Xu- Longitudinal Associations Between Expressive Suppression and Psychological Health

Longitudinal Associations Between Expressive Suppression and Psychological Health: The Moderating Role of Authenticity and Ambivalence Over Emotion Expression

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yikai Xu

    • Lead role in conceptualization, formal analysis, visualization, writing–original draft, and writing–review and editing

  • Grace Qingyi Zhang

    • Supporting role in writing–original draft and writing–review and editing

  • William Tsai

    • Lead role in data curation, funding acquisition, methodology, project administration, resources, and supervision, supporting role in conceptualization and writing–review and editing

  • Department: Applied Psychology, New York University Steinhardt School of Culture, Education, and Human Development

Abstract

  • Expressive Suppression: Defined as inhibition of emotional display; linked to poorer psychological health.

  • Context: Little research on individual factors mitigating negative health effects.

  • Theory: Social-cognitive processing model (Lepore, 2001) suggests emotional expression restrictions lead to maladjustment under social constraints.

  • Key Factors Examined:

    • Low Ambivalence Over Emotion Expression (AEE)

    • Less internal conflict over expressing emotions

    • High Subjective Authenticity

    • Strong sense of alignment with one’s true self

  • Study Goals:

    • Examine main effects of expressive suppression on psychological health.

    • Analyze moderating effects of authenticity and AEE.

  • Participants: 483 first-year college students.

    • Demographics: Mean age 17.89 years, 69.92% female.

    • Procedure: Two online surveys (T1 at semester start, T2 at semester end).

Findings

  • Main Effects:

    • T1 expressive suppression predicted:

    • Higher T2 depressive and anxiety symptoms.

    • Lower T2 life satisfaction.

  • Moderating Effects:

    • Authenticity: Buffered the relationship between T1 expressive suppression and T2 psychological health outcomes.

    • Poorer T2 psychological health predicts only in individuals with low authenticity.

    • Ambivalence Over Emotion Expression:

    • Moderated link between T1 expressive suppression and T2 life satisfaction.

    • No prediction of poorer T2 life satisfaction among individuals with low AEE.

Implications

  • Highlights importance of considering individual differences in understanding the context-dependent effects of expressive suppression on health.

  • Encourages clinical considerations to avoid broad generalizations of expressive suppression being harmful across contexts and individuals.

Keywords

  • Expressive suppression, authenticity, ambivalence over emotion expression, psychological health, life satisfaction

Introduction

  • Definition of Expressive Suppression:

    • An emotion regulation strategy that actively inhibits outward displays of emotions (Gross & Levenson, 1997).

  • Literature Review:

    • Expressive suppression linked with:

    • Greater negative affect and lower positive affect in daily life (Brans et al., 2013).

    • Higher depressive and anxiety symptoms (English & John, 2013).

    • Lower life satisfaction (Wu et al., 2024).

  • Interpersonal Consequences:

    • Poorer social functioning: reduced rapport, disrupted communication, dampened closeness, and lower relational satisfaction (Butler et al., 2003; Peters et al., 2014; Impett et al., 2014).

    • Prospective study showed expressive suppression predicted poorer social adjustment during the college transition (Srivastava et al., 2009).

  • Maladaptive Effects:

    • Factors include:

    1. Cognitive Burden: Sustained self-monitoring and behavioral inhibition taxing cognitive resources (Fernandes & Tone, 2021; Richards & Gross, 2000).

    2. Authenticity Concerns: Expressive suppression leading to less authentic self-presentation (English & John, 2013).

    3. Disrupted Emotional Communication: Lower relational satisfaction and closeness (Butler et al., 2003; Impett et al., 2012).

Authenticity

  • Conceptualization:

    • Authenticity relates to the alignment of internal experiences with external behaviors (Rogers, 1961; Deci & Ryan, 1980).

  • Findings:

    • Greater authenticity leads to:

    • Higher self-esteem (Kernis, 2003; Kernis & Goldman, 2006).

    • Better clarity of self (Sheldon et al., 1997).

    • Increased mindfulness (Zheng et al., 2020).

    • Lower psychological distress (Kernis & Goldman, 2006; Ryan et al., 2005).

  • Protective Role: Individuals with high authenticity can use expressive suppression effectively, aligning it with personal values, thereby buffering against its negative health effects.

Ambivalence Over Emotion Expression (AEE)

  • Definition:

    • AEE represents an internal conflict between the desire to and reluctance to express emotions (King & Emmons, 1990).

  • Consequences:

    • Linked with poor psychological health (Barr et al., 2008; Tsai & Lu, 2017, 2019).

  • Cognitive and Social Factors:

    • High AEE results in negative intrusive thoughts and reluctance to share emotions, limiting social support opportunities (Kunst et al., 2019).

Study Objectives

  1. Main Effects of Expressive Suppression: Predicted to yield poor psychological outcomes.

  2. Moderators:

    • Authenticity: To buffer against negative effects.

    • AEE: To exacerbate negative outcomes.

Method

Participants and Procedure

  • Sample: 483 first-year college students (Mage = 17.89, SD = 0.58, 69.92% female).

  • Surveys: Conducted at T1 (beginning) and T2 (end of semester).

  • Demographics: African American (10.86%), Asian American (44.52%), European American (23.67%), Latinx American (15.78%).

  • Retention Rate: 72.2% at T2.

Measures

  • Expressive Suppression: Assessed via Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (Gross & John, 2003).

    • Example item: "When I am feeling negative emotions, I make sure not to express them."

  • Authenticity: Measured by the Authenticity Scale (Shelton et al., 2005).

    • Example item: "I can be myself with others."

  • Ambivalence Over Emotion Expression (AEE): Evaluated with the Ambivalence over Emotional Expressivity Questionnaire (King & Emmons, 1990).

    • Example items: "It is hard to find the right words to indicate to others what I am really feeling."

Analytic Plan

  • Conducted using STATA Version 17.

  • Analysis Steps:

    1. Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations.

    2. Hierarchical regression analyses including covariates and interaction terms.

Results

Main Effects of T1 Expressive Suppression

  • Predicted:

    • Greater T2 depressive symptoms: B = 1.04, SE = 0.34, p = 0.002.

    • Greater T2 anxiety symptoms: B = 0.99, SE = 0.39, p = 0.011.

    • Lower T2 life satisfaction: B = -0.62, SE = 0.23, p = 0.007.

Moderating Effects of Authenticity

  • Significant interactions:

    • Effect on T2 depressive symptoms: B = -0.96, SE = 0.25, p < 0.001.

    • Effect on T2 anxiety symptoms: B = -1.00, SE = 0.28, p < 0.001.

    • Effect on T2 life satisfaction: B = 0.35, SE = 0.17, p = 0.031.

  • Interpretation: Expressive suppression predicts greater psychological distress for individuals with low authenticity but not for those with high authenticity.

Moderating Effects of AEE

  • Effect Ambivalence significantly moderated T1 expressive suppression regarding T2 anxiety symptoms:

    • B = 1.00, SE = 0.50, p = 0.048.

    • Predicted lower T2 life satisfaction only among those with high effect ambivalence: B = 1.44, SE = 0.30, p < 0.001.

  • Competence Ambivalence did not show significant moderation effects.

Discussion

  • Authenticity emerges as a protective factor against expressive suppression, allowing individuals to navigate emotional regulation without compromising psychological health.

  • High effect ambivalence exacerbates the negative consequences of expressive suppression, indicating a need for therapeutic focus on emotional expression and supporting clients’ navigation of social contexts.

Clinical Implications

  • Emphasize importance of emotional expression and authentic behaviors within therapeutic relationships.

  • Explore clients' values and the congruence of suppression strategies to enhance mental health.

Limitations and Future Directions

  • Future research should explore state-level changes in AEE and authenticity, with the potential for daily measures of emotional ambivalence.

  • Consider social contexts, especially during heightened stress periods, and investigate diverse cultural perspectives on emotion regulation.

Conclusion

  • The study underscores the complex dynamics of expressive suppression, highlighting authenticity as a crucial buffer and AEE as a potential risk factor for psychological health.

References

  • A list of references mentioned in the text, formatted in proper academic style, to provide full context for identified studies and theories.