Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2026 Aug 15.
Published in final edited form as: Behav Res Ther. 2026 Jul 16;204:105116. doi: 10.1016/j.brat.2026.105116

Dampening of positive affect as an emotional contrast avoidance strategy: An experimental test of the contrast avoidance model

Myriam Gérardy a,*, Liesbeth Bogaert a, Michelle G Newman b, David J Hallford c, Filip Raes a,**
PMCID: PMC13474642  NIHMSID: NIHMS2197238  PMID: 42468402

Abstract

Dampening of positive affect is a transdiagnostic vulnerability factor for various mental health problems, yet the underlying mechanism driving this process remains unclear. The Contrast Avoidance Model (CAM) offers a potential explanation, proposing that individuals may intentionally downregulate positive emotions to prevent distressing negative emotional contrasts (NECs). The present preregistered experimental study examined the applicability of the CAM to dampening. In a randomized controlled design with an unselected community sample, participants first underwent a happiness induction and were then randomly assigned to either a 2-min dampening induction (n = 50) or a relaxation induction (n = 52) prior to a sadness induction, to test whether the dampening induction reduced the strength of a downward shift from high to low positive affect (i.e., NEC). Positive and negative affect were assessed before and after each induction. Multilevel analyses indicated that the negative emotional contrast from before versus after the sadness induction was less pronounced in the dampening condition compared to the relaxation condition. These findings provide initial experimental support for the applicability of the CAM to dampening as an emotional contrast avoidance strategy. Clinical implications and directions for future research are discussed.

Keywords: Anhedonia, Dampening, Emotion regulation, Negative emotional contrasts, Positive affect

Dampening refers to the tendency to respond to a positive affective state with mental strategies that reduce its intensity and duration (Feldman et al., 2008). Typical dampening thoughts might include “This is too good to be true”, “People will think I am bragging”, and “I’m not worthy of feeling good” (Feldman et al., 2008). Research on dampening has been primarily conducted in the context of depression, where it has been associated consistently with depressive symptoms in both cross-sectional and longitudinal studies (Bean et al., 2022; Dunn & Roberts, 2016; Feldman et al., 2008). Dampening has been conceptualized as an emotion regulation mechanism (i.e., processes that influence the frequency, intensity and duration of, in this case, positive emotions; Gross, 1998) that contributes to the development and maintenance of depression (Joormann & Vanderlind, 2014; Vanderlind et al., 2022). More specifically, dampening has been proposed as a key contributor to deficits in positive affect (PA) along with heightened anhedonia (Dunn et al., 2018). Anhedonia, defined as a markedly diminished interest or pleasure in activities, is one of the two cardinal symptoms of Major Depressive Disorder (MDD; American Psychiatric Association, 2022).

Apart from its strong bidirectional relationship with depressive symptoms, dampening appears to represent a transdiagnostic vulnerability and emotion regulation factor contributing to a range of other forms of psychopathology. Elevated levels of dampening have been linked to symptoms of anxiety disorders, posttraumatic stress disorder, eating difficulties, and bipolar disorder, as well as an elevated risk for psychosis and substance use (Bean et al., 2022; Damme et al., 2022; Dworschak et al., 2023; Edge et al., 2013; Eisner et al., 2009; Malivoire et al., 2022; Peckham et al., 2020; Wolkenstein et al., 2022). Furthermore, experimental studies with community samples demonstrated that induced dampening caused decreased happiness and increased sadness in university students (Burr et al., 2017; Dunn et al., 2018) and adolescents (Yilmaz et al., 2019).

As a transdiagnostic process that reduces PA, dampening may contribute to clinically relevant impairments, given that reduced PA and anhedonia have been associated with motivational and functional deficits. Moreover, a meta-analysis of Wong et al. (2024) reported that anhedonia was associated with greater functional impairment and poorer health-related quality of life. Reduced PA may also diminish the broader health advantages linked to PA, including better physical health such as lower risk of developing upper respiratory illness after exposure to a rhinovirus or influenza (Cohen et al., 2006) and better sleep quality (Sin et al., 2017). The associations between positive emotions and health benefits align with Fredrickson’s (1998) broaden-and-build theory that states that positive emotions serve an adaptive function by expanding individuals’ momentary thought-action repertoires and, over time, building enduring cognitive, social, and physical resources. Positive emotions were also associated with greater relationship satisfaction (on a cross-sectional level; Watson et al., 2000) and overall job satisfaction (on a prospective level; Watson & Slack, 1993). Beyond its appetitive effects, anhedonia has also been linked to reduced threat learning, potentially driven by a diminished experience of relief (Leng et al., 2024).

Accordingly, it is essential that treatments address diminished positive affect. However, conventional treatments of MDD have primarily focused on reducing negative affect (NA) and paid comparatively little attention to strategies for cultivating and sustaining PA (Dunn, 2012). Yet, the mechanisms underlying PA are partially independent from the mechanisms underlying NA (Dunn & Roberts, 2016; Watson et al., 1999). Thus, treatment of depressive symptoms should target both decreasing the elevated NA and enhancing the low PA (Dunn, 2012; Dunn & Roberts, 2016; Watson et al., 1999). The latter also holds high clinical relevance. Interventions that aim at increased PA are consistent with the views of patients with major depression that restoring PA is of high importance in recovery from depression (Demyttenaere et al., 2015). Reflecting this growing recognition, interventions have been developed that explicitly target deficits in positive affect and reward processing, including Positive Affect Treatment (PAT; Craske et al., 2019; Craske et al., 2016), Augmented Depression Therapy (ADepT; Dunn et al., 2019), and Behavioral Activation for Anhedonia (BATA; Nagy et al., 2020). Emerging evidence suggests that such interventions can improve positive affect, anhedonia, and broader depressive outcomes (Craske et al., 2024; Sandman & Craske, 2022). Similarly, LaFreniere and Newman (2023b, 2024) found that individuals with generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) who received a savoring treatment had decreased worry, increased positive emotions and prioritizing positivity, as well as reduced “kill-joy thinking” (i.e., a specific form of dampening; Bryant et al., 2011) compared to a self-monitoring control condition.

In particular, understanding why individuals engage in dampening is key to developing interventions that address this maladaptive emotion regulation strategy. Yet, to date, the underlying mechanism that drives dampening has not been established. Interventions that do not consider interfering underlying mechanisms such as maladaptive emotion regulation strategies, run the risk of being counterproductive. For instance, when individuals engaged in dampening appraisals during pleasant activity scheduling (i.e., a strategy used in behavioral activation), there was an increase in NA and a decrease in PA compared to individuals who were in the control condition (Burr et al., 2017). Recent interventions aiming to increase PA, such as ADepT, have explicitly targeted barriers to positive affect including dampening (Dunn et al., 2019, 2023). However, although these interventions have acknowledged dampening as a relevant barrier to positive affect, the motivation underlying dampening remains insufficiently understood. A clearer understanding may help further refine and improve interventions targeting positive affect.

Insights into potential motivational mechanisms behind dampening can be drawn from research on the emotion regulation strategy of worry. In the context of generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), Newman and Llera (2011) developed the Contrast Avoidance Model (CAM). This theoretical framework conceptualizes worry as an experiential avoidance strategy. Rather than the avoidance of specific negative emotional states, the CAM posits that individuals try to avoid a sharp increase in negative emotion, referred to as a negative emotional contrast (NEC). As part of CAM theory, engaging in perseverative negative thoughts is a strategy to maintain emotional homeostasis. In other words, individuals engage in worrying to increase and sustain negative emotion and to decrease positive emotion in anticipation of future negative events to preserve emotional stability and avoid the instability arising from NECs.

The CAM has been evidenced as having transdiagnostic relevance, such as in GAD, depression, panic disorder, social anxiety disorder, bipolar disorder, and obsessive compulsive disorder (Gerdan, 2025; Kim et al., 2024; Newman et al., 2023; Swisher & Newman, 2025). In experimental (Jamil & Llera, 2021; Kim & Newman, 2019, 2022, 2023; Llera & Newman, 2010, 2014) and naturalistic momentary assessment studies (Baik & Newman, 2023, 2025; Newman et al., 2019, 2022) both worry and rumination were more concurrently associated with decreased positive emotion and increased negative emotion relative to non-worry states.

Moreover, these studies found that high (vs. low) worry and/or rumination at a prior timepoint led to less of an increase in sadness and/or anxiety at a later timepoint and/or when individuals encountered a subsequent negative event. Also, compared to those without these disorders, individuals with GAD and/or depression were more likely to report using these perseverative thought styles to avoid NECs (Baik & Newman, 2025). Importantly, concerning positive affective states, participants with GAD and/or depression also reported greater vulnerability to NECs when feeling positive (Baik & Newman, 2025). Thus, downregulating PA may serve to soften the downward shift in positive emotions that inevitably occurs once a positive affective state ends. In other words, individuals with a dampening tendency may prefer actively downregulating positive emotions in the moment to avoid experiencing the end of the positive affective state.

The CAM might also clarify the mechanisms that drive dampening. A recent cross-sectional study found that avoidance of NECs predicted concurrent levels of dampening above and beyond age, gender, and engagement in repetitive negative thinking (Bogaert et al., 2026). Moreover, qualitative findings from Bogaert et al. (2023) suggested that a key reason for avoiding positive emotions was the anticipation of feeling worse after positive emotions had faded. Thus, dampening may serve as a defensive strategy to prevent NECs that may emerge as a result of exposure to a negative experience. Nonetheless, the applicability of CAM to dampening has not been directly examined in experimental studies.

The aim of the current experimental study was to test the applicability of the CAM to dampening. Two hypotheses were formulated to examine whether a dampening induction reduced the strength of NECs. Hypothesis 1 states that following a happiness induction, an experimental manipulation of induced dampening (vs. relaxation) would result in greater decreases in PA (H1a) and increases in NA (H1b). To this end, a dampening induction similar to that used by Dunn et al. (2018) was employed, enabling the first independent replication outside of the original Exeter laboratory as well as the first application of this paradigm in an online experimental format. The central hypothesis (H2) was that a subsequent sadness induction would result in a smaller decrease in PA (H2a) and a smaller increase in NA (H2b) for participants who previously engaged in dampening, compared to relaxation.

Additionally, as stated in the preregistration, the study explored whether baseline levels of anhedonia, depression, dampening, and avoidance of NECs moderated affective responses to the manipulation and the sadness induction. We expected that these baseline traits would predict sharper decreases in PA and increases in NA from the happiness induction to the dampening (vs. relaxation) manipulation, as well as smaller shifts in PA and NA from the dampening (vs. relaxation) manipulation to the sadness induction. These expectations were based on previous work demonstrating cross-sectional associations between dampening and anhedonia/depression (e. g., Dunn et al., 2018; Feldman et al., 2008), and between dampening and NEC avoidance (Bogaert et al., 2026). As these traits are associated with dampening, they are expected to magnify the effects of the experimentally induced dampening.

1. Method

1.1. Design

The present study employed a randomized controlled experimental repeated measures design with one between-subject factor (condition: dampening vs. relaxation as experimental manipulation) and one within-subject factor (time). Participants were randomly assigned to one of the two conditions and completed four measurement points: baseline (T0), after the happiness induction (T1), after the experimental manipulation (T2), and after the sadness induction (T3).

1.2. Participants

An a priori power analysis using RMASS II (Gibbons et al., 2015; Wei et al., 2023) indicated a required sample of 100 participants to detect differences of a medium effect size (d = 0.50, α = .05, β = 0.80, r for repeated measures = 0.60) between the experimental condition (dampening) and the control condition (relaxation), accounting for 5% attrition (see LaFreniere & Newman, 2023b). Data collection was performed in June 2025. Recruitment proceeded until useable data was collected from at least 48 participants per condition (Fig. 2 for the flowchart conform the CONSORT 2010 guidelines; Cuschieri, 2019). In total, 125 native English-speaking community adults between 18 and 80 years old, representing a community sample, were recruited via Prolific (2025). Because participant data usability could only be determined after completion, recruitment was reopened in small batches to ensure at least 48 useable cases per condition, resulting in a slight intentional oversampling.

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2.

Open in a new tab

Flowchart representing the participants through the stages of data collection and processing.

Data from 102 participants was used in the analysis (53 women, 46 men, and 3 other; age: M = 39.25, SD = 12.84), with 50 in the dampening condition and 52 in the relaxation condition. The sample included participants from 11 different nationalities, most commonly from the United Kingdom (UK; 50%) and the United States (US; 27%). Of the 23 participants who did not complete the study, 14 withdrew immediately at the start, and data from the remaining nine participants were excluded from the analysis (as preregistered) because they failed at least one attention check or reported poor engagement with the experiment (see Measures for details). All participants gave their informed consent and full study participation was rewarded with £2.70, in line with Prolific’s payment principles (£9.00 per hour). The study was approved by the Social and Societal Ethics Committee of our institution. Prior to data collection, the study was preregistered on the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/6a954).

1.3. Measures

The Dampening Subscale of the Responses to Positive Affect Questionnaire (RPA-d; Feldman et al., 2008).

The RPA-d consists of eight items and measures participants’ general tendency to engage in dampening. Participants were asked to rate each item (e.g., “When you are feeling happy, how often do you think about things that could go wrong?”) from 1 (almost never) to 4 (almost always). In the current sample, the internal consistency of the RPA-d was good (α = .89).

The Leuven Exeter Dampening Scale (LEDS; Bogaert et al., 2025).

Although the RPA-d is traditionally used, the LEDS was developed to provide a more comprehensive assessment of trait dampening by covering a broader range of clinically and cross-culturally informed appraisals (Bogaert et al., 2025). The inclusion of both dampening scales maximized the robustness of the findings on trait dampening. The scale contains 13 items (e.g., “When you start to feel happy, how often do you think “I’m not worthy of feeling good”?”) that are answered on a 5-point Likert scale from 1 (almost never) to 5 (almost always). The internal consistency of the LEDS in this study was excellent (α = .90).

The Snaith Hamilton Pleasure Scale (SHAPS; Snaith et al., 1995).

The SHAPS consists of 14 items and measures anhedonia. Participants were asked to indicate to which degree each statement (e.g., “I would find pleasure in my hobbies and pastimes”) applied to them, from 0 (strongly disagree) to 3 (strongly agree). The internal consistency of the SHAPS was excellent in this study (α = .90).

The Depressive Symptoms Subscale of the Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale (DASS-21; Lovibond & Lovibond, 1995).

The Depressive Symptoms subscale of the DASS-21 contains seven items and measures the emotional state of depression. Participants were asked to indicate how much each item (e.g., “I felt down-hearted and blue.”) applied to them over the past week, from 0 (does not apply to me at all) to 3 (applies to me very much or most of the time”). The internal consistency of the Depressive Symptoms subscale of the DASS-21 in this study was excellent (α = .92). For brevity, from here onwards the subscale will be referred to as the DASS-D.

The Discomfort with Emotional Shifts Subscale of the Contrast Avoidance Questionnaire (CAQ-GE; Llera & Newman, 2017).

The Discomfort with Emotional Shifts subscale of the CAQ-GE contains seven items and was used to measure participants’ discomfort with emotional shifts. Participants were asked to indicate the extent to which each item (e.g., “I feel uneasy with emotional changes.”) was true for them, from 1 (not at all true) to 5 (absolutely true). The Discomfort with Emotional Shifts subscale of the CAQ-GE had an excellent internal consistency in this sample (α = .94). For brevity, from here onwards the subscale will be referred to as the CAQ-GE-DES.

An Eight-Item Version of the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS; Watson et al., 1988).

In line with Burr et al. (2017), who modified the PANAS to capture both high and low arousal affect, we used their eight-item version of the PANAS to assess participants’ current PA and NA, given that the present task was not expected to elicit high arousal. Participants were presented with four PA (i.e., relaxed, excited, happy, and contented) and four NA items (i.e., tense, sad, upset, and bored), for which they were asked to report the extent to which they experienced it in that moment, from 1 (very slightly or not at all) to 5 (extremely). However, visual inspection of pilot data collected using the same experimental protocol (Table S1 and Table S2 in the Supplementary Materials) suggested that the PA item ‘excited’ on average yielded slightly lower (and the NA item ‘bored’ slightly higher) scores than the other PA items (and NA items, respectively). Moreover, conceptually the item ‘excited’ is associated with high arousal which was not specifically intended to be elicited in the current study. Therefore, as preregistered, those two items were excluded from the main analyses. However, all analyses including those two items were run as well and results are reported in the Supplementary Materials. Overall, unless stated otherwise, conclusions drawn from these analyses including these two items were identical to the ones reported in the article. The internal consistency of the PANAS subscales at baseline was good (α reduced PA scale = 0.88; α full PA scale = 0.90; α reduced NA scale = 0.82; α full NA scale = 0.83). The PANAS was, apart from the baseline measurement (i.e., T0), also administered at T1, T2, and T3 to measure changes in PA and NA throughout the experiment (see Procedure).

Manipulation Checks.

Participants in the dampening condition also completed a state-adapted version of the RPA-d at T2 and T3 (see Procedure). Following Dunn et al. (2018), who modified the instructions of the RPA to assess state appraisals during a positive event memory recall task, the instructions in the current study were adapted to “To what extent while watching the video did you …”. This modification aimed to capture the extent to which participants in the dampening condition engaged in dampening during the dampening induction (measured at T2) and during the sadness induction (measured at T3). Additionally, after the experiment, all participants were asked to indicate the extent to which they had followed the dampening or relaxation instructions, with the assurance that their responses would not affect remuneration.

Attention Checks and Control Questions.

To ensure data quality, three attention checks were embedded within the baseline measures in the form of instructed-response items (e.g., “This is a control question. Please indicate: Strongly disagree”). Participants in the dampening condition were also asked whether they had experienced any alternative thoughts during the manipulation that might have either strengthened or weakened the effect of the manipulation. Finally, at the end of the experiment, an item was included to explore whether participants believed that the type of manipulation played a role in the magnitude of the NEC during the sadness induction (i.e., Hypothesis 2; see Table S3 in the Supplementary Materials for the items).

1.4. Experimental manipulation

After the happiness induction was completed and the PANAS was administered for the second time, the script randomly assigned participants (based on Morys-Carter, 2024) to one of two conditions with different instructions about how to process the elicited positive feelings (Table 1 for an overview). In the dampening condition (i.e., the experimental condition), participants were asked to engage in dampening according to instructions based on Dunn et al. (2018) and to “think about why the feelings of positivity experienced” … were too good to last, why you don’t deserve these positive feelings and what things could go wrong as a result of these positive feelings”). In the relaxation condition, which functioned as control condition, participants were instructed to engage in relaxation through diaphragmatic breathing following the instructions from Zainal and Newman (2018; similar to the relaxation induction in Kim & Newman, 2022). In both conditions, participants engaged in the assigned response for a fixed duration of 2 min. To ensure a fixed duration of 2 min across participants, a timer was started after participants indicated they read the instructions. A progress bar was displayed throughout the 2-min interval, after which the task ended automatically and participants could proceed to the next phase.

Table 1.

Instructions of the dampening and relaxation instructions of the emotion regulation induction.

Condition Instructions
Dampening (n = 50) We now encourage you to take a closer look at the feelings of positivity you may have experienced as a result of watching the previous set of pictures.
We would like you to read the following statements and try to think about the positive feelings in the way that each statement describes.
• Think ‘These positive feelings are too good to be true’
•Think about things that could go wrong as a result of these positive feelings
•Think ‘I don’t deserve these positive feelings’
•Remind yourself these positive feelings won’t last
Please read the statements above carefully and try to think about the positive feelings as described until you are automatically redirected to the next page. This task will take 2 min.
Remember to think about why the feelings of positivity experienced as a result of watching the pictures won’t last, are too good to be true, are not deserved, and what could go wrong as a result of these positive feelings.
Relaxation (n = 52) Shift to breathing from your stomach rather than from your chest. Allow your stomach to rise and fall without expanding your chest. Slow your breathing down to a rate slower than usual but not so slow that it is unpleasant or uncomfortable. You might do this by counting from one to three as you breathe in evenly and then again as you evenly exhale. If at any point your mind wanders, simply refocus your thoughts back to your breathing. This task will take 2 min.
Open in a new tab

1.5. Emotion induction

Emotions were induced using facial expression picture sets, an approach shown to effectively elicit discrete emotions such as happiness or sadness in the meta-analysis of Joseph et al. (2020). The happiness-inducing and sadness-inducing (Fig. 1) phases were shown to effectively elicit the intended emotions in an online pilot study conducted in our lab (see Table S4 in the Supplementary Materials). Pictures with the highest ratings for valence and arousal from the basic-emotion subset (i.e., happiness, anger, fear, disgust, sadness, and surprise) were selected from the Nencki Affective Picture System (NAPS-BE; Marchewka et al., 2014; Riegel et al., 2016; see Table S5 in the Supplementary Materials). Before watching the picture sets, participants were instructed to pay close attention to the portrayed emotions, to take note of the facial expression and body language of the people depicted, and to think about moments in their own lives when they may have experienced similar feelings.

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1.

Open in a new tab

Schematic Representation of the Experimental Design

Note. In this figure, the picture sets are depicted using five representative images from the happiness induction, sadness induction, and set intended to improve participants’ mood, respectively. The pictures were selected from the Nencki Affective Picture System (Riegel et al., 2016). Each picture set contained 18 images in total and was presented for 108 s a The state-adapted version of the RPA-d, only completed by participants in the dampening condition at T2 and T3.

To improve participants’ mood at the end of the experiment, a landscape picture set from the NAPS-BE (Riegel et al., 2016) with high scores in happiness was included (Fig. 1). Each set of pictures consisted of 18 images presented for 6 s each; hence, the presentation of each picture set had a duration of 108 s.

1.6. Procedure

Participants enrolled via Prolific, an online participant recruitment platform for behavioral research. The study was hosted and run on Pavlovia, an online platform for surveys and behavioral experiments, with a custom HTML script using the jsPsych library (de Leeuw, 2015). After providing informed consent, they reported their age, gender (male, female, non-binary, or prefer not to disclose), and nationality (selected from a standardized list of countries included in the demographics module from jsPsych; de Leeuw, 2015). At baseline (T0), participants completed the RPA-d, LEDS, SHAPS, the DASS-D, the CAQ-GE-DES, and the first administration of the PANAS (see Fig. 1). Next, all participants watched a happiness-inducing set of pictures and then completed a second PANAS assessment (T1). They were then randomized to one of two conditions: half of the participants received the dampening instructions, the other half received the relaxation instructions (see Table 1). At T2, all of them again completed the PANAS. Following this, participants watched a sadness-inducing set of pictures and completed a final PANAS at T3. In addition, contrary to several prior studies (Burr et al., 2017; Dunn et al., 2018; Yilmaz et al., 2019), only the participants in the dampening condition completed the modified (state-adapted) RPA-d at T2 and T3. This approach prevented the risk that those in the relaxation condition would be unintentionally cued to engage in dampening through repeated exposure to dampening-focused items. Finally, all participants watched a set of pictures intended to improve their mood and answered control questions. The total duration of the experiment was approximately 25 min.

1.7. Statistical analyses

Manipulation Checks.

As preregistered, for the happiness induction a paired-sample t-test was performed on the sum scores of the PA items before versus after the happiness induction. No manipulation check could be conducted for the impact of the sadness induction, as it could not be disentangled from the dampening versus relaxation induction. To check whether the experimental manipulation of dampening versus relaxation had the intended effect, two types of analyses were performed. First, average levels of PA and NA sum scores following the induction were compared via independent-sample t-tests. Second, within both conditions, paired-sample t-tests compared PA (and NA) levels at baseline versus after the manipulation (i.e., after the dampening induction vs. after the relaxation induction). In addition, self-reported levels of state RPA-d in the dampening group were assessed.

Main Analyses.

As preregistered, the primary outcome variables were PA and NA. To test the two main hypotheses, piecewise (two-level) multilevel analyses were conducted with PA as the primary outcome for Hypotheses 1a and 2a and NA for Hypotheses 1b and 2b to examine the main and interaction effects of the conditions and time (in line with Kim & Newman, 2022). Time points (Level 1: T0, T1, T2, T3) were nested within participants (Level 2). The models included (a) dummy-coded time points at Level 1, (b) condition (relaxation versus dampening) at Level 2, and (c) their cross-level interactions as predictors of PA and NA. Age and gender were entered as covariates to adjust for potential confounding effects. As decided in a post-hoc way, to adjust for potential confounding effects when studying the effect of the manipulations on PA and NA, levels of PA (/NA) at T1 (i.e., after the happiness induction) were included as Level-2 covariates. This controlled for residual individual differences in affect following the happiness induction, which was intended to produce uniformly high PA and low NA across participants. Because adjusting for age, gender, and pre-manipulation PA/NA may constitute a conservative control strategy, additional analyses were conducted without these covariates to examine the robustness of the findings. For each effect, Cohen’s f2 was computed, where f2 ≥ 0.15 is considered a medium, and f2 ≥ 0.35 a large effect size (Cohen, 1988; Selya et al., 2012). Consistent with recent methodological recommendations (Rubin, 2024), no correction for multiple testing was applied because the statistical inferences concerned individual hypotheses rather than a family-level inference based on the presence of at least one significant effect (Rubin, 2024).

Exploratory Analyses.

As preregistered, exploratory moderator analyses were conducted to examine whether individual differences in anhedonia, depressive symptoms, dampening, and discomfort with NECs influenced the magnitude of the expected emotional shifts from T1 (happiness induction) to T2 (manipulation) and from T2 to T3 (sadness induction). Three-way interactions between time, condition, and each moderator (T2 × Condition × Moderator; T3 × Condition × Moderator) were calculated to examine whether the effect of the manipulation (at T2) or the size of the NEC (at T3) varied as a function of these individual differences. For the exploratory analyses as well, sensitivity analyses excluding age, gender, and pre-manipulation PA/NA scores as covariates are performed to control for potential distortion of effects.

Specifically, the dampening instructions were expected to have stronger effects among participants reporting higher levels of anhedonia, depressive symptoms, trait dampening, and discomfort with NECs. A similar moderating effect was hypothesized to be at play in the affective changes during the sadness induction, reflected in smaller NECs for participants scoring high on dampening and on discomfort with NECs compared to those with lower scores. Significant three-way interactions were followed up with simple slope analyses.

2. Results

2.1. Demographics and baseline scores

No significant differences were observed between the conditions in age or nationality (Table 2). Chi-square tests indicated that the gender distribution did not significantly deviate from general population proportions of 49% women, 49% men, and 2% other (non-binary and/or non-disclosure of gender) in the total sample or within either condition (all p > .31). One-Way ANOVAs indicated no significant differences between the conditions in any of the baseline assessments of mood and emotion regulation (Table 2) and average scores fell within the norms of the scales (see the Supplementary Materials for a more detailed description). Trait dampening was significantly associated with discomfort with NECs (see Table S6 in the Supplementary Materials for the full baseline measures correlation matrix). Descriptive statistics for PA and NA in both groups from T0 to T3 are presented in Table 3 (Table S7 in the Supplementary Materials for the full PA and NA item sets).

Table 2.

Randomization check for participant demographics and baseline mood and emotion regulation.

Variable Condition
 Group Comparison Statistic
Dampening
 Relaxation
M (SD) N M (SD) N
Age in years 40.88 (14.36) 37.69 (11.09) F(1,100) = 1.58; p = .212
Gender
 Female 26 (52%) 20 (38.5%) χ2 = 0.78; p = .376
 Male 22 (44%) 31 (59.6%) χ2 = 1.53; p = .216
 Non-Binary/No-Disclose 2 (4%) 1 (1.9%) χ2 = 0.33; p = .564
Nationality
 American Samoa 0 1 χ2 = 1; p = .317
 Australia 3 1 χ2 = 1; p = .317
 Colombia 1 0 χ2 = 1; p = .317
 UK 24 27 χ2 = 0.18; p = .674
 Kenya 1 1 χ2 = 0; p = 1
 Malawi 0 1 χ2 = 1; p = .317
 Nigeria 3 1 χ2 = 1; p = .317
 Poland 0 1 χ2 = 1; p = .317
 Rwanda 0 1 χ2 = 1; p = .317
 USA 13 15 χ2 = 0.14; p = .706
 South Africa 5 3 χ2 = 0.50; p = .480
DASS-D 11.28 (9.97) 10.38 (10.61) F(1,100) = 0.19; p = .662
SHAPS   1.48 (2.47)   1.31 (1.92) F(1,100) = 0.16; p = .694
LEDS 27.36 (9.19) 27.84 (10.73) F(1,100) = 0.06; p = .807
RPA-d 16.14 (5.31) 16.19 (5.73) F(1,100) = 0.00; p = .962
CAQ-GE-DES 22.10 (6.97) 23.06 (7.89) F(1,100) = 0.42; p = .518
PANAS
 PA 9.42 (3.25) 10.52 (2.82) F(1,100) = 3.34; p = .071
 NA 4.90 (2.25) 4.65 (2.16) F(1,100) = 0.32; p = .574
Open in a new tab

Table 3.

Descriptive statistics for positive affect and negative affect in the dampening and relaxation group from T0 to T3.

Dampening (N = 50)
 Relaxation (N = 52)
M (SD) min max M (SD) min max
PA
 Baseline (T0) 9.42 (3.25) 3.00 15.00 10.52 (2.82) 4.00 15.00
 Happiness Induction (T1) 10.34 (3.41) 4.00 15.00 10.98 (3.03) 3.00 15.00
 Manipulation (T2) 8.52 (3.39) 3.00 15.00 11.31 (2.75) 4.00 15.00
 Sadness Induction (T3) 5.29 (2.48) 3.00 12.00 6.56 (3.13) 3.00 15.00
NA
 Baseline (T0) 4.90 (2.25) 3.00 11.00 4.65 (2.16) 3.00 11.00
 Happiness Induction (T1) 4.00 (1.80) 3.00 10.00 3.73 (1.73) 3.00 12.00
 Manipulation (T2) 5.40 (2.42) 3.00 14.00 3.87 (1.56) 3.00 11.00
 Sadness Induction (T3) 8.16 (3.33) 3.00 15.00 8.04 (3.62) 3.00 15.00
Open in a new tab

2.2. Manipulation Checks

Mood Inductions.

The happiness induction had the intended effect of increasing PA (b = 0.69, SE = 0.29, t(302.26) = 2.34, p = .020, f2 = 0.01) and decreasing NA (b = −0.91, SE = 0.27, t(302.22) = −3.40, p < .001, f2 = 0.03) across all participants before the start of the experimental manipulation, with no significant differences in affective change between the conditions (T0 to T1; both p > .42) or level at T1 (i.e., after the happiness induction; both p > .60). Affective changes pre-to post the sadness induction are studied in more detail via the main analyses.

Experimental Manipulation Instructions.

The results suggest that the experimental manipulation was effective. Independent-samples t-tests on PA and NA levels at T2 indicated that participants in the dampening condition reported lower PA (t(94.26) = −4.55, p < .001, d = 0.91) and higher NA (t(83.11) = 3.79, p < .001, d = 0.76) compared to those in the relaxation condition. Within the dampening condition, paired-sample t-tests comparing scores at T0 vs. T2 (i.e., baseline vs. after the dampening induction) indicated a significant decrease in PA (t(49) = 2.11, p = .040, d = 0.30) but no significant change in NA (p = .161). Conversely, within the relaxation condition, from baseline to after the relaxation induction there was a significant increase in PA (t(51) = −2.54, p = .014, d = 0.35) and decrease in NA (t(51) = 3.61, p = <0.001, d = 0.50). In addition, in the dampening condition average state dampening was 14.24 (SD RPA-d = 5.02) at T2 (i.e., after the dampening induction) and 14.53 (SD RPA-d = 4.70) at T3 (i.e., after the sadness induction). Both were comparable to scores on the dampening subscale of the state-modified RPA reported by Dunn et al. (2018) following their dampening induction.

2.3. Experimental manipulation

In line with Hypothesis 1, there was a significant Time × Condition interaction from T1 to T2 (i.e., before versus after the manipulation) for both PA (b T2 × condition = −2.15, SE = 0.57, t(299.32) = −3.74, p < .001, f2 = 0.11) and NA (b T2 × condition = 1.27, SE = 0.53, t(299.32) = 2.38, p = .018, f2 = 0.07; Table 4; see Table S8 in the Supplementary Materials for analyses with inclusion of covariate PA/NA at T0 instead of T1). From T1 to T2, for PA, participants in the dampening condition showed a decrease in PA (b = −1.82, SE = 0.41, t(299.32) = −4.44, p < .001, f2 = 0.11) whereas participants in the relaxation condition showed no significant change (p = .417, Table 4). For NA, participants in the dampening condition showed an increase (b = 1.40, SE = 0.38, t(299.32) = 3.69, p < .001, f2 = 0.06) whereas participants in the relaxation condition showed no significant change (p = .717, Table 4). Results were comparable across models with and without covariate adjustment.

Table 4.

Multilevel model estimates of within-condition time trends and between-condition differences.

Dependent Variable Effect Happiness Induction (T1) to Manipulation (T2)
 Manipulation (T2) to Sadness Induction (T3)
Slope t p f2 Slope t p f2
Positive Affect Time Within Dampening −1.82 −4.44 *** <0.001 0.11 −3.21 − 7.79 *** <0.001 0.33
Time Within Relaxation 0.33 0.81 0.417 <0.01 − 4.75 −11.81 *** <0.001 0.62
Dampening vs. Relaxation − 2.15 − 3.74 *** <0.001 0.11 1.54 2.67 ** 0.008 0.02
Negative Affect Time Within Dampening 1.40 3.69 *** <0.001 0.06 2.75 7.22 *** <0.001 0.23
Time Within Relaxation 0.13 0.36 0.717 <0.01 4.17 11.23 *** <0.001 0.60
Dampening vs. Relaxation 1.27 2.38 * 0.018 0.07 −1.42 − 2.67 ** 0.008 0.02
Open in a new tab

Note. Both positive and negative affect were assessed in each participant at each time point. Asterisks (*) indicate significance (*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001). Cohen’s f2 effect sizes: f2 ≥ 0.15 = medium; f2 ≥ 0.35 large. Conclusions drawn from these analyses are were identical to the analyses using the full PA (i.e., including ‘excited’) and NA (i.e., including ‘bored’) versions, see Table S9 in the Supplementary Materials.

2.4. Effect of dampening versus relaxation on a negative emotional contrast

Consistent with Hypothesis 2, there was a significant Time × Condition interaction from T2 to T3 (i.e., before versus after the sadness induction) for both PA (b T3 × condition = 1.54, SE = 0.58, t(300.02) = 2.67, p = .008, f2 = 0.02) and NA (b T3 × condition = −1.42, SE = 0.53, t(299.92) = −2.67, p = .008, f2 = 0.02; Table 4 and Fig. 3; see Table S8 in the Supplementary Materials for analyses including PA/NA at T0 as covariate instead of at T1). For PA, both groups showed decreases from T2 to T3, but the magnitude of the decrease in PA from T2 to T3 was significantly smaller in the dampening condition compared to the relaxation condition (b dampening = −3.21, SE = 0.41, t(300.69) = −7.79, p < .001, f2 = 0.33; relaxation: b relaxation = −4.75, SE = 0.40, t(299.32) = −11.81, p < .001, f2 = 0.62). For NA, both groups showed increases from T2 to T3, but the magnitude of the increase in NA from T2 to T3 was significantly smaller in the dampening condition than in the relaxation condition (b dampening = 2.75, SE = 0.38, t(300.50) = 7.22, p < .001, f2 = 0.23; b relaxation = 4.17, SE = 0.37, t(299.32) = 11.23, p < .001, f2 = 0.60). In sum, both groups showed decreases in PA and increases in NA following the sadness induction, with the changes being less pronounced in the dampening condition compared to the relaxation condition (Table 4; see Table S9 in the Supplementary Materials for the full PA and NA item sets). Results were comparable across models with and without covariate adjustment. Of note, in support of the findings, 34 out of 50 participants in the dampening condition (68%) indicated in the exploratory question that they thought the dampening induction made the sadness induction feel less intense.

Fig. 3.

Fig. 3.

Open in a new tab

Mean Positive and Negative Affect Trends Pre-to Post-Manipulation and Pre-to Post-Sadness Induction

Note. Mean sum scores (with standard deviations) of the three Positive Affect items (left) and the three Negative Affect items (right) of the PANAS, shown across T1, T2, and T3. Asterisks (*) indicate significant differences (***p < .001) between two time points within one condition (indicated in color, near the slopes) or at one timepoint between two conditions (indicated in black, near the square brackets). N.s. = not significant.

2.5. Exploratory moderation analyses

From T1 to T2 (i.e., before versus after the manipulation), for PA, there was a significant three-way interaction between time, condition, and trait dampening (b T2 × condition × RPA-d score = 0.23, SE = 0.10, t(293.31) = 2.23, p = .026, f2 = 0.08; b T2 × condition × LEDS score = 0.17, SE = 0.06, t(293.31) = 2.86, p = .005, f2 = 0.16; Table 5). Simple slope analyses indicated that within the dampening condition, those with lower trait dampening scores exhibited a steeper decrease in PA pre-to post the dampening induction (b RPA-d = 0.21, SE = 0.07, t(143.31) = 2.86, p = .005, f2 = 0.08; b LEDS = 0.16, SE = 0.04, t(143.31) = 3.83, p < .001, f2 = 0.17). At T2, within the dampening condition no significant differences between participants with lower versus higher trait dampening remained (for both RPA-d and LEDS scores, p > .670). In contrast, no significant pre-to post-manipulation moderation effects were observed in the relaxation condition for either RPA-d or LEDS scores (both p > .730). No other significant three-way interactions were observed from T1 to T2 (all p ≥ .06).

Table 5.

Slopes for exploratory investigation of three-way interactions between time, condition and scores of all baseline measures.

Dependent Variable Three-Way Interaction Happiness Induction (T1) to Manipulation (T2)
 Manipulation (T2) to Sadness Induction (T3)
Slope t p f2 Slope t p f2
Positive Affect Time x Condition x DASS-D 0.09 1.76 0.080 0.06 −0.09 −1.55 0.121 <0.01
Time x Condition x SHAPS 0.11 0.40 0.691 <0.01 − 0.38 −1.43 0.154 0.01
Time x Condition x LEDS 0.17 2.86 ** 0.005 0.16 − 0.11 −1.95 0.053 0.03
Time x Condition x RPA-d 0.23 2.23 * 0.026 0.08 − 0.12 −1.16 0.248 <0.01
Time x Condition x CAQ-GE-DES 0.12 1.48 0.141 <0.01 0.09 1.16 0.246 <0.01
Negative Affect Time x Condition x DASS-D − 0.05 −1.04 0.300 0.03 0.07 1.31 0.191 <0.01
Time x Condition x SHAPS − 0.04 − 0.15 0.885 <0.01 0.15 0.59 0.560 <0.01
Time x Condition x LEDS − 0.10 −1.89 0.060 0.11 0.08 1.44 0.152 0.04
Time x Condition x RPA-d − 0.13 −1.38 0.169 0.05 0.05 0.51 0.608 0.03
Time x Condition x DES-CAQ-GE − 0.06 − 0.80 0.425 <0.01 − 0.11 −1.60 0.110 0.03
Open in a new tab

Note. Both positive and negative affect were assessed in each participant at each time point. Asterisks (*) indicate significance (**p < .01; *p < .05). Cohen’s f2 effect sizes: f2 ≥ 0.15 = medium; f2 ≥ 0.35 large. Apart from the three-way interaction of Time x Condition x CAQ-GE-DES for NA scores (see Results), conclusions drawn from these analyses are were identical to the analyses using the full PA (i.e., including ‘excited’) and NA (i.e., including ‘bored’) versions, see Table S10 in the Supplementary Materials.

From T2 to T3 (i.e., before versus after the sadness induction), no significant three-way interactions were observed for the reduced PA and NA item sets (all p > .05; Table 5). However, for the full item set of NA (i. e., including ‘bored’), there was a significant three-way interaction between time, condition, and discomfort with NECs (b T3 × condition × CAQ-GE-DES score = 0.20, SE = 0.09, t(293.42) = 2.23, p = .027, f2 = 0.03, see Table S10 in the Supplementary Materials). A simple slope analysis indicated that within the relaxation condition (but not within the dampening condition; p = .586), higher scores on discomfort with NECs were associated with a bigger increase in NA, b = 0.16, SE = 0.06, t(150.00) = 2.83, p = .005, f2 < 0.01. Results were comparable across models with and without covariate adjustment.

3. Discussion

The current study aimed to experimentally test the applicability of the CAM (Newman & Llera, 2011) to the domain of dampening of positive affect, as dampening may function as a NEC avoidance strategy (Bogaert et al., 2026). Specifically, we investigated whether engaging in dampening (versus relaxation) effectively lowered positive affect and increased negative affect (H1), and whether this low PA and high NA decreased the size of the negative emotional contrast that resulted from a subsequent sadness induction (H2). Participants completed a 2-min induction of happiness followed by an experimental manipulation (i.e., dampening vs. relaxation) and a 2-min sadness induction. They rated their positive and negative affect before and after the happiness induction, after the experimental manipulation, and after the sadness induction, to capture affective changes throughout the experiment.

Results supported the first hypothesis. Following a happiness induction, an experimental manipulation of induced dampening resulted in a greater decrease in PA and a greater increase in NA compared to those in the relaxation condition. Participants in the relaxation condition showed no significant affective changes, and maintained high PA and low NA. These findings provide the first independent replication outside the original Exeter laboratory and demonstrate that the dampening manipulation can be successfully implemented in an online experimental format.

The results also supported the central hypothesis. When exposed to the sadness induction, participants who had previously engaged in a dampening induction exhibited smaller shifts in PA (H2a) and NA (H2b) relative to those in the relaxation condition. The dampening induction may have rendered participants to have a lower positive affective state, thereby leaving less room for a sharp decline in PA during the subsequent sadness induction. Conversely, participants in the relaxation condition likely entered the sadness induction with higher PA and lower NA, potentially increasing their vulnerability to the NEC. Although these interaction effects were small in size, the pattern mirrored findings by Kim and Newman (2022) who observed that relaxation, compared to an experimental induction of worry or rumination, produced a sharper surge in negative affect after a sadness exposure. Thus, in line with our second hypothesis, participants in the dampening condition experienced significantly smaller NECs compared to those in the relaxation condition, as they started the sadness induction (i.e., at T2) with lowered PA and increased NA because of the prior dampening induction. In other words, responding to PA by engaging in dampening may have had a protective function against sharp NECs, whereas engaging in relaxation may have left participants vulnerable to be exposed to experiencing a sharper NEC during the sadness induction. This ability to control and reduce this NEC could possibly explain the process of dampening in daily life. That is, for individuals who excessively engage in dampening in daily life (or, who exhibit high trait dampening), dampening of PA could function as a means to prevent experiencing the short-term discomfort associated with sharp downward positive affective shifts (i.e., from high to low PA) once the positive affective state ends. However, as discussed above, positive affect is essential to mental health, and frequent suppression or dismissal of positive affective experiences forms a transdiagnostic vulnerability factor for many mental health problems (e.g., (Bean et al., 2022; Dworschak et al., 2023; Eisner et al., 2009; Malivoire et al., 2022).

Exploratory moderation analyses suggested that before versus after the manipulation, trait dampening moderated changes in PA within the dampening condition. Participants lower in trait dampening showed a larger decrease in PA pre-to post the dampening induction compared to those higher in trait dampening. No differences were found using trait dampening level as a moderator after the dampening induction. One possible interpretation of this within condition pattern is that the manipulation of negative mood leveled the playing field between those who spontaneously tend to use dampening and those who do not. Given the exploratory nature of these analyses and the small number of participants with elevated trait dampening (n = 9 for RPA-d scores ≥ + 1 SD; n = 7 for LEDS scores ≥ + 1 SD), these findings should be interpreted cautiously and considered hypothesis-generating pending replication in larger samples.

Exploratory analyses further suggested that, in the relaxation condition only, trait discomfort with NECs moderated changes in NA (including boredom) following the sadness induction. Specifically, participants higher in trait discomfort with NECs showed a greater increase in NA from relaxation to sadness compared to those lower in discomfort with NECs. Within the CAM framework, these exploratory findings may have reflected that those with high trait discomfort with NECs are typically motivated to sustain negative states in order to decrease vulnerability to subsequent negative affect. When instructed to engage in relaxation after a happiness induction, however, they may have followed the instructions despite this tendency, resulting in a temporarily decreased NA state. Consequently, the subsequent shift to sadness may have constituted a particularly salient and aversive negative affective contrast, thereby amplifying the increase in NA. In the dampening condition, this affective contrast may have been reduced due to the prior dampening induction, which may explain why the effect occurred uniquely in the relaxation condition. Alternatively, individuals higher in negative emotional sensitivity may not only experience stronger emotional responses (Hisler et al., 2020; Mettler et al., 2025), but may also be more aware of this heightened responsiveness. This could foster more negative appraisals of their own emotional sensitivity and, in turn, amplify reported negative affect following the sadness induction.

Clinical Implications.

The current findings have multiple potential clinical implications. A clinical intervention aimed at lowering dampening and its NEC avoidance function could help reinstall healthy responses to positive affective states. Consistent with clinical recommendations for excessive rumination and worry (Kim & Newman, 2022), similar intervention strategies may be applicable to individuals who frequently engage in dampening. Given its avoidance function, treatments addressing dampening of positive affect should rely on exposure-based approaches. Accordingly, interventions focused solely on increasing positive affect or enhancing positive emotional engagement may not fully address the contrast-avoidance function of dampening. In line with Kim and Newman (2022) who proposed exposure-based techniques for excessive rumination and worry, behavioral interventions targeting exposure to NECs may help disrupt the cycle of negative reinforcement by promoting experiential learning that NECs are tolerable. The NEC exposure would consist of repeated exposure to transitions from happiness to sadness to cause multiple sharp decreases in positive affect. Such approaches could be combined with response substitution strategies, such as training savoring techniques as adaptive responses to positive emotions. For instance, the smartphone-delivered ecological momentary intervention SkillJoy (LaFreniere & Newman, 2023b) which led to reduced contrast avoidance in (LaFreniere & Newman, 2023a), could be used to strengthen skills in savoring positive emotions in daily life. In addition, psychoeducation may help increase awareness of the long-term costs of reduced positive affect, including transdiagnostic vulnerability to psychopathology (e.g., Bean et al., 2022; Eisner et al., 2009). Relevant to this, a worry outcome monitoring momentary intervention led to greater reduced contrast avoidance relative to a thought monitoring control group (Schwob & Newman, 2026). This was likely because tracking their worries and subsequent outcomes showed them that a large majority of feared worry outcomes had not happened (LaFreniere & Newman, 2016; Schwob & Newman, 2026). Thus, this intervention may have helped them realize the long-term cost of contrast avoidance. Also, incorporating self-compassion (e.g., Desmond, 2016) may further facilitate adaptive reappraisal of dampening by helping individuals acknowledge its short-term protective intent (e.g., reducing anticipated emotional discomfort), while also recognizing that repeated dampening may ultimately interfere with psychological wellbeing. Through the perspective of Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT), NEC avoidance could be viewed as a form of reduced psychological flexibility in response to emotional shifts, characterized by avoidance of negative emotional contrasts and reduced engagement in valued action when positive emotions arise (A-Tjak & Hayes, 2022; Ong & Eustis, 2022). Therefore, elements from ACT such as present-moment awareness, openness to sustained positive emotion, and values-consistent engagement in positive activities may also be applicable. Finally, experiential (rather than analytical) processing approaches may be promising for reducing dampening and enhancing positive affect (Sandman & Craske, 2024). In Positive Affect Treatment (PAT), for instance, imaginal recounting encourages individuals to recall pleasant autobiographical experiences with attention to sensory, emotional, and contextual details (Craske et al., 2019; Sandman & Craske, 2024), thereby promoting embodied engagement with positive experience rather than abstract or evaluative processing.

Limitations and Future Directions.

Our study methods slightly deviated from prior studies that experimentally manipulated dampening during a positive experience or memory recall procedure (Burr et al., 2017; Dunn et al., 2018; Yilmaz et al., 2019). In our study, we first induced positive affect and subsequently induced dampening thoughts. This approach ensures that a positive affective state was prior to the manipulation of dampening. Future research could examine whether combining a positive affect induction with concurrent dampening (versus control) instructions, in line with previous work, yields comparable effects on negative emotional contrasts. The present study also has some limitations to be considered. First, the somatic focus of the relaxation induction in contrast with the cognitive and emotional focus of the dampening induction may have contributed to condition differences independent of the intended manipulation (e.g., somatic relaxation can enhance positive affect (e.g., Jain et al., 2007). Future studies may benefit from using more comparable manipulation formats. Second, it was not possible to conduct a valid manipulation check because the state-modified RPA was administered exclusively in the dampening condition and there was no state dampening assessment at baseline. Future studies should assess state dampening and relaxation in both conditions, at baseline and after the manipulation. Third, the picture-based affect inducing procedures (AIPs) may not fully reflect how emotions emerge in daily life. Although more personally relevant inductions (such as imagery for positive future events; Dunn et al., 2018) may enhance ecological validity, the meta-analysis of Joseph et al. (2020) recommended facial expression pictures over imagery or autobiographical alternatives for inducing both happiness and sadness. Fourth, conducting the study online via Prolific may have introduced selection effects, attracting participants motivated by financial incentives or with particular interest in mental health. Despite attention checks for data quality, engagement and adherence could not be monitored as closely as in a laboratory setting. Fifth, the study relied solely on self-report. Future research could include physiological measures such as skin conductance for sympathetic activity (Kim & Newman, 2022) and facial electromyography for emotion-related muscle activity. Sixth, data on participants’ ethnicity were not collected, limiting conclusions regarding the generalizability of the findings across ethnicities. Finally, the present study was conducted in a community sample. Future research could examine whether the present findings extend to clinical populations. In line with findings that pathological worriers (versus controls) view worry as a beneficial coping strategy for avoiding NECs (Kim & Newman, 2022), clinical populations may be more likely than non-clinical groups to perceive dampening as protective against NECs.

4. Conclusion

The findings support the hypothesis that dampening serves as a cognitive strategy to sustain low positive affect and thereby can be used to avoid sharp shifts from high to low positive affect during exposure to sadness. This might have a soothing effect on the short-term and may therefore act as negative reinforcement, which could explain the motivation to frequently engage in dampening despite its negative mental health outcomes. This research could contribute to a deepened understanding of the mechanism driving individuals to engage in dampening and to inform more effective interventions for those caught in the cycle of avoidance of negative emotional contrasts.

Supplementary Material

supplement

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to the participants for their time and engagement, and to Christophe Bossens for support with the setup of the online experiment.

Funding information

This study was internally funded by KU Leuven (C14/24/058).

Appendix A. Supplementary data

Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2026.105116.

Footnotes

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Consent to participate

Participants provided their informed consent before participating in the study.

Preregistration

Prior to data collection, the study was preregistered on the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/6a954).

Ethical considerations

The study was conducted in accordance with established ethical standards and received approval from the Social and Societal Ethics Committee of KU Leuven (G-2024-8613-R2(AMD)).

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Myriam Gérardy: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Project administration, Software, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft. Liesbeth Bogaert: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Project administration, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. Michelle G. Newman: Conceptualization, Supervision, Writing – review & editing. David J. Hallford: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Supervision, Writing – review & editing. Filip Raes: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.

Data availability

Data will be made available on request.

References

  1. A-Tjak J, & Hayes L (2022). Depression. In Twohig MP(Ed.), The Oxford handbook of acceptance and commitment therapy (pp. 311–332). 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197550076.013.14 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  2. American Psychiatric Association. (2022). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. Text rev. ed. (5th ed.). 10.1176/appi.books.9781615379620 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  3. Baik SY, & Newman MG (2023). The transdiagnostic use of worry and rumination to avoid negative emotional contrasts following negative events: A momentary assessment study. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 95, Article 102679. 10.1016/j.janxdis.2023.102679 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Baik SY, & Newman MG (2025). Why do individuals with generalized anxiety disorder and depression engage in worry and rumination?: A momentary assessment study of positive contrast enhancement. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 111, Article 102982. 10.1016/j.janxdis.2025.102982 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Bean CAL, Summers CB, & Ciesla JA (2022). Dampening of positive affect and depression: A meta-analysis of cross-sectional and longitudinal relationships. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 156, Article 104153. 10.1016/j.brat.2022.104153 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Bogaert L, Dunn BD, Walentynowicz M, & Raes F (2023). ‘It just doesn’t feel right’ and other reasons why some people fear and avoid positive emotions. Acta Psychologica, 235, Article 103901. 10.1016/j.actpsy.2023.103901 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Bogaert L, Lau H, Dunn BD, & Raes F (2025). The Leuven exeter dampening scale (LEDS) to measure dampening appraisals towards positive affect: Psychometric evaluation and initial validation in a Dutch and English community sample. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 194, Article 104861. 10.1016/j.brat.2025.104861 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Bogaert L, Segura-Vargas MA, Dunn BD, Hallford DJ, Newman MG, & Raes F (2026). Dampening of positive affect serves an emotional contrast avoidance function: Preliminary evidence from an adult community sample. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 82(3), 376–386. 10.1002/jclp.70060 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Bryant FB, Chadwick ED, & Kluwe K (2011). Understanding the processes that regulate positive emotional experience: Unsolved problems and future directions for theory and research on savoring. International Journal of Wellbeing, 1(1). 10.5502/ijw.v1i1.18 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  10. Burr LA, Javiad M, Jell G, Werner-Seidler A, & Dunn BD (2017). Turning lemonade into lemons: Dampening appraisals reduce positive affect and increase negative affect during positive activity scheduling. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 91, 91–101. 10.1016/j.brat.2017.01.010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Cohen J (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Earlbaum Associates. [Google Scholar]
  12. Cohen S, Alper CM, Doyle WJ, Treanor JJ, & Turner RB (2006). Positive emotional style predicts resistance to illness after experimental exposure to rhinovirus or influenza a virus. Psychosomatic Medicine, 68(6), 809–815. 10.1097/01.psy.0000245867.92364.3c [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Craske MG, Dunn BD, Meuret AE, Rizvi SJ, & Taylor CT (2024). Positive affect and reward processing in the treatment of depression, anxiety and trauma. Nature Reviews Psychology, 3(10), 665–685. 10.1038/s44159-024-00355-4 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  14. Craske MG, Meuret AE, Ritz T, Treanor M, Dour H, & Rosenfield D (2019). Positive affect treatment for depression and anxiety: A randomized clinical trial for a core feature of anhedonia. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 87(5), 457–471. 10.1037/ccp0000396 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Craske MG, Meuret AE, Ritz T, Treanor M, & Dour HJ (2016). Treatment for anhedonia: A neuroscience driven approach. Depression and Anxiety, 33(10), 927–938. 10.1002/da.22490 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Cuschieri S (2019). The CONSORT statement. Saudi Journal of Anaesthesia, 13(Suppl 1), S27–S30. 10.4103/sja.SJA_559_18 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Damme KSF, Gupta T, Haase CM, & Mittal VA (2022). Responses to positive affect and unique resting-state connectivity in individuals at clinical high-risk for psychosis. NeuroImage. Clinical, 33, Article 102946. 10.1016/j.nicl.2022.102946 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. de Leeuw JR (2015). jsPsych: A JavaScript library for creating behavioral experiments in a web browser. Behavior Research Methods, 47(1), 1–12. 10.3758/s13428-014-0458-y [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Demyttenaere K, Donneau AF, Albert A, Ansseau M, Constant E, & van Heeringen K (2015). What is important in being cured from depression? Discordance between physicians and patients (1). Journal of Affective Disorders, 174, 390–396. 10.1016/j.jad.2014.12.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Desmond T (2016). Self-compassion in psychotherapy: Mindfulness-based practices for healing and transformation. W. W. Norton & Company. [Google Scholar]
  21. Dunn BD (2012). Helping depressed clients reconnect to positive emotion experience: Current insights and future directions. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 19(4), 326–340. 10.1002/cpp.1799 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Dunn BD, Burr LA, Smith HB, Hunt A, Dadgostar D, Dalglish L, … Werner-Seidler A (2018). Turning gold into lead: Dampening appraisals reduce happiness and pleasantness and increase sadness during anticipation and recall of pleasant activities in the laboratory. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 107, 19–33. 10.1016/j.brat.2018.05.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Dunn BD, Widnall E, Reed N, Owens C, Campbell J, & Kuyken W (2019). Bringing light into darkness: A multiple baseline mixed methods case series evaluation of augmented depression therapy (ADepT). Behaviour Research and Therapy, 120, Article 103418. 10.1016/j.brat.2019.103418 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Dunn BD, Widnall E, Warbrick L, Warner F, Reed N, Price A, … Kuyken W (2023). Preliminary clinical and cost effectiveness of augmented depression therapy versus cognitive behavioural therapy for the treatment of anhedonic depression (ADepT): A single-centre, open-label, parallel-group, pilot, randomised, controlled trial. EClinicalMedicine, 61, Article 102084. 10.1016/j.eclinm.2023.102084 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Dunn BD, & Roberts H (2016). Improving the capacity to treat depression using talking therapies. In Wood AM, & Johnson J (Eds.), The wiley handbook of positive clinical psychology (pp. 181–204). Wiley. 10.1002/9781118468197.ch13. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  26. Dworschak C, Polack RG, Winschel J, Joormann J, & Kober H (2023). Emotion regulation and disordered eating behaviour in youths: Two daily-diary studies. European Eating Disorders Review, 31(5), 655–669. 10.1002/erv.2993 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Edge MD, Miller CJ, Muhtadie L, Johnson SL, Carver CS, Marquinez N, & Gotlib IH (2013). People with bipolar I disorder report avoiding rewarding activities and dampening positive emotion. Journal of Affective Disorders, 146(3), 407–413. 10.1016/j.jad.2012.07.027 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Eisner LR, Johnson SL, & Carver CS (2009). Positive affect regulation in anxiety disorders. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 23(5), 645–649. 10.1016/j.janxdis.2009.02.001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Feldman GC, Joormann J, & Johnson SL (2008). Responses to positive affect: A self-report measure of rumination and dampening. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 32(4), 507–525. 10.1007/s10608-006-9083-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Fredrickson BL (1998). What good are positive emotions? Review of General Psychology, 2(3), 300–319. 10.1037/1089-2680.2.3.300 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Gerdan G (2025). Exploring the role of contrast avoidance, worry, and rumination in the relationship between intolerance of uncertainty, generalized anxiety disorder, and panic disorder symptoms in a clinical sample. Current Psychology, 44(7), 6362–6375. 10.1007/s12144-025-07641-1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  32. Gibbons RD, Roy A, Kapur K, & Jercan M (2015). Rmass. http://www.rmass.org.
  33. Gross JJ (1998). Antecedent- and response-focused emotion regulation: Divergent consequences for experience, expression, and physiology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(1), 224–237. 10.1037/0022-3514.74.1.224 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Hisler GC, Krizan Z, DeHart T, & Wright AGC (2020). Neuroticism as the intensity, reactivity, and variability in day-to-day affect. Journal of Research in Personality, 87. 10.1016/j.jrp.2020.103964 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  35. Jain S, Shapiro SL, Swanick S, Roesch SC, Mills PJ, Bell I, & Schwartz GER (2007). A randomized controlled trial of mindfulness meditation versus relaxation training: Effects on distress, positive states of mind, rumination, and distraction. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 33(1), 11–21. 10.1207/s15324796abm3301_2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Jamil N, & Llera SJ (2021). A transdiagnostic application of the contrast-avoidance model: The effects of worry and rumination in a personal-failure paradigm. Clinical Psychological Science, 9(5), 836–849. 10.1177/2167702621991797 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  37. Joormann J, & Vanderlind WM (2014). Emotion regulation in depression: The role of biased cognition and reduced cognitive control. Clinical Psychological Science, 2(4), 402–421. 10.1177/2167702614536163 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  38. Joseph DL, Chan MY, Heintzelman SJ, Tay L, Diener E, & Scotney VS (2020). The manipulation of affect: A meta-analysis of affect induction procedures. Psychological Bulletin, 146(4), 355–375. 10.1037/bul0000224 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Kim H, McInnis MG, & Sperry SH (2024). An initial test of the contrast avoidance model in bipolar spectrum disorders. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 173, 286–295. 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2024.03.024 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Kim H, & Newman MG (2019). The paradox of relaxation training: Relaxation induced anxiety and mediation effects of contrast avoidance in generalized anxiety disorder and major depressive disorder. Journal of Affective Disorders, 259, 271–278. 10.1016/j.jad.2019.08.045 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Kim H, & Newman MG (2022). Avoidance of a negative emotional contrast from worry and rumination: An application of the contrast avoidance model. Journal of Behavioral and Cognitive Therapy, 32(1), 33–43. 10.1016/j.jbct.2021.12.007 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Kim H, & Newman MG (2023). Worry and rumination enhance a positive emotional contrast based on the framework of the contrast avoidance model. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 94, Article 102671. 10.1016/j.janxdis.2023.102671 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. LaFreniere LS, & Newman MG (2016). A brief ecological momentary intervention for generalized anxiety disorder: A randomized controlled trial of the worry outcome journal. Depression and Anxiety, 33(9), 829–839. 10.1002/da.22507 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. LaFreniere LS, & Newman MG (2023a). Reducing contrast avoidance in GAD by savoring positive emotions: Outcome and mediation in a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 93, Article 102659. 10.1016/j.janxdis.2022.102659 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. LaFreniere LS, & Newman MG (2023b). Upregulating positive emotion in generalized anxiety disorder: A randomized controlled trial of the Skilljoy ecological momentary intervention. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 91(6), 381–387. 10.1037/ccp0000794 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. LaFreniere LS, & Newman MG (2024). Savoring changes novel positive mindset targets of GAD treatment: Optimism, prioritizing positivity, kill-joy thinking, and worry mediation. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 177, Article 104541. 10.1016/j.brat.2024.104541 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Leng L, Beckers T, & Vervliet B (2024). Anhedonia influences threat avoidance and relief: A conceptual replication. Journal of Mood and Anxiety Disorders, 5, Article 100050. 10.1016/j.xjmad.2024.100050 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Llera SJ, & Newman MG (2010). Effects of worry on physiological and subjective reactivity to emotional stimuli in generalized anxiety disorder and nonanxious control participants. Emotion, 10(5), 640–650. 10.1037/a0019351 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Llera SJ, & Newman MG (2014). Rethinking the role of worry in generalized anxiety disorder: Evidence supporting a model of emotional contrast avoidance. Behavior Therapy, 45(3), 283–299. 10.1016/j.beth.2013.12.011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Llera SJ, & Newman MG (2017). Development and validation of two measures of emotional contrast avoidance: The contrast avoidance questionnaires. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 49, 114–127. 10.1016/j.janxdis.2017.04.008 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Lovibond SH, & Lovibond PF (1995). Manual for the depression anxiety and stress scale (2nd ed.). Psychology Foundation of Australia. [Google Scholar]
  52. Malivoire BL, Marcotte-Beaumier G, Sumantry D, & Koerner N (2022). Correlates of dampening and savoring in generalized anxiety disorder. International Journal of Cognitive Therapy, 15(4), 414–433. 10.1007/s41811-022-00145-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Marchewka A, Żurawski Ł, Jednoróg K, & Grabowska A (2014). The Nencki affective picture system (NAPS): Introduction to a novel, standardized, wide-range, high-quality, realistic picture database. Behavior Research Methods, 46(2), 596–610. 10.3758/s13428-013-0379-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Mettler J, Cho S, Stern M, & Heath NL (2025). Negative and positive emotional reactivity in women with and without a history of self-injury. Psychological Reports, 128(3), 1690–1707. 10.1177/00332941231180118 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Morys-Carter WL (2024). Participant IDs for Pavlovia VESPR. https://moryscarter.com/vespr/pavlovia.php. [Google Scholar]
  56. Nagy GA, Cernasov P, Pisoni A, Walsh E, Dichter GS, & Smoski MJ (2020). Reward network modulation as a mechanism of change in behavioral activation. Behavior Modification, 44(2), 186–213. 10.1177/0145445518805682 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Newman MG, Jacobson NC, Zainal NH, Shin KE, Szkodny LE, & Sliwinski MJ (2019). The effects of worry in daily life: An ecological momentary assessment study supporting the tenets of the contrast avoidance model. Clinical Psychological Science, 7(4), 794–810. 10.1177/2167702619827019 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Newman MG, Rackoff GN, Zhu Y, & Kim H (2023). A transdiagnostic evaluation of contrast avoidance across generalized anxiety disorder, major depressive disorder, and social anxiety disorder. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 93, Article 102662. 10.1016/j.janxdis.2022.102662 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Newman MG, Schwob JT, Rackoff GN, Shin KE, Kim H, & Van Doren N (2022). The naturalistic reinforcement of worry from positive and negative emotional contrasts: Results from a momentary assessment study within social interactions. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 92, Article 102634. 10.1016/j.janxdis.2022.102634 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. Newman MG, & Llera SJ (2011). A novel theory of experiential avoidance in generalized anxiety disorder: A review and synthesis of research supporting a contrast avoidance model of worry. Clinical Psychology Review, 31(3), 371–382. 10.1016/j.cpr.2011.01.008 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  61. Ong CW, & Eustis EH (2022). Psychological flexibility. In Twohig MP, Levin ME, & Petersen JM (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of acceptance and commitment therapy (pp. 169–181). Oxford Handbooks Online. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197550076.013.7. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  62. Peckham AD, McHugh RK, Kneeland ET, Bjorgvinsson T, & Beard C (2020). Dampening of positive affect predicts substance use during partial hospitalization. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 44, 811–819. 10.1007/s10608-020-10101-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  63. Prolific. (2025). Prolific [online platform]. https://www.prolific.com.
  64. Riegel M, Żurawski Ł, Wierzba M, Moslehi A, Klocek Ł, Horvat M, … Marchewka A (2016). Characterization of the nencki affective picture system by discrete emotional categories (NAPS BE). Behavior Research Methods, 48(2), 600–612. 10.3758/s13428-015-0620-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  65. Rubin M (2024). Inconsistent multiple testing corrections: The fallacy of using family-based error rates to make inferences about individual hypotheses. Methods in Psychology, 10, Article 100140. 10.1016/j.metip.2024.100140 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  66. Sandman CF, & Craske MG (2022). Psychological treatments for anhedonia. In Pizzagalli DA, & Der-Avakian A (Eds.), Current topics in behavioral neuroscience: 58. Anhedonia: Preclinical, translational, and clinical integration (pp. 491–513). Springer. 10.1007/7854_2021_291. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  67. Sandman CF, & Craske MG (2024). Experiential processing increases positive affect and decreases dampening appraisals during autobiographical memory recall in an anhedonic sample. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 181, Article 104606. 10.1016/j.brat.2024.104606 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  68. Schwob JT, & Newman MG (2026). A brief ecological momentary intervention for generalized anxiety disorder: A randomized controlled trial of the worry outcome app. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 120, Article 103160. 10.1016/j.janxdis.2026.103160 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  69. Selya AS, Rose JS, Dierker LC, Hedeker D, & Mermelstein RJ (2012). A practical guide to calculating Cohen’s f2, a measure of local effect size, from PROC MIXED. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 111. 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00111 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  70. Sin NL, Almeida DM, Crain TL, Kossek EE, Berkman LF, & Buxton OM (2017). Bidirectional, temporal associations of sleep with positive events, affect, and stressors in daily life across a week. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 51(3), 402–415. 10.1007/s12160-016-9864-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  71. Snaith RP, Hamilton M, Morley S, Humayan A, Hargreaves D, & Trigwell P (1995). A scale for the assessment of hedonic tone the snaith-hamilton pleasure scale. British Journal of Psychiatry, 167(1), 99–103. 10.1192/bjp.167.1.99 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  72. Swisher VS, & Newman MG (2025). Contrast avoidance as a diagnostic feature of OCD: A receiver-operator characteristic curve analysis of the contrast avoidance questionnaires. Journal of Affective Disorders, 368, 734–740. 10.1016/j.jad.2024.09.117 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  73. Vanderlind WM, Everaert J, & Joormann J (2022). Positive emotion in daily life: Emotion regulation and depression. Emotion, 22(7), 1614–1624. 10.1037/emo0000944 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  74. Watson D, Clark LA, & Tellegen A (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1063–1070. 10.1037//0022-3514.54.6.1063 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  75. Watson D, Hubbard B, & Wiese D (2000). General traits of personality and affectivity as predictors of satisfaction in intimate relationships: Evidence from self- and partner-ratings. Journal of Personality, 68(3), 413–449. 10.1111/1467-6494.00102 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  76. Watson D, Wiese D, Vaidya J, & Tellegen A (1999). The two general activation systems of affect: Structural findings, evolutionary considerations, and psychobiological evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(5), 820–838. 10.1037/0022-3514.76.5.820 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  77. Watson D, & Slack AK (1993). General factors of affective temperament and their relation to job satisfaction over time. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 54(2), 181–202. 10.1006/obhd.1993.1009 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  78. Wei Y, Sahu S, & Hedeker D (2023). The RMASS2 package: Repeated measures with attrition: Sample sizes and power levels. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/rmass2/vignettes/RMASS2_vignettes.html. [Google Scholar]
  79. Wolkenstein L, Sommerhoff A, & Voss M (2022). Positive emotion dysregulation in posttraumatic stress disorder. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 86, Article 102534. 10.1016/j.janxdis.2022.102534 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  80. Wong S, Le GH, Phan L, Rhee TG, Ho R, Meshkat S, … McIntyre RS (2024). Effects of anhedonia on health-related quality of life and functional outcomes in major depressive disorder: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Affective Disorders, 356, 684–698. 10.1016/j.jad.2024.04.086 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  81. Yilmaz M, Psychogiou L, Javaid M, Ford T, & Dunn BD (2019). Making the worst of a good job: Induced dampening appraisals blunt happiness and increase sadness in adolescents during pleasant memory recall. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 122, Article 103476. 10.1016/j.brat.2019.103476 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  82. Zainal NH, & Newman MG (2018). Worry amplifies theory-of-mind reasoning for negatively valenced social stimuli in generalized anxiety disorder. Journal of Affective Disorders, 227, 824–833. 10.1016/j.jad.2017.11.084 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

supplement
NIHMS2197238-supplement-supplement.docx (158.4KB, docx)

Data Availability Statement

Data will be made available on request.

RESOURCES