The social consequences of expressive suppression.
Citations
8,261 citations
Cites background or methods from "The social consequences of expressi..."
...Perceived emotion regulation success was assessed by asking the following: “Overall, how successful would you say you are at altering your emotions, using a scale from 1 to 10, where 1 not at all successful, and 10 very successful?” The 13-item Inauthenticity scale was based on a factor identified by Gross and John (1998); it measures attempts to mask the expression of one’s true inner self because of concerns about selfpresentation (see Snyder, 1987)....
[...]
...To test this prediction experimentally, unacquainted pairs of participants watched an upsetting film together and then discussed their reactions (Butler et al., 2003)....
[...]
2,770 citations
2,191 citations
Cites background from "The social consequences of expressi..."
...…reaction is rejected in the course of propositional reasoning, the automatic affective reaction may still be unaffected, thus leading to a dissociation between evaluative judgments and automatic affective reactions (e.g., Gawronski & Strack, 2004; see also Butler et al., 2003; Gross, 1998)....
[...]
..., Butler et al., 2003; Gross, 1998). Another example of the present case is research on cognitive balance (Heider, 1958). In a study by Gawronski, Walther, and Blank (2005), for example, participants first formed either positive or negative attitudes toward several “source” individuals (source valence) and then learned that these source individuals either liked or disliked another set of neutral “target” individuals (observed sentiment). Consistent with balance theory, participants showed more positive attitudes toward targets who were liked than toward those who were disliked by positive source individuals. In contrast, participants showed more negative attitudes toward targets who were liked than toward those who were disliked by negative source individuals. It is interesting to note that this effect emerged not only for explicit but also for implicit attitudes. From the perspective of the present framework, one could argue that a priori attitudes toward a given source individual influenced the interpretation of this individual’s relation to another target individual. That is, participants might have interpreted a positive (negative) sentiment exhibited by a positively evaluated source individual as positive (negative) information about the target, whereas they might have interpreted a positive (negative) sentiment exhibited by a negatively evaluated source individual as negative (positive) information about the target. In other words, a priori attitudes toward the source individual proactively influenced participants’ inferences about the evaluative meaning of the observed sentiment, which, in turn, affected not only evaluative judgments but also associative evaluations. This interpretation implies that the obtained effect of cognitive balance on associative evaluations should be mediated by processes of propositional reasoning. Moreover, balance-related inferences should leave associative evaluations unaffected if the temporal order of information acquisition would require a retroactive qualification of previously observed sentiment relations (e.g., when participants first learn about the attitude of a neutral source individual toward a neutral target individual and then receive evaluative information about the source). This assumption was confirmed by Gawronski, Walther, and Blank (2005) in a series of three experiments....
[...]
..., Butler et al., 2003; Gross, 1998). Another example of the present case is research on cognitive balance (Heider, 1958). In a study by Gawronski, Walther, and Blank (2005), for example, participants first formed either positive or negative attitudes toward several “source” individuals (source valence) and then learned that these source individuals either liked or disliked another set of neutral “target” individuals (observed sentiment). Consistent with balance theory, participants showed more positive attitudes toward targets who were liked than toward those who were disliked by positive source individuals. In contrast, participants showed more negative attitudes toward targets who were liked than toward those who were disliked by negative source individuals. It is interesting to note that this effect emerged not only for explicit but also for implicit attitudes. From the perspective of the present framework, one could argue that a priori attitudes toward a given source individual influenced the interpretation of this individual’s relation to another target individual. That is, participants might have interpreted a positive (negative) sentiment exhibited by a positively evaluated source individual as positive (negative) information about the target, whereas they might have interpreted a positive (negative) sentiment exhibited by a negatively evaluated source individual as negative (positive) information about the target. In other words, a priori attitudes toward the source individual proactively influenced participants’ inferences about the evaluative meaning of the observed sentiment, which, in turn, affected not only evaluative judgments but also associative evaluations. This interpretation implies that the obtained effect of cognitive balance on associative evaluations should be mediated by processes of propositional reasoning. Moreover, balance-related inferences should leave associative evaluations unaffected if the temporal order of information acquisition would require a retroactive qualification of previously observed sentiment relations (e.g., when participants first learn about the attitude of a neutral source individual toward a neutral target individual and then receive evaluative information about the source). This assumption was confirmed by Gawronski, Walther, and Blank (2005) in a series of three experiments. Another example for the present case is a recent study by Petty et al. (2006). These researchers first induced a positive or negative Figure 6....
[...]
...…deliberate attempts to suppress affective reactions (negation) usually leave these reactions unaffected, whereas attempts to attribute a different meaning to the response-eliciting stimulus (affirmation) is indeed capable of changing affective reactions (e.g., Butler et al., 2003; Gross, 1998)....
[...]
..., Butler et al., 2003; Gross, 1998). Another example of the present case is research on cognitive balance (Heider, 1958). In a study by Gawronski, Walther, and Blank (2005), for example, participants first formed either positive or negative attitudes toward several “source” individuals (source valence) and then learned that these source individuals either liked or disliked another set of neutral “target” individuals (observed sentiment)....
[...]
2,060 citations
Cites background from "The social consequences of expressi..."
...In the social domain, suppression leads to lesser liking and greater cardiovascular responses in social interaction partners (Ben-Naim, Hirschberger, Ein-Dor, & Mikulincer, 2013; Butler et al., 2003)....
[...]
1,968 citations
Cites background from "The social consequences of expressi..."
...Figure2 Summary of experimental findings regarding reappraisal and suppression (Butler et al., 2003; Gross, 1998; Gross & Levenson, 1993; 1997; Richards & Gross, 2000)....
[...]
...Whereas Reappraisal Suppression Cognitive Social Affective + - 0 - 0 - Figure2 Summary of experimental findings regarding reappraisal and suppression (Butler et al., 2003; Gross, 1998; Gross & Levenson, 1993; 1997; Richards & Gross, 2000). suppressing negative emotions leaves intact the experience…...
[...]
...Thus, unacquainted pairs of participants watched an upsetting film together and then discussed their reactions (Butler et al., 2003)....
[...]
References
80,095 citations
"The social consequences of expressi..." refers background or methods in this paper
...we present mediation analyses following Baron and Kenny (1986). In these analyses, we first predicted each partner outcome (rapport, affiliation, and blood pressure) from each of the behaviors that differentiated between the suppressors and the controls (positive and negative expressivity, responsiveness)....
[...]
...Although Study 1 provided clear evidence that expressive suppression was particularly disruptive to interpersonal behavior, the small sample size meant that mediation analyses would not be reliable (Baron & Kenny, 1986)....
[...]
14,570 citations
"The social consequences of expressi..." refers background in this paper
...We focused on conversations about a shared negative event because these are common in everyday life and provide a forum for social bonding and support ( Cohen & Thomas, 1985; Luminet, Patrick, Manstead, & Rime, 2000; Reis & Shaver, 1988)....
[...]
...Indeed, one of the mechanisms by which social support may foster health is by reducing such physiological stress responses (Christenfeld et al., 1997; Cohen & Thomas, 1985; Glynn et al., 1999; Lepore, 1995; Lepore et al., 1993; Uchino et al., 1996)....
[...]
...Social isolation has been linked with psychological problems ranging from loneliness to suicide and has been repeatedly associated with both physical morbidity and mortality ( Cohen & Thomas, 1985; House et al., 1988; Seeman, 2001; Uchino et al., 1996)....
[...]
9,342 citations
8,261 citations
"The social consequences of expressi..." refers background in this paper
...This is a particularly unfortunate gap in our understanding, given that expressive suppression is quite common during social interaction ( Gross & John, 2002 ) and that diverse lines of evidence suggest important links between emotion expression, social relationships, and health (House, Landis, & Umberson, 1988; Schwarzer & Leppin, 1991; Seeman, 2001; Uchino, Cacioppo, & Kiekolt-Glaser, 1996)....
[...]
...Similar to expressive suppression, survey data show that cognitive reappraisal is common in daily life (Gross & John, 2002), and experimental data show that it can be manipulated in a lab setting (Gross, 1998a; Richards & Gross, 2000)....
[...]
...Similar to expressive suppression, survey data show that cognitive reappraisal is common in daily life ( Gross & John, 2002 ), and experimental data show that it can be manipulated in a lab setting (Gross, 1998a; Richards & Gross, 2000)....
[...]
...This is a particularly unfortunate gap in our understanding, given that expressive suppression is quite common during social interaction (Gross & John, 2002) and that diverse lines of evidence suggest important links between emotion expression, social relationships, and health (House, Landis, &…...
[...]
...Given evidence that men are more likely to use expressive suppression than are women in everyday life ( Gross & John, 2002 ), it is possible that the effects of suppression, versus uninstructed controls, will be less evident for male–male pairs....
[...]
7,669 citations