A study published in Nature has found that the various methods researchers use to measure cognitive reappraisal, a key process in cognitive behavioural therapy, do not seem to be measuring the same thing, leaving the field without a good way to measure the impact of a concept that underpins a key therapy method.
The finding concerns cognitive reappraisal, a process involved in cognitive behavioural therapy, or CBT, one of the most successful forms of therapy. In part, CBT works by getting people to step back and reinterpret a situation that has caused a negative emotional response so that it has less impact on them. Ars Technica reports that the ability to carry out this process has been linked to emotional resilience.
The study's publication in Nature was itself notable. Ars Technica notes that negative results are notoriously hard to publish in scientific journals, since finding no effect is a much harder sell than confirming a hypothesis, and such findings tend to end up in low-profile journals or remain unpublished lab lore. Nature made an exception in this case.
Analysis
Why This Matters
- Cognitive reappraisal underpins a widely used form of therapy, so the reliability of instruments meant to measure it affects both research and how clinical progress is assessed.
- The result suggests comparisons across studies that used different measures may be harder to interpret than assumed.
- The publication of a negative result in a high-profile journal is itself a signal about how such findings are treated.
Background
Scientific journals have long favoured positive findings, and studies that report no effect often struggle to find a prominent outlet. Cognitive behavioural therapy, which builds in part on getting people to reinterpret situations that trigger negative emotions, is one of the most established forms of psychological treatment, and the capacity to do this has been linked to emotional resilience.
What to Watch
- Whether researchers develop a single, validated measure of cognitive reappraisal in response to the disagreement.
- Whether the Nature paper prompts wider publication of negative results in psychology and related fields.
- How clinicians interpret existing assessments of reappraisal ability in the meantime.
Key Perspectives
Ars Technica: reports that the measures of cognitive reappraisal do not seem to be measuring the same thing, and that the result means there is no good way to measure the impact of a concept that is the basis of a key therapy method.
Ars Technica, on journal publishing: notes that it is nearly impossible to publish negative results in scientific journals and that Nature made a notable exception in publishing this study.
Checked
10 claims in this story checked against 1 source: 10 supported.
Show each claim
- SupportedThe headline says a Nature study found that measures of a key cognitive process do not seem to agree.Science - Ars Technica: “The high-profile journal Nature, however, made a notable exception this week, publishing a study that tells us that a bunch of methods we have been using to try to measure a key emotional ability don't seem to be measuring the same thing.”
- SupportedThe summary says methods used to measure cognitive reappraisal do not seem to measure the same thing.Science - Ars Technica: “publishing a study that tells us that a bunch of methods we have been using to try to measure a key emotional ability don't seem to be measuring the same thing.”
- SupportedThe study’s results mean there is no good way to measure the impact of a concept that underpins a key therapy method.Science - Ars Technica: “The results mean that we don't have a good way to measure the impact of a concept that is the basis of a key method in therapy.”
- SupportedCognitive reappraisal is a key process in cognitive behavioural therapy.Science - Ars Technica: “In part, CBT is based on getting people to step back and engage in "cognitive reappraisal."”
- SupportedCBT is one of the most successful forms of therapy.Science - Ars Technica: “One of the most successful forms of therapy is cognitive behavioral therapy, or CBT.”
- SupportedIn part, CBT gets people to step back and reinterpret a situation that caused a negative emotional response so it has less impact on them.Science - Ars Technica: “In part, CBT is based on getting people to step back and engage in "cognitive reappraisal." This requires people to think over a situation that has caused a negative emotional response and find ways to reinterpret it so that it has less impact on them.”
- SupportedArs Technica reports that the ability to engage in cognitive reappraisal has been linked to emotional resilience.Science - Ars Technica: “The ability to engage in this process has been linked to emotional resilience.”
- SupportedThe story says negative results are notoriously hard to publish in scientific journals.Science - Ars Technica: “It's widely acknowledged that it's nearly impossible to publish negative results in scientific journals.”
- SupportedThe story says findings of no effect tend to end up in low-profile journals or remain unpublished lab lore.Science - Ars Technica: “Findings of no effect tend to either be shuffled off to low-profile journals or left behind as unpublished lab lore.”
- SupportedNature made a notable exception by publishing this study.Science - Ars Technica: “The high-profile journal Nature, however, made a notable exception this week, publishing a study”
