Table 5.

Different patterns of cognitive change employed by the participants.

Meaning reappraisal	Reappraising the meaning of emotions	(a) Rationalizing one's own negative emotions emerging in doctoral supervision (P4, P14, & P17) “The situation that students missed the deadline […] feels like I've arrived at the meeting at the agreed time only found out the other had not prepared at all. It's natural to get pissed off.” (P4). (b) Devaluing negative emotions, especially anger (P3, P4, P12, & P17) “I cannot vent my anger towards students because venting leads to a vicious cycle. If I vent, they dare not express their genuine feelings and thoughts in the future” (P3).
	Reappraising the antecedents of emotions	(a) Magnifying the value of societal and institutional requirements of doctoral supervisors (P15) “You'll have much fewer complaints if you deeply understand the underlying rationale of every single change in the rules, policies, and requirements related to doctoral supervision” (P15). (b) Reframing students' inadequate performance as a temporary stage of long-term development (P3 & P8) “When students don't meet my expectations, I need to make adjustment quickly. I need to accept that students need time to mature” (P3). (c) Devaluing failures in the process of doing research (P6, P8, P12, & P15) “It's natural to have up and downs in scientific exploration” (P12).
Self-relevance reappraisal	Reappraising the relevance between students' poor performance and oneself as a supervisor	*Upgrading supervisors' responsibilities for students' temporary failure in doing research (P12, P16, & P17) “I asked myself if my requirements were too high” (P16).
	Reappraising the relevance between research supervision and the supervisor's life goals	Downgrading the relevance of students' research to the supervisor' long-term development (P8 & P9) “Doing research and supervising students is only part of my life” (P8).
Subjective control reappraisal	Reappraising students' self- control over their performance	Downgrading students' control over their own performance and the “damage” that they had made (P3, P4, P12, & P16). “Students have their own emotion burdens. They have a lot of work to do. Some have families to support” (P16). “He worked hard but just progressed slowly” (P12). “What's done is done. I have to accept the reality that he missed the deadline” (P4).
	Reappraising supervisors' control over students' performance	(a) Upgrading one's confidence in students' autonomy and abilities (P9, P10, & P14) “We should trust students. I used to be afraid that they might not have tackled some challenges but they actually made it. Then I believe I should be more confidence in students” (P14). (b) Upgrading one's subjective control over students' achievement by lowering the expectations for students (P5, P9, & P16) “Some students just wanted a doctorate as quickly and easily as possible. I lowered my expectations of their academic achievements, so I wouldn't get upset by their mediocre performance” (P5). (c) Downgrading supervisors' subjective control over students' performance and development by recognizing students' individual differences (P7, P11, P12, & P15) “I used to believe every student in this prestigious university is excellent and hard-working, but this belief shattered. Not everyone is alike. You have to accept that students are different” (P7). (d) Downgrading supervisors' subjective control over students' behaviors by recognizing the limited influences of supervisors on supervisees (P11) “People have their own agenda. Sometimes you can do very little as a supervisor. Your influences aren't always long-lasting” (P11).

^*The only intrinsic emotion regulation strategy that served the affect-worsening purpose in the current data.