1. Depression and Mental Control Some assumptions: Associative network of memory/cognition Emotions Thoughts  For depressed individuals, negative thoughts are easily and automatically accessible  How about replacing a negative thought with those that are emotionally unrelated to the negative one? Or by replacing negative thought with positive ones (hard for depressed individuals to do)

2. Depressed, suppressed participants had an increase in negative thoughts across time (2 nd to 3 rd ) Depressed suppressed subjects mentioned the negative story more (2 nd to 3 rd ) Depressed subjects focused on negative thoughts more often

3. Are depressed participants aware of the effectiveness of using positive distracters? (Study 2) Answer: No. Both understand the benefit of using positive distracters Premise for Study 3: How do depressed individuals eventually succeed in suppressing negative thoughts? Spontaneous recovery process (e.g., improve over time with or without treatment)? Do you believe this is true? Environmental changes (e.g., positive distracters more common)?

4. Do depressed individuals fail to use positive distracters when available? Yes. Depressed participants used less positive distracters and more negative ones

5. Thought Suppression and SITB Unwanted thoughts and behavior (increased emotion) SITB and NSSI (used as distracters) How practical is thought suppression in the real world (e.g., presence of other cognitive demands)? Thought suppression can lead to an increase of unwanted thoughts Thought suppression can lead to stronger reactions to emotional thoughts and have greater physiological stress indicators

6. Negative thoughts Thought Suppression Unfocused distraction (many different distracters) Focused distraction Both can lead to a rebound effect; an increase of the suppressed thought

7. Hypothesis: The tendency to suppress unwanted thoughts would mediate the relationship between emotional reactivity and SITBs Moderating variable (or 3 rd variable): A variable that affects the strength and/or direction of the relationship between two variables. Mediating variable: Variable that accounts for (explains) the relationship between two variables Job enrichment strategies Job Satisfaction Age (as moderator) (The relationship may be stronger for older individuals) Job enrichment strategies Job Satisfaction Growth need strength (as mediator) (When growth need strength is considered the relationship between job enrichment and satisfaction goes away)

8. Mediator variable

9. Results

10.  Thought suppression was significantly related to NSSI Suicidal ideation Suicide attempts  Thought suppression mediated the relationship between emotional reactivity and SITB (especially NSSI and suicide ideation)  Overall, SITB are used as a way to distract from other unwanted thoughts Overall Conclusions

11. What We Regret …. and Why Regret : A negative emotion based on a upward, self-focused counterfactual inference Past Research: Regret based on action versus inaction The content areas (domains) of regret

12. Opportunity Principle: Opportunity breed regret; greater regret when opportunity for positive action remains high Regret leads to further corrective action (upward CFT), as does perception of control [Study regarding returning photos, or not, and satisfaction levels] Regrets of inaction last longer (greater perceived opportunity) More options leads to more regret (jam study, buying behavior and satisfaction)

13. Study 2a: Lab study of regret Participants wrote about a “regret” and them were asked to categorize it into one of 12 life domains

14. Study 2b: Role of Perceived Opportunity High opportunity life domains had higher levels of regret than low opportunity domains High opportunity life domains were perceived as more important

15. Study 2a and 3b: Assessing Framing Effects Outcome-evoked effects --- the psychological reactions right after an outcome (e.g., fail a test leads to immediate regret, “I should have studied more”). Intensity of regret is moderated by views of subsequent opportunity Post hoc framing --- (e.g., a year later). Framing an event as high or low in opportunity may lead to greater ratings of regret Study 3a: Domains -- Kindness and respect in friendships; trust in romantic relationships Study 3b: Domains – Meeting new friends; Time spent with a romantic partner Participants presented a paragraph on two life domains arguing for high and low opportunities Participants rated their regrets within each life domain (frequency and intensity) Study 3c: participants generated several (6 or 8) or 2 opportunities within one area/domain Results: Framing does NOT account for the opportunity effect at the time of recall