↓ Skip to main content

Talking about Emotion: Prosody and Skin Conductance Indicate Emotion Regulation

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
124 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Talking about Emotion: Prosody and Skin Conductance Indicate Emotion Regulation
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00260
Pubmed ID
Authors

Moritz Matejka, Philipp Kazzer, Maria Seehausen, Malek Bajbouj, Gisela Klann-Delius, Winfried Menninghaus, Arthur M. Jacobs, Hauke R. Heekeren, Kristin Prehn

Abstract

Talking about emotion and putting feelings into words has been hypothesized to regulate emotion in psychotherapy as well as in everyday conversation. However, the exact dynamics of how different strategies of verbalization regulate emotion and how these strategies are reflected in characteristics of the voice has received little scientific attention. In the present study, we showed emotional pictures to 30 participants and asked them to verbally admit or deny an emotional experience or a neutral fact concerning the picture in a simulated conversation. We used a 2 × 2 factorial design manipulating the focus (on emotion or facts) as well as the congruency (admitting or denying) of the verbal expression. Analyses of skin conductance response (SCR) and voice during the verbalization conditions revealed a main effect of the factor focus. SCR and pitch of the voice were lower during emotion compared to fact verbalization, indicating lower autonomic arousal. In contradiction to these physiological parameters, participants reported that fact verbalization was more effective in down-regulating their emotion than emotion verbalization. These subjective ratings, however, were in line with voice parameters associated with emotional valence. That is, voice intensity showed that fact verbalization reduced negative valence more than emotion verbalization. In sum, the results of our study provide evidence that emotion verbalization as compared to fact verbalization is an effective emotion regulation strategy. Moreover, based on the results of our study we propose that different verbalization strategies influence valence and arousal aspects of emotion selectively.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 124 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 2 2%
United States 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 119 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 21%
Student > Bachelor 21 17%
Researcher 12 10%
Student > Master 11 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 6%
Other 24 19%
Unknown 22 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 56 45%
Social Sciences 12 10%
Neuroscience 9 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 2%
Other 12 10%
Unknown 28 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 26. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 March 2023.
All research outputs
#1,381,989
of 24,143,470 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#2,837
of 32,434 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,513
of 288,617 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#148
of 968 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,143,470 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 32,434 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 288,617 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 968 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.