reduce skew.
4JOHNSON, GOODING, WOOD, TAYLOR, AND TARRIER

the highest levels of posttask sadness (Figure 1B) and the lowest
levels of posttask calmness (Figure 1C). Reappraisal was not found
to have a significant moderating impact upon either happiness or
frustration, and suppression did not moderate the impact of con-
dition upon any emotion.
Reappraisal and suppression as moderators of general pos-
itive and negative affect. Regression analyses were also used to
examine whether reappraisal and suppression moderated the im-
pact of condition upon general positive and negative affect. These
found that condition was a significant predictor of both positive
and negative affect, with individuals in the failure condition re-
porting higher posttask negative affect and lower posttask positive
affect. The regression analyses also found that reappraisal moder-
ated the impact of condition upon subsequent negative affect. The
graph of this interaction (Figure 1D) suggested that frequent re-
appraisers in the failure condition reported the highest levels of
posttask negative affect. Suppression was not found to moderate
the impact of condition upon either positive or negative affect.
Testing whether there is an association between reappraisal
and outcome mood in each condition alone. Each of the
significant interactions indicated by the hierarchical regressions
were then explored using simple slopes analyses. These found a
linear association between reappraisal and each of the outcome
mood measures for individuals in the failure condition. Specifi-
cally, it was found that after an experience of failure, more fre-
quent reappraisal was directly associated with higher levels of
posttask defeat (␤⫽.2117, p⫽.018), sadness (␤⫽.2134, p⫽
.037), and negative affect (␤⫽.2379, p⫽.011) and lower levels
of postfailure calmness (␤⫽⫺.2167, p⫽.037). There were no
specific associations between reappraisal and posttask emotions
among individuals in the success condition (all ps⬎0.05).
Brief Discussion
In line with the first prediction, Study 1 found that more fre-
quent reappraisal amplified the difference in defeat between the
success and failure conditions. The graph of the interaction sug-
gested that individuals who frequently reappraised reported higher
levels of defeat after failure and lower levels of defeat after success
than individuals with less frequent reappraisal. The results from
the simple slopes analyses suggested a linear association between
more frequent reappraisal and higher levels of posttask defeat after
an experience of failure, in particular. This pattern was also found
to replicate for feelings of sadness, calmness, and general negative
affect. Specifically it was found that higher frequency of reap-
praisal was associated with greater increases in sadness and neg-
ative affect and greater decreases in calmness after an experience
of failure. Contrary to the second prediction, trait suppression was
not found to moderate the association between failure and defeat or
any of the other emotions.
Study 2
The participants in Study 1 were from a nonclinical population,
and so findings from this study cannot be generalized to clinical
populations. Defeat has been linked to a range of psychopatholog-
ical disorders. For example, it is thought to contribute to the
development of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) (Dunmore,
Clark, & Ehlers, 1997, 1999, 2001; Ehlers et al., 1998), depression
(Gilbert & Allan, 1998; Sloman, Gilbert, & Hasey, 2003), suicid-
ality (Williams, 1997; Williams, Crane, Barnhofer, & Duggan,
2005), and schizophrenia (Selten & Cantor-Graae, 2005, 2007).
Thus, the main aim of Study 2 was to investigate whether
emotion regulation strategy (trait reappraisal and suppression)
moderated the association between a stressful experience and
subsequent subjective defeat among individuals with
schizophrenia-spectrum disorders. The second aim of the study
was to investigate any significant interactions to assess whether
there was a direct association between emotion regulation strategy
(trait reappraisal or suppression) and defeat in the presence of an
experience of either success or failure, in isolation. In line with
Table 2
Means and SDs
a
for Measures of Mood
b
, and Correlations Between Baseline Measures of Mood and Reappraisal
and Suppression in Study 1
Variable
Failure
condition
Postinduction
Success
condition
Postinduction
Across
conditions
Postinduction
Reappraisal
(ERQ)
Suppression
(ERQ)
Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline
Defeat (VAS) 1.62 (2.50) 4.69 (3.11) 1.45 (1.90) 1.99 (2.58) 1.53 (1.97) 3.34 (3.15)
Transformed defeat (VAS) 3.17 (2.50) 6.37 (2.52) 2.94 (2.43) 3.45 (2.85) 3.05 (2.46) 4.91 (3.06) ⫺.33
ⴱⴱ
.08
Sad (VAS) 1.73 (2.17) 2.71 (28.37) 2.22 (2.44) 1.80 (2.22) 1.97 (2.31) 2.25 (2.58)
Transformed sad (VAS) 0.93 (0.58) 1.14 (0.61) 1.09 (0.55) 0.94 (0.61) 1.01 (0.57) 1.04 (0.62) ⫺.31
ⴱⴱ
.00
Calm (VAS) 7.40 (2.40) 6.14 (2.44) 6.77 (2.68) 6.57 (2.60) 7.09 (2.55) 6.36 (2.52)
Transformed calm (VAS) 6.30 (2.23) 5.12 (2.26) 5.70 (2.30) 5.40 (2.27) 6.00 (2.28) 5.31 (2.26) .14 ⫺.01
Happy (VAS) 7.10 (1.83) 6.10 (2.30) 6.97 (1.98) 7.04 (2.19) 7.03 (1.90) 6.57 (2.28)
Transformed happy (VAS) 1.81 (1.77) 1.00 (2.04) 1.74 (1.93) 1.82 (1.97) 1.78 (1.85) 1.41 (2.04) .08 ⫺.19
ⴱ
Frustrated (VAS) 3.07 (2.66) 5.90 (2.88) 3.18 (2.66) 3.29 (2.69) 3.13 (2.65) 4.59 (3.07)
Transformed frustrated (VAS) 4.86 (2.69) 4.94 (2.74) 4.90 (2.70) ⫺.13 .26
ⴱⴱ
NA (PANAS) 14.03 (4.60) 16.19 (5.55) 14.38 (4.05) 13.92 (4.93) 14.21 (4.32) 15.04 (5.35)
Transformed NA (PANAS) 0.92 (0.02) 0.93 (0.02) 0.93 (0.02) 0.92 (0.02) 0.92 (0.02) 0.93 (0.02) ⫺.21
ⴱ
.11
PA (PANAS) 30.37 (8.29) 24.87 (9.76) 28.85 (7.20) 27.77 (8.68) 29.61 (7.77) 26.32 (9.31) .33
ⴱⴱ
⫺.07
a
SDs appear in parentheses below the means.
b
Scores on the VAS scales (with the exception of postinduction frustrated) and the PANAS negative affect
subscale were transformed to reduce skew. Where transformations have been conducted, correlations have been reported for transformed variables only.
Transformations conducted on VAS scales were based on the results scored in millimeters.
ⴱ
p⬍.05.
ⴱⴱ
p⬍.01.
5
TRAIT REAPPRAISAL AMPLIFIES DEFEAT

findings from Study 1, the first prediction was that more frequent
reappraisal would amplify the difference in defeat between the
success and failure conditions. The second prediction was that
higher levels of suppression would also amplify the difference in
defeat between the success and failure conditions. The third aim of
the study was to investigate whether these results were specific to
feelings of defeat, or whether they generalized to other emotions.
Method
Participants. Participants were outpatients residing in the
north–west of England who were recruited via their keyworker or
appropriate health care professional. Community mental health
teams, assertive outreach teams, early intervention services, sup-
ported housing associations, and voluntary organizations sup-
ported recruitment. After referral, participants were interviewed by
a research psychologist (either the first or fourth authors). Inclu-
sion criteria for the study were (a) a clinical diagnosis based on
ICD-10 or DSM–IV criteria of a schizophrenia spectrum disorder
(e.g., schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, psychosis not other-
wise specified); (b) aged 18 years or over; (c) English-speaking;
(d) not considered to be a current high suicide risk by their
keyworker or appropriate health care professional; (e) able to
provide informed consent as judged by their keyworker or appro-
priate health care professional. Participants were excluded if drug
use or neuropsychological disorder was judged to be the major
cause of the psychosis. These inclusion criteria were applied by the
participant’s keyworker or appropriate mental health professional,
as these were deemed the most well-informed individuals concern-
ing the participant’s mental health history and current presentation.
Participants were within the health care system and had all been
formally diagnosed with a schizophrenia-spectrum disorder. This
was on the basis of either the ICD-10 or DSM–IV, and was
overseen by a psychiatrist following the guidelines of the British
National Health Service (NHS). The study was approved by a
national research ethics committee before commencing and took
into consideration the precise needs of this population (Taylor et
al., 2010a).
A total of 78 participants were recruited into the study. One of
these was subsequently excluded because of missing data. Of the
final sample of 77 (18 female; M
age
⫽42.3 years, SD ⫽11.9), 39
were pseudorandomly allocated to the success condition and 38
were allocated to the failure condition. The participants were
predominantly White (n⫽60, 77.9%), followed by Mixed British
(n⫽6, 7.8%), Asian (n⫽4. 5.2%), Afro-Caribbean (n⫽2,
2.6%), Iranian (n⫽1, 1.3%), and Black British (n⫽1, 1.3%) with
ethnicity data missing for three participants. The majority of par-
ticipants had a diagnosis of schizophrenia (n⫽69, 89.6%) then
schizoaffective disorder (n⫽5, 6.5%), psychosis not otherwise
specified (n⫽2, 2.6%), and atypical psychosis (n⫽1, 1.3%).
Materials
Materials used in the present study were the ERQ, 10.5 cm VAS
of defeat, sadness, calmness, happiness, and frustration and the
two versions of the Remote Associates Test, all of which are
described in Study 1.
Table 3
Hierarchical Regression Analyses Predicting Postinduction Mood Measured by the VASs and the PANAS Positive and Negative Affect Subscales for Study 1
Step
Outcome measure of mood
Variable entered
Defeat (VAS) Sad (VAS) Calm (VAS) Happy (VAS) Frustrated (VAS)
Negative Affect
(PANAS)
Positive Affect
(PANAS)
␤SE ␤␤SE ␤␤SE ␤␤SE ␤␤SE ␤␤SE ␤␤SE ␤
1 Baseline mood .596
ⴱⴱⴱ
.074 .604
ⴱⴱⴱ
.073 .596
ⴱⴱⴱ
.074 .716
ⴱⴱⴱ
.064 .480
ⴱⴱⴱ
.081 .640
ⴱⴱⴱ
.071 .789
ⴱⴱⴱ
.057
2 Baseline mood .574
ⴱⴱⴱ
.061 .638
ⴱⴱⴱ
.071 .618
ⴱⴱⴱ
.073 .720
ⴱⴱⴱ
.061 .487
ⴱⴱⴱ
.070 .662
ⴱⴱⴱ
.065 .812
ⴱⴱⴱ
.053
Condition .903
ⴱⴱⴱ
.122 .491
ⴱⴱ
.141 ⫺.330
ⴱ
.146 ⫺.425
ⴱⴱ
.122 .867
ⴱⴱⴱ
.140 .606
ⴱⴱⴱ
.130 ⫺.470
ⴱⴱⴱ
.105
3 Baseline mood .609
ⴱⴱⴱ
.065 .662
ⴱⴱⴱ
.075 .630
ⴱⴱⴱ
.074 .744
ⴱⴱⴱ
.062 .504
ⴱⴱⴱ
.074 .696
ⴱⴱⴱ
.066 .847
ⴱⴱⴱ
.055
Condition .894
ⴱⴱⴱ
.122 .492
ⴱⴱ
.141 ⫺.329
ⴱ
.146 ⫺.440
ⴱⴱⴱ
.121 .871
ⴱⴱⴱ
.141 .602
ⴱⴱⴱ
.129 ⫺.475
ⴱⴱⴱ
.104
Reappraisal .097 .066 .078 .075 ⫺.086 .074 .041 .061 .015 .072 .133
ⴱ
.066 ⫺.087 .055
Suppression ⫺.029 .062 ⫺.014 .071 .042 .074 .140
ⴱ
.062 ⫺.060 .074 ⫺.053 .065 .080 .052
4 Baseline mood .584
ⴱⴱⴱ
.065 .653
ⴱⴱⴱ
.073 .619
ⴱⴱⴱ
.073 .746
ⴱⴱⴱ
.063 .486
ⴱⴱⴱ
.075 .667
ⴱⴱⴱ
.066 .845
ⴱⴱⴱ
.056
Condition .896
ⴱⴱⴱ
.120 .490
ⴱⴱ
.139 ⫺.326
ⴱ
.144 ⫺.441
ⴱⴱⴱ
.112 .871
ⴱⴱⴱ
.141 .597
ⴱⴱⴱ
.126 ⫺.475
ⴱⴱⴱ
.104
Reappraisal ⫺.080 .096 ⫺.122 .108 .109 .109 .005 .093 ⫺.050 .109 ⫺.045 .098 ⫺.098 .081
Suppression .055 .092 .094 .104 ⫺.074 .108 .131 .094 .059 .111 .072 .097 .065 .079
Reappraisal ⫻condition interaction .291
ⴱ
.126 .336
ⴱ
.114 ⫺.326
ⴱ
.149 .073 .128 .074 .148 .283
ⴱ
.132 .027 .109
Suppression ⫻condition interaction ⫺.091 .127 ⫺.129 .144 .146 .149 .034 .128 ⫺.197 .149 ⫺.167 .134 .034 .109
Note. Within each step, variables were entered simultanesouly.
ⴱ
p⬍.05.
ⴱⴱ
p⬍.01.
ⴱⴱⴱ
p⬍.001.
6JOHNSON, GOODING, WOOD, TAYLOR, AND TARRIER

Procedure
Participants provided written consent to the take part in the
study. The testing session then began with the completion of the
ERQ and the VASs. After this, participants were randomly allo-
cated to either the success task or the failure task, after which they
completed the measures of mood a second time.
Analysis Strategy
Initially, a Mann–Whitney Utest was conducted to check that
the manipulation was effective and the individuals in the defeat
condition scored lower on the task than individuals in the success
condition. Next, correlations were conducted to examine whether
there was an association between reappraisal and task performance
in each of the conditions. After this, independent samples ttests
were conducted to investigate differences between the two groups
on baseline levels of emotion reappraisal, emotion suppression and
the VAS emotions. A series of hierarchical regression analyses
were then conducted and any significant interactions were inves-
tigated using simple slopes analyses, as described in Study 1.
Results
Behavior performance. Individuals in the success condition
gained higher scores on the Remote Associates Task (median ⫽
19, M⫽18.69, SD ⫽1.52) than individuals in the failure condi-
tion (median ⫽0, M⫽0.89, SD ⫽1.23). A Mann–Whitney Utest
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
Reappraisal
Post-induction calmness
Condition
Failure
Success
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
Reappraisal
Post-induction negative affect
Condition
Failure
Success
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Reappraisal
Post-induction sadness
Condition
Failure
Success
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Reappraisal
Post-induction defeat
Condition
Failure
Success
B
A
DC
high
medlow highmed
low
highmed
low
highmed
low
Figure 1. Reappraisal moderates the impact of failure upon subsequent feelings of defeat (A), sadness (B),
calmness (C), and negative affect (D) among nonclinical participants (Study 1).
7
TRAIT REAPPRAISAL AMPLIFIES DEFEAT

was conducted to check that this difference was significant. The
results of the test were in the expected direction and significant,
z⫽⫺7.67, p⬍.001.
To test that the impact of reappraisal upon mood was not
mediated by its impact upon performance, two correlation analyses
were conduct which assessed whether there was an association
between trait reappraisal and score in each of the conditions. These
suggested that there was no association between trait reappraisal
and score in either the success condition (r⫽⫺.076, p⫽.644) or
the failure condition (r⫽⫺.292, p⫽.075).
Baseline scores. Baseline scores on reappraisal and suppres-
sion are displayed in Table 4. Means and SDs for mood scores and
correlations for baseline mood with reappraisal and suppression
are displayed in Table 5. There was no association between either
reappraisal or suppression and any baseline VAS emotion score.
Results from the independent samples ttests suggested that there
were no differences between groups on levels of either emotion
suppression or emotion reappraisal or the emotions of sadness and
frustration (all ps⬎.05). There were, however, significant differ-
ences on baseline levels of defeat, t(75) ⫽2.438, p⫽.017, calm,
t(75) ⫽⫺2.085, p⬍.040, and happy, t(75) ⫽⫺2.474, p⫽0.016,
with individuals in the defeat condition reporting lower initial
levels of defeat and higher levels of calm and happy. Because of
this, the analysis used investigated postinduction levels of mood
while controlling for baseline levels.
Reappraisal and suppression as moderators of defeat. A
regression analysis was conducted to investigate (a) whether con-
dition (success or failure) predicted subsequent feelings defeat, and
(b) whether emotion reappraisal or emotion suppression could
moderate this association. As can be seen in Table 6, condition
(success or failure) predicted posttask defeat when controlling for
baseline defeat, with individuals in the failure condition reporting
higher posttask levels of defeat compared to those in the success
condition (see Table 5). Neither reappraisal or suppression pre-
dicted changes in defeat in addition to condition, but reappraisal
was found to moderate the impact of condition. The graph of this
interaction (see Figure 2) shows that individuals with more habit-
ual trait reappraisal reported greater levels of defeat in response to
an experience of failure relative to an experience of success. The
graph also suggested that more frequent reappraisers in the success
condition showed greater decreases in defeat relative to those in
the failure condition. The interaction was then investigated using a
simple slopes analysis, which suggested the presence of a trend
indicating a linear association between reappraisal and defeat after
an experience of failure, in particular (␤⫽.2917, p⫽.065).
Reappraisal did not appear to be linearly associated with defeat
after an experience of success (␤⫽⫺.1811, p⫽.225).
Reappraisal and suppression as moderators of sadness,
calmness, happiness, and frustration. This regression analysis
was then repeated with each of the other emotions, to investigate
whether this interaction was specific to perceptions of defeat. As
can be seen in Table 6, emotion reappraisal and emotion suppres-
sion were not found to predict any of these emotions either in
addition to or when interacting with condition.
Discussion and General Discussion
Two studies were conducted with the main aim of investigating
whether naturally occurring or trait reappraisal exacerbated the
impact of an experience of failure versus success on subsequent
perceived defeat. Supporting the prediction, it was found that
reappraisal amplified the difference in defeat between individuals
in the failure and success conditions. Specifically, results sug-
gested that the highest increases in self-reported defeat were
among frequent reappraisers who experienced failure. Further-
more, among nonclinical participants, more frequent reappraisal
was found to amplify increases in sadness and negative affect and
decreases in calmness after failure. These results extend the pre-
vious literature in three main ways.
First, these results demonstrate that there are cognitive processes
that can moderate perceptions of defeat in response to experiences
of failure versus success. Defeat has been implicated in a range of
mental health disorders including psychosis (Ehlers et al., 2000;
Gilbert & Allan, 1998; Rooke & Birchwood, 1998; Selten &
Cantor-Graae, 2005, 2007) and is thought to be a key factor in the
development of suicidality (Williams, 1997; Williams et al., 2005).
Perceived defeat sometimes increases after an experience of fail-
ure, but the strength of this relationship varies between individuals
(Johnson et al., 2008b). The current results extend this previous
research by identifying a cognitive process, specifically trait reap-
praisal, which may account for these interindividual differences.
Furthermore, these results could have relevance for psychological
theories that incorporate concepts of defeat. One such theory is the
Cry of Pain model of suicidality (Williams, 1997; Williams et al.,
2005), which suggests that when stressful life events are appraised
in terms of defeat and this is then compounded by concomitant
perceptions of entrapment and hopelessness, suicidality increases.
The current studies have identified one mechanism that may mod-
erate the likelihood that stressful events will lead to subsequent
suicidality.
Second, results from Study 2 provide the first evidence that trait
reappraisal is a relevant factor to consider when predicting re-
sponse to experiences of failure and success among individuals
with schizophrenia-spectrum disorders. Previously, cross-sectional
research among individuals with schizophrenia has suggested that
reappraisal is not associated with either the positive or negative
symptoms of psychosis (Henry et al., 2008). The current research
extends this by showing that although trait reappraisal does not
appear to be significantly associated with the specific emotions of
defeat, sadness, calmness, happiness, or frustration cross-
Table 4
Means and SDs
a
for Reappraisal and Suppression in Study 2
Variable Failure condition Success condition Across conditions
Reappraisal (ERQ) 27.16 (8.50) 24.31 (7.53) 25.63 (8.10)
Suppression (ERQ) 17.55 (6.42) 15.49 (5.94) 16.54 (6.19)
a
SDs appear in parentheses below the means.
8JOHNSON, GOODING, WOOD, TAYLOR, AND TARRIER

sectionally, it does moderate response to experiences of failure and
success among this group.
Third, the current studies found that trait reappraisal did not
attenuate the impact of a stressor as emotion regulation theory
would predict (Gross & Thompson, 2007), but in fact amplified the
impact of failure relative to success on defeat in both studies, and
to amplify sadness, happiness, and general negative affect in the
first study. This supports recent evidence that reappraisal amplifies
physiological responses to stressors (Butler et al., 2006; Lam et al.,
2009), and suggests that trait reappraisal may have a different
moderating effect compared to instructed reappraisal (Lam et al.,
2009). Previously, much research into reappraisal has used an
experimental approach, whereby participants follow instructions to
either reappraise or suppress, which has tended to report a benefit
of using reappraisal over suppression, or no regulation strategy
(Goldin, McRae, Ramel, & Gross, 2008; Gross, 1998; Hermann,
Pejic, Vaitl, & Stark, 2009). By contrast, the current studies
investigated naturally occurring trait reappraisal and response to a
subsequent stressor. It could be that while reappraising under
instruction is beneficial, trait reappraisal is not.
Although explanations for this discrepancy were not investi-
gated by the study, it is possible that trait reappraisal may reflect
an underlying thought-focused cognitive coping style that con-
verges with concepts of rumination. Rumination refers to thought
processes that are repetitive, abstract, and analytical (Nolen-
Hoeksema, Wisco, & Lyubomirsky, 2008; Smith & Alloy, 2009),
but there has been some debate over the definition of rumination,
and it has been suggested that rumination could be related to a
Table 5
Means and SDs
a
for Measures of Mood
b
, and Correlations Between Baseline Measures of Mood and Reappraisal
and Suppression in Study 2
Variable
Failure condition Success condition Across conditions
Reappraisal
(ERQ)
Suppression
(ERQ)
Baseline Posttask Baseline Posttask Baseline Posttask Baseline Baseline
Defeat (VAS) 2.11 (2.41) 5.25 (3.50) 4.03 (3.56) 2.64 (2.78) 3.09 (3.16) 3.93 (3.40)
Transformed defeat (VAS) 1.82 (0.86) 1.72 (1.05) 1.46 (0.99) ⫺.11 .09
Sad (VAS) 2.68 (2.53) 2.91 (2.88) 3.41 (3.04) 2.49 (3.22) 3.01 (2.80) 2.70 (3.05)
Transformed sad (VAS) 1.39 (0.88) 1.43 (0.94) 1.58 (0.97) 1.20 (1.04) 1.47 (0.92) 1.32 (0.99) ⫺.14 .13
Calm (VAS) 7.96 (2.32) 6.89 (2.99) 6.63 (3.16) 7.14 (3.04) 7.28 (2.82) 7.02 (3.00)
Transformed calm (VAS) 2.45 (0.23) 2.37 (0.27) 2.34 (0.25) 2.40 (0.28) 2.39 (0.24) 2.38 (0.27) .20 .01
Happy (VAS) 7.21 (2.93) 6.11 (3.10) 5.50 (3.12) 6.80 (2.50) 6.30 (3.13) 6.46 (2.81) .17 ⫺.03
Frustrated (VAS) 3.11 (3.12) 5.78 (3.50) 3.38 (3.00) 2.62 (2.74) 3.26 (3.00) 4.18 (3.50)
Transformed frustrated (VAS) 1.50 (0.95) 1.58 (0.95) 1.55 (0.94) ⫺.03 .09
a
SDs appear in parentheses below the means.
b
Scores on the VAS scales (with the exception of preinduction and postinduction happy and postinduction
defeat and frustrated) were transformed to reduce skew. Where transformations have been conducted, correlations have been reported for transformed
variables only.
ⴱ
p⬍.05.
ⴱⴱ
p⬍.01.
Table 6
Hierarchical Regression Analyses Predicting Postinduction Mood Measured by the VASs and the PANAS Positive and Negative Affect
Subscales for Study 2
Outcome measure of mood
Defeat (VAS) Sad (VAS) Calm (VAS) Happy (VAS) Frustrated (VAS)
Step Variable entered ␤SE ␤␤SE ␤␤SE ␤␤SE ␤␤SE ␤
1 Baseline mood .257
ⴱ
.111 .590
ⴱⴱⴱ
.093 .463
ⴱⴱⴱ
.102 .591
ⴱⴱⴱ
.093 .361
ⴱⴱ
.107
2 Baseline mood .390
ⴱⴱⴱ
.101 .608
ⴱⴱⴱ
.092 .504
ⴱⴱⴱ
.103 .676
ⴱⴱⴱ
.091 .382
ⴱⴱⴱ
.093
Condition .978
ⴱⴱⴱ
.202 .356 .183 ⫺.349 .206 ⫺.613
ⴱⴱ
.180 .937
ⴱⴱⴱ
.186
3 Baseline mood .384
ⴱⴱⴱ
.104 .595
ⴱⴱⴱ
.096 .502
ⴱⴱⴱ
.107 .677
ⴱⴱⴱ
.093 .388
ⴱⴱⴱ
.095
Condition .949
ⴱⴱⴱ
.210 .337 .189 ⫺.352 .213 ⫺.583
ⴱⴱ
.186 .960
ⴱⴱⴱ
.193
Reappraisal .023 .104 ⫺.021 .098 .011 .109 ⫺.039 .093 .004 .099
Suppression .052 .104 .070 .098 .001 .107 ⫺.049 .092 ⫺.070 .099
4 Baseline mood .381
ⴱⴱⴱ
.102 .605
ⴱⴱⴱ
.095 .510
ⴱⴱⴱ
.105 .653
ⴱⴱⴱ
.095 .372
ⴱⴱⴱ
.093
Condition .956
ⴱⴱⴱ
.206 .347 .188 ⫺.332 .211 ⫺.580
ⴱⴱ
.187 .957
ⴱⴱⴱ
.189
Reappraisal ⫺.181 .148 ⫺.175 .141 ⫺.044 .155 .086 .138 ⫺.147 .141
Suppression .089 .145 .081 .136 ⫺.202 .150 ⫺.026 .131 .021 .138
Reappraisal ⫻condition interaction .473
ⴱ
.214 .352 .203 ⫺.036 .224 ⫺.247 .200 .393 .205
Suppression ⫻condition interaction ⫺.228 .213 ⫺.143 .203 .427 .223 .029 .195 ⫺.310 .205
Note. Within each step, variables were entered simultaneously.
ⴱ
p⬍.05.
ⴱⴱ
p⬍.01.
ⴱⴱⴱ
p⬍.001.
9
TRAIT REAPPRAISAL AMPLIFIES DEFEAT

more general process of repetitive thinking (Watkins, 2008). Po-
tentially, it may be that both trait reappraisal and rumination are
aspects of this tendency toward repetitive thought. Like trait reap-
praisal, rumination can be viewed as trait or tendency to use
thought-focused coping strategies, and both may have an impact
over a period of time. Rumination has also been found to amplify
negative affect and emotional reactivity in response to negative
experiences (Watkins, 2004; Watkins, Moberly, & Molds, 2008),
consistent with the current findings. It should be noted that one
previous study found a negative association between reappraisal
and a measure of rumination (Gross & John, 2003). However, the
particular measure of rumination used (Trapnell, 1999) focused on
self-oriented thoughts, rather than the repetitive thought processes
alone. It may be that there is a distinction between self-oriented
thought and repetitive thought processes used in relation to coping.
Furthermore, if reappraisal does indeed reflect the repetitive
thinking process captured by the concept of rumination, it might be
expected that it is not an inherently negative trait but only negative
when the content of the thought has a negative focus. Consistent
with this were findings from the current study. That is, in both
studies it was found that while more frequent reappraisers in the
failure condition felt more defeated after failure, more frequent
reappraisers in the success condition did not feel more defeated
after an experience of success.
However, it must also be considered that whether reappraisal
attenuates of amplifies the impact of stressors may depend upon
the particular type of stressor, rather than the type of reappraisal
(instructed or trait). That is, much of the research that has found
reappraisal to be beneficial has used a nonsocial stressor such as an
unpleasant film, as well as instructed reappraisal rather than trait
reappraisal (Goldin et al., 2008; Gross, 1998). By contrast, re-
search that has found trait reappraisal to amplify stress has also
used a social stressor, rather than a nonsocial stressor (Lam et al.,
2009). Supporting this view, in the present studies the stressor was
failure at a task where each item was administered by an experi-
menter who also provided ongoing verbal feedback, and as such
was failure experienced within a social context. As social stressors
are among the strongest risk factors for mental health disorders and
suicidality (Harwood, Hawton, Hope, Harriss, & Jacoby, 2006; Liu
& Tein, 2005; Rudolph & Flynn, 2007), the present results may be
the most relevant when considering psychopathology and mental
health interventions.
The current findings may also provide explanations for discrep-
ancies from correlational research into trait reappraisal. Such stud-
ies have found that reappraisal is sometimes associated with more
positive patterns of affect (Balzarotti et al., 2010; Gross & John,
2003), but this finding does not always replicate (Abler et al.,
2008; Dennis, 2007). Similarly conflicting results were found in
the present research, where in Study 1 a baseline association
between more frequent reappraisal and positive mood states were
found, but in Study 2 this did not replicate. Potentially, the asso-
ciation between trait reappraisal and affect may be moderated by
the presence of positive and negative events. For example, while a
tendency to reappraise may be neutral or positive when an indi-
vidual is experiencing and reflecting upon generally neutral or
positive events, it may be negative when an individual is experi-
encing elevated levels of negative events. This possibility is sup-
ported by findings from the current study that suggest that frequent
reappraisers did not feel more defeated than less frequent reap-
praisers after an experience of success, but only after an experience
of failure. Also supporting this is that it was participants in the
clinical sample, who may be expected to experience a relatively
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
low med high
Reappraisal
Post-induction defeat
Condition
Failure
success
Figure 2. Reappraisal moderates the impact of failure upon subsequent feelings of defeat among clinical
participants (Study 2).
10 JOHNSON, GOODING, WOOD, TAYLOR, AND TARRIER

higher rate of negative events (Kendler, Hettema, Butera, Gardner,
& Prescott, 2003) who showed no general association between
reappraisal and affect. By contrast, participants in the nonclinical
sample–who may be expected to experience lower levels of stres-
sors and higher rates of positive events– did show an association
between reappraisal and more positive affect.
The finding that reappraisal amplified defeat in response to
failure, relative to success, may initially appear counterintuitive
when considered against the methods used in cognitive behavior
therapy (CBT). Part of the CBT process involves the reappraisal
and reattribution of negative experiences, which is designed to
enable clients to consider alternative, potentially more positive
explanations (Wells, 1997). However, it is likely that trait reap-
praisal is not measuring this process but a natural tendency to use
thought-focused coping strategies, as discussed above. In CBT
individuals are encouraged to consciously and purposefully reap-
praise experiences in more positive terms, and it could be that
while this is beneficial, a tendency to focus on changing thoughts
is not. Supporting this possibility are findings from studies that
have instructed participants to reappraise events. These have found
those participants who are consciously reappraising a negative
experience demonstrate attenuated emotional responses (Gross,
1998). A second possibility is that although trait reappraisal am-
plifies immediate emotional response to experiences of failure and
success, this effect does not last in the long term. However, further
research would be necessary to investigate this.
The second aim of the studies was to investigate whether trait
suppression moderated the impact of failure upon perceived defeat.
It was predicted that suppression would amplify the impact of
failure, but this was not upheld by results from either study.
Although this finding was unexpected, there are three possible
explanations. First, although suppression may be a detrimental
strategy to approach in response to disgust eliciting films, for
example (Goldin et al., 2008; Hermann et al., 2009), it could be a
neutral strategy to use in relation to feelings of defeat in response
to failure or success. Related to this, the second possibility is that
suppression may be detrimental in relation to nonsocial stressors,
but could be neutral when used in response to social stressors, such
as the one used in the current research. However, as research from
a previous study using a social stressor found that suppression was
detrimental (Lam et al., 2009), this possibility may be unlikely.
Third, it could be the result of study design, which involved
comparing different degrees of trait suppression. As described
above, much previous research investigating the effect of suppres-
sion on subsequent negative events has compared instructed sup-
pression to instructed reappraisal or no instructions, as opposed to
investigating levels of trait suppression (Gross, 1998; Hermann et
al., 2009). This would suggest that higher levels of suppression
were not necessarily detrimental. It should be noted though, that
only a small amount of research has been conducted into trait
suppression and further research is necessary to elucidate the
specific reasons for the divergence in findings.
The third aim of the studies was to investigate whether the
moderating impact of reappraisal on an experience of failure
would be specific to perceptions of defeat. Results from Study 1
found that reappraisal also amplified feelings of sadness and
general negative affect following failure, and attenuated decreases
in calmness. Results from Study 2 found that the amplifying
impact of reappraisal was specific to feelings of defeat. Together,
these results suggest that the amplifying impact of reappraisal is
consistent in relation to defeat, which is an emotion with important
clinical relevance. They also suggest that among nonclinical pop-
ulations, reappraisal may have a wider-reaching effect.
The current studies have two main clinical implications. First,
the present findings emphasize the importance of cognitive pro-
cesses, specifically reappraisal, in explaining the association be-
tween experiencing failure and subsequent perceptions of defeat.
In particular, the present studies investigated trait reappraisal,
which is a thought-focused coping strategy that may share the
same underlying cognitive processes as rumination. As reappraisal
was found to intensify feelings of defeat in response to failure,
these findings suggest that measures of trait reappraisal could be
used as a tool to inform assessments of relapse vulnerability.
Furthermore, they suggest that reappraisal could be an area for
relapse prevention interventions to target. No interventions for
reappraisal have yet been developed, but there have been several
recommendations for targeting rumination which may also be
relevant to reappraisal. These suggest that interventions such as
mindfulness meditation (Jain et al., 2007), and cognitive behavior
therapy for rumination (Watkins et al., 2007) are effective for
reducing rumination and could be useful avenues for investigating
reappraisal interventions.
Second, the current studies demonstrate a strong association
between the experience of failure and subsequent perceptions of
defeat in both a nonclinical sample and a sample of individuals
with a diagnosis of schizophrenia. Previous research has suggested
that life events are an important aspect to consider in the devel-
opment of psychopathology (Finlay-Jones & Brown, 1981; Ken-
dler et al., 2003). The current study extends this by demonstrating
that this relationship may be quite specific, with particular events
leading to particular negative emotions and perceptions, even
among individuals with severe mental health problems. This sug-
gests that clinicians should be careful to take detailed information
concerning recent stressful events when creating formulations to
explain a client’s current emotional difficulties.
The main limitation of the study is the use of self-report mea-
sures, as individuals may not accurately report their own coping
strategies. However, this has been the standard method of measur-
ing trait reappraisal and currently appears to be an effective way of
measuring thought-focused coping strategies (Gross & John, 2003;
Lam et al., 2009). A second limitation is the use of an experimental
manipulation to induce failure, as this may not have closely re-
sembled experiences of failure in natural situations. However, it
was not possible to study the impact of naturally occurring failures
and the use of an experimental task enhanced the internal validity
of the study. Furthermore, the task was conducted in a social
context to increase resemblance to naturally occurring failures. A
third limitation concerned the failure to investigate rumination or
other general cognitive processes as a moderator of reappraisal. In
particular, trait reappraisal has a conceptual overlap with the
cognitive process of rumination and the results for reappraisal
were similar to that which might have been expected to be found
for rumination, but as a measure of rumination was not included,
it was not possible to investigate this directly. A fourth limitation
is that the clinical study did not control for the possible presence
of comorbidity, so it is not clear whether this effect is specific to
individuals with a diagnosis of schizophrenia. However, the goal
of the research was not to identify a process specific to schizo-
11
TRAIT REAPPRAISAL AMPLIFIES DEFEAT

phrenia, but to investigate a process which may generalize to a
range of populations. This possibility is supported by the replica-
tion of results in both a nonclinical and clinical sample. A fifth
limitation concerns the absence of a baseline condition as we only
tested whether reappraisal moderated failure relative to success.
Despite this, the graph of each of the significant interactions
provides a clear and consistent pattern suggesting that higher
levels of reappraisal amplify defeat and other negative emotions in
response to failure. Furthermore, this finding was also supported
by results from the simple slopes analyses. These suggested that
there was a significant relationship between more frequent reap-
praisal and defeat in the failure condition of Study 1, and there was
a similar trend in Study 2. A sixth limitation is that the PANAS
was not included in Study 2. Results from the PANAS would have
been a useful addition to the results from the visual analogue
scales, and future research would benefit from including this
measure.
In conclusion, the current studies found that high levels of
reappraisal amplified the association between experiencing failure
and subsequent perceptions of defeat among a nonclinical sample
and a sample of individuals with a schizophrenia-spectrum disor-
der. This identifies a cognitive process that may be used to im-
prove identification of individuals at risk from relapse, and may
also be an effective area to target in relapse prevention interven-
tions.
References
Abler, B., Hofer, C., & Viviani, R. (2008). Habitual emotion regulation
strategies and baseline brain perfusion. NeuroReport, 19, 21–24.
Ahearn, E. P., & Carroll, B. J. (1996). Short-term variability of mood
ratings in unipolar and bipolar depressed patients. Journal of Affective
Disorders, 36, 107–115.
Balzarotti, S., John, O. P., & Gross, J. J. (2010). An Italian adaptation of
the Emotion Regulation Questionnaire. European Journal of Psycholog-
ical Assessment, 26, 61– 67.
Beck, A. T., Steer, R. A., & Brown, G. K. (1996). Manual for the Beck
Depression Inventory-II (2nd ed.). San Antonio: Psychological Corpo-
ration.
Butler, E. A., Wilhelm, F. H., & Gross, J. J. (2006). Respiratory sinus
arrhythmia, emotion, and emotion regulation during social interaction.
Psychophysiology, 43, 612– 622.
Cantor-Graae, E., & Selten, J.-P. (2005). Schizophrenia and Migration: A
Meta-Analysis and Review. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 162,
12–24.
Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation
analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Crawford, J. R., & Henry, J. D. (2004). The Positive and Negative Affect
Schedule (PANAS): Construct validity, measurement properties and
normative data in a large non-clinical sample. British Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 43, 245–265.
Dennis, T. A. (2007). Interactions between emotion regulation strategies
and affective style: Implications for trait anxiety versus depressed mood.
Motivation and Emotion, 31, 200 –207.
Dunmore, E., Clark, D. M., & Ehlers, A. (1997). Cognitive factors in
persistent versus recovered post-traumatic stress disorder after physical
or sexual assault: A pilot study. Behavioural and Cognitive Psychother-
apy, 25, 147–159.
Dunmore, E., Clark, D. M., & Ehlers, A. (1999). Cognitive factors in-
volved in the onset and maintenance of posttraumatic stress disorder
(PTSD) after physical or sexual assault. Behaviour Research and Ther-
apy, 37, 809 – 829.
Dunmore, E., Clark, D. M., & Ehlers, A. (2001). A prospective investiga-
tion of the role of cognitive factors in persistent posttraumatic stress
disorder (PTSD) after physical or sexual assault. Behaviour Research
and Therapy, 39, 1063–1084.
Ehlers, A., Clark, D. M., Dunmore, E., Jaycox, L., Meadows, E., & Foa,
E. B. (1998). Predicting response to exposure treatment in PTSD: The
role of mental defeat and alienation. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 11,
457– 471.
Ehlers, A., Maercker, A., & Boos, A. (2000). Posttraumatic stress disorder
following political imprisonment: The role of mental defeat, alienation,
and perceived permanent change. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 109,
45–55.
Finlay-Jones, R., & Brown, G. W. (1981). Types of stressful life event and
the onset of anxiety and depressive disorders. Psychological Medicine,
11, 803– 815.
Folstein, M. F., & Luria, R. (1973). Reliability, validity, and clinical
application of the Visual Analogue Mood Scale. Psychological Medi-
cine, 3, 479 – 486.
Frazier, P. A., Tix, A. P., & Barron, K. E. (2004). Testing moderator and
mediator effects in counseling psychology research. Journal of Coun-
seling Psychology, 51, 115–134.
Freeman, D., Garety, P. A., Bebbington, P. E., Smith, B., Rollinson, R.,
Fowler, D., . . . Dunn, G. (2005). Psychological investigation of the
structure of paranoia in a non-clinical population. British Journal of
Psychiatry, 186, 427– 435.
Gilbert, P., & Allan, S. (1998). The role of defeat and entrapment (arrested
flight) in depression: An exploration of an evolutionary view. Psycho-
logical Medicine, 28, 585–598.
Gold, J. M. (2004). Cognitive deficits as treatment targets in schizophrenia.
Schizophrenia Research, 72, 21–28.
Goldin, P. R., Manber-Ball, T., Werner, K., Heimberg, R., & Gross, J. J.
(2009). Neural mechanisms of cognitive reappraisal of negative self-
beliefs in social anxiety disorder. Biological Psychiatry, 66, 1091–1099.
Goldin, P. R., McRae, K., Ramel, W., & Gross, J. J. (2008). The neural
bases of emotion regulation: Reappraisal and suppression of negative
emotion. Biological Psychiatry, 63, 577–586.
Goldstein, R. C., & Willner, P. (2002). Self-report measures of defeat and
entrapment during a brief depressive mood induction. Cognition and
Emotion, 16, 629 – 642.
Gross, J. J. (1998). Antecedent- and response-focused emotion regulation:
Divergent consequences for experience, expression, and physiology.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 224 –237.
Gross, J. J., & John, O. P. (2003). Individual differences in two emotion
regulation processes: Implications for affect, relationships, and well-
being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 348 –362.
Gross, J. J., & Thompson, R. A. (2007). Emotion regulation: Conceptual
foundations. In J. J. Gross (Ed.), Handbook of emotion regulation (pp.
3–24). New York: Guilford Press.
Harwood, D. M. J., Hawton, K., Hope, T., Harriss, L., & Jacoby, R. (2006).
Life problems and physical illness as risk factors for suicide in older
people: A descriptive and case-control study. Psychological Medicine,
36, 1265–1274.
Hayes, A. F., & Matthes, J. (2009). Computational procedures for probing
interactions in OLS and logistic regression: SPSS and SAS implemen-
tations. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 924 –936.
Henry, J. D., Rendell, P. G., Green, M. J., McDonald, S., & O’Donnell, M.
(2008). Emotion regulation in schizophrenia: Affective, social, and
clinical correlates of suppression and reappraisal. Journal of Abnormal
Psychology, 117, 473– 478.
Hermann, A., Pejic, T., Vaitl, D., & Stark, R. (2009). Neural correlates of
emotion regulation: Differential effects of reappraisal and suppression.
NeuroImage, 47, S182–S182.
Jain, S., Shapiro, S. L., Swanick, S., Roesch, S. C., Mills, P. J., Bell, I., &
Schwartz, G. E. R. (2007). A randomized controlled trial of mindfulness
12 JOHNSON, GOODING, WOOD, TAYLOR, AND TARRIER

meditation versus relaxation training: Effects on distress, positive states
of mind, rumination, and distraction. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 33,
11–21.
Johnson, J., Gooding, P., & Tarrier, N. (2008a). Suicide risk in schizo-
phrenia: Explanatory models and clinical implications, the Schematic
Appraisal Model of Suicide (SAMS). Psychology and Psychotherapy:
Theory, Research and Practice, 81, 55–77.
Johnson, J., Gooding, P., Wood, A. M., & Tarrier, N. (2010a). Resilience
as positive coping appraisals: Testing the Schematic Appraisals Model
of Suicide (SAMS). Behaviour Research and Therapy, 48, 179 –186.
Johnson, J., Gooding, P., Wood, A. M., Taylor, P. J., Pratt, D., & Tarrier,
N. (2010b). Resilience to suicidal ideation in psychosis: Positive self-
appraisals buffer the impact of hopelessness. Behaviour Research and
Therapy, 48, 883– 889.
Johnson, J., Tarrier, N., & Gooding, P. (2008b). An investigation of aspects
of the cry of pain model of suicide risk: The role of defeat in impairing
memory. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 46, 968 –975.
Johnson, J., Wood, A. M., Gooding, P., Taylor, P. J., & Tarrier, N. (2011).
Resilience to suicidality: The buffering hypothesis. Clinical Psychology
Review, 31, 563–591.
Kafetsios, K., & Loumakou, M. (2007). A comparative evaluation of the
effects of trait Emotional Intelligence and emotion regulation on affect
at work and job satisfaction. International Journal of Work Organisation
and Emotion, 2, 71– 87.
Kelly, B. D., O’Callaghan, E., Waddington, J. L., Feeney, L., Browne, S.,
Scully, P. J., . . . Larkin, C. (2010). Schizophrenia and the city: A review
of literature and prospective study of psychosis and urbanicity in Ireland.
Schizophrenia Research, 116, 75– 89.
Kendler, K. S., Hettema, J. M., Butera, F., Gardner, C. O., & Prescott,
C. A. (2003). Life event dimensions of loss, humiliation, entrapment,
and danger in the prediction of onsets of major depression and gener-
alized anxiety. Archives of General Psychiatry, 60, 789 –796.
Krabbendam, L., & van Os, J. (2005). Schizophrenia and urbanicity: A
major environmental influence–Conditional on genetic risk. Schizophre-
nia Bulletin, 31, 795–799.
Lam, S., Dickerson, S. S., Zoccola, P. M., & Zaldivar, F. (2009). Emotion
regulation and cortisol reactivity to a social-evaluative speech task.
Psychoneuroendocrinology, 34, 1355–1362.
Liu, X., & Tein, J.-Y. (2005). Life events, psychopathology, and suicidal
behavior in Chinese adolescents. Journal of Affective Disorders, 86,
195–203.
McFarlin, D. B., & Blascovich, J. (1984). On the Remote Associates Test
(RAT) as an alternative to illusory performance feedback: A method-
ological note. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 5, 223–229.
Mednick, S. (1962). The associative basis of the creative process. Psycho-
logical Review, 69, 220 –232.
Nolen-Hoeksema, S., Wisco, B. E., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2008). Rethinking
rumination. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3, 400 – 424.
Rooke, O., & Birchwood, M. (1998). Loss, humiliation and entrapment as
appraisals of schizophrenic illness: A prospective study of depressed and
non-depressed patients. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 37,
259 –268.
Rudolph, K. D., & Flynn, M. (2007). Childhood adversity and youth
depression: Influence of gender and pubertal status. Development and
Psychopathology, 19, 497–521.
Selten, J.-P., & Cantor-Graae, E. (2005). Social defeat: Risk factor for
schizophrenia? The British Journal of Psychiatry, 187, 101–102.
Selten, J.-P., & Cantor-Graae, E. (2007). Hypothesis: Social defeat is a risk
factor for schizophrenia? The British Journal of Psychiatry, 191, s9 –
s12.
Sloman, L., Gilbert, P., & Hasey, G. (2003). Evolved mechanisms in
depression: The role and interaction of attachment and social rank in
depression. Journal of Affective Disorders, 74, 107–121.
Smith, J. M., & Alloy, L. B. (2009). A roadmap to rumination: A review
of the definition, assessment, and conceptualization of this multifaceted
construct. Clinical Psychology Review, 29, 116 –128.
Taylor, P. J., Awenat, Y., Gooding, P. A., Johnson, J., Pratt, D., Wood,
A. M., & Tarrier, N. (2010a). The subjective experience of participation
in schizophrenia research: A practical and ethical issue. The Journal of
Nervous and Mental Disease, 198, 343–348.
Taylor, P. J., Gooding, P., Wood, A. M., & Tarrier, N. (in press). The role
of defeat and entrapment in depression, anxiety and suicide. Psycholog-
ical Bulletin.
Taylor, P. J., Gooding, P. A., Wood, A. M., Johnson, J., Pratt, D., &
Tarrier, N. (2010b). Defeat and entrapment in schizophrenia: The rela-
tionship with suicidal ideation and positive psychotic symptoms. Psy-
chiatry Research, 178, 244 –248.
Taylor, P. J., Wood, A. M., Gooding, P., & Tarrier, N. (2010c). Appraisals
and suicidality: The mediating role of defeat and entrapment. Archives of
Suicide Research, 14, 236 –247.
Trapnell, P. D., & Campbell, J. D. (1999). Private self-consciousness and
the five-factor model of personality: Distinguishing rumination from
reflection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 284 –304.
Watkins, E. (2004). Adaptive and maladaptive ruminative self-focus during
emotional processing. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 42, 1037–
1052.
Watkins, E. (2008). Constructive and unconstructive repetitive thought.
Psychological Bulletin, 134, 163–206.
Watkins, E., Moberly, N. J., & Moulds, M. L. (2008). Processing mode
causally influences emotional reactivity: Distinct effects of abstract
versus concrete construal on emotional response. Emotion, 8, 364 –378.
Watkins, E., Scott, J., Wingrove, J., Rimes, K., Bathurst, N., Steiner, H.,
. . . Malliaris, Y. (2007). Rumination-focused cognitive behaviour ther-
apy for residual depression: A case series. Behaviour Research and
Therapy, 45, 2144 –2154.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and vali-
dation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS
scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063–1070.
Wells, A. (1997). Cognitive therapy of anxiety disorders: A practice
manual and conceptual guide. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Williams, J. M. G. (1997). Cry of pain. London: Penguin.
Williams, J. M. G., Crane, C., Barnhofer, T., & Duggan, D. (2005).
Psychology and suicidal behaviour: Elaborating the entrapment model.
In K. Hawton (Ed.), Prevention and treatment of suicidal behaviour:
From science to practice (pp. 71– 89). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Zammit, S., Allebeck, P., David, A. S., Dalman, C., Hemmingsson, T.,
Lundberg, I., & Lewis, G. (2004). A longitudinal study of premorbid IQ
score and risk of developing schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, severe
depression, and other nonaffective psychoses. Archives of General Psy-
chiatry, 61, 354 –360.
Received July 3, 2010
Revision received February 16, 2011
Accepted February 17, 2011 䡲
13
TRAIT REAPPRAISAL AMPLIFIES DEFEAT