Discussion
’ learning [, cognitive reappraisal, ’
This experimental study had a two-fold purpose: (1) examining whether the finding of a previous study [What concerns the first study purpose, these results are in line with findings of a previous study that showed participants under the influence of negative emotions to invest less time to study the learning material and to learn less from it relative to peers in a neutral emotional state [Negative emotions have been shown to hinder undergraduate students’ learning [With regards to the second purpose of the study, the intervention designed to minimize the impact of negative emotions did not work out as expected. As a possible ‘antidote’ to the effect of negative emotions, we used cognitive reappraisal, which previous studies have shown to be an efficient emotional regulation tool [At least three possible explanations for this failure can be raised. A first explanation derives from the intensity of the emotional reaction to the video and the consequent engagement in the cognitive reappraisal effort [A second possible explanation is that undetected ER strategies may have been employed by some participants in the emotional-without-antidote condition even without receiving instructions. Previous research describes adaptive ER as the flexibility to switch between different strategies and select the most appropriate one for the situation at hand [A third possible explanation could be that the specific form of cognitive reappraisal used was inadequate. It could be that reframing the harsh treatment received by the resident in the videoclip, for example, as resulting from the committee members’ own vulnerabilities and poor self-control would result in better ER outcomes.Further research should examine whether the cognitive reappraisal strategy would be effective when it is more strongly prompted, for example, because the situation provokes more intense emotional reactions. Another possible development would be to include a preliminary phase testing different cognitive reappraisal formulations. Different designs using the same strategy (cognitive reappraisal) before participants watch the video could give more insight on factors influencing its effectiveness. Furthermore, new studies with a similar experimental paradigm, should test different ER strategies.This study has limitations. First, we used self-report to measure emotions, which raises questions about the participants’ awareness of their emotional states and their willingness to disclose them. Physiological measurements would have been more accurate, but they would reveal the measurement of emotional responses, potentially interfering with their free course. Second, we tested a convenience sample of residents from one school, which may have precluded adequate power to make borderline differences in the test scores reach the significance level and restricts generalization of the findings. Third, we assessed overall emotional status as a manipulation check without differentiating between discrete negative emotions, which may have affected sensitivity to detect differences between conditions, including regarding the effect of cognitive reappraisal. However, it can be questioned whether this would affect the results, considering the very close test scores of the two emotional conditions. Finally, we only examined knowledge acquisition as measured by a recall test, and it is unclear whether the findings apply to other types of learning, where cognitive reappraisal could help.