Abstract
Augustine and Hemenover (2013) were right to state that meta-analyses should be accurate and generalizable. However, we disagree that our meta-analysis of emotion regulation strategies (Webb, Miles, & Sheeran, 2012) fell short in these respects. Augustine and Hemenover's concerns appear to have accrued from misunderstandings of our inclusion criteria or from disagreements with methodological decisions that are crucial to the validity of meta-analysis. This response clarifies the bases of these decisions and discusses implications for the accuracy and validity of meta-analyses. Furthermore, we show that our findings are consistent with theoretical predictions and previous reviews, and we present new evidence that the effect sizes that we obtained are generalizable. In particular, we demonstrate that our estimates of the effectiveness of emotion regulation strategies reveal how well these strategies predict important emotional outcomes over 1 year.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
