Emotion
2007, Vol. 7, No. 1, 30 – 48
Copyright 2007 by the American Psychological Association
1528-3542/07/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/1528-3542.7.1.30
Emotion Regulation and Culture: Are the Social Consequences of Emotion
Suppression Culture-Specific?
Emily A. Butler, Tiane L. Lee, and James J. Gross
Stanford University
Emotional suppression has been associated with generally negative social consequences (Butler et al.,
2003; Gross & John, 2003). A cultural perspective suggests, however, that these consequences may be
moderated by cultural values. We tested this hypothesis in a two-part study, and found that, for
Americans holding Western-European values, habitual suppression was associated with self-protective
goals and negative emotion. In addition, experimentally elicited suppression resulted in reduced interpersonal responsiveness during face-to-face interaction, along with negative partner-perceptions and
hostile behavior. These deleterious effects were reduced when individuals with more Asian values
suppressed, and these reductions were mediated by cultural differences in the responsiveness of the
suppressors. These findings suggest that many of suppression’s negative social impacts may be moderated by cultural values.
Keywords: emotion regulation, emotion suppression, culture, social interaction
Although there are growing literatures addressing emotion regulation on the one hand (e.g., Butler et al., 2003; Eisenberg et al.,
2000; Gross, 1998a, 2002; Gross & John, 2003; Gross & Levenson, 1993, 1997; John & Gross, 2004; Richards, Butler, & Gross,
2003; Richards & Gross, 2000; Totterdell & Parkinson, 1999), and
the influence of culture on emotion on the other (e.g., Kitayama et
al., 2000; Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Matsumoto, 1990; Mesquita,
2001; Mesquita & Frijda, 1992; Scherer, 1997; Schimmack, Oishi,
Radhakrishnan, & Dzokoto, 2002; Semin, Gorts, Nandram, &
Semin-Goossens, 2002; Stephan, Saito, & Barnett, 1998; Suh,
Diener, Oishi, & Triandis, 1998; Tsai & Chentsova Dutton, 2003),
the two bodies of work rarely intersect. As a result, it has been
demonstrated that different emotion regulation strategies have
differing social consequences in American samples when cultural
backgrounds are ignored (Butler et al., 2003; Gross, 2002; Gross &
John, 2003; John & Gross, 2004; Richards et al., 2003), but we can
only conjecture about how cultural values might produce variability in these outcomes.
To address this gap in the literature, we focus on one particular
form of emotion regulation and one specific cultural contrast. For
the former we chose emotion suppression, which involves the
inhibition of emotional expression because it has been linked to
clear social consequences. For the latter we compare Americans
holding Western European values with those endorsing more
Asian ones, since there is some evidence that these cultural groups
differ in the functions and frequency of suppression, as well as in
the degree of negative emotion associated with it. In the following
sections we review prior research and suggest a model of how
cultural values might moderate the social impact of suppression.
We then present a two-part study designed to test our hypotheses.
Emotions are critical for guiding interpersonal relationships (Frijda
& Mesquita, 1994; Keltner & Kring, 1998; Shiota, Campos, Keltner,
& Hertenstien, 2004). One corollary of this fact is that emotional
exchanges can have serious social consequences, either maintaining
and enhancing positive relationships, or becoming a source of antagonism and discord (Fredrickson, 1998; Gottman & Levenson, 1992;
Harker & Keltner, 2001; Keltner & Kring, 1998; Levenson & Gottman, 1983; Shiota et al., 2004; Tavris, 1984).
Unfortunately, there are at least two major barriers to achieving a
better understanding of how emotions influence social interactions.
First, self-regulatory efforts powerfully shape which emotions are
experienced and expressed in a given situation (Campos, Campos, &
Barrett, 1989; Eisenberg, Fabes, Guthrie, & Reiser, 2000; Frijda &
Mesquita, 1994; Gross, 1998b, 1999). Second, cultures differentially
encourage and reinforce emotional responding, resulting in differences in which emotional responses are sanctioned under what circumstances (Kitayama, Markus, & Kurokawa, 2000; Markus &
Kitayama, 1991; Matsumoto, 1990; Mesquita, 2001; Mesquita &
Frijda, 1992; Scherer, 1997). Thus, during a social interaction, both
the emotional ebb and flow and the impact on the relationship will
likely be a joint function of the participants’ self-regulatory efforts and
their cultural meaning systems.
Emily A. Butler, Tiane L. Lee, and James J. Gross, Department of
Psychology, Stanford University.
Emily A. Butler is now at the Division of Family Studies and Human
Development, University of Arizona; Tiane L. Lee is now at the Department of Psychology, Princeton University.
This research was completed as part of Emily A. Butler’s Doctoral
dissertation and Tiane L. Lee’s Master’s thesis at Stanford University and
was supported by NIMH grant R01-MH58147 to James J. Gross.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Emily A.
Butler, Family Studies and Human Development, University of Arizona,
1110 East South Campus Drive, Tucson, AZ 85721-0033. E-mail:
[email protected]
The Social Consequences of Emotion Suppression
Emotion suppression involves the active reduction of emotionexpressive behavior while the individual is emotionally aroused
(Gross & Levenson, 1993, 1997). As such, it is not merely a lack
30
EMOTION REGULATION AND CULTURE
of expression, but an active effort to inhibit the expressive component of an emotional response.
Most suppression research has focused on inhibiting negative emotions in American samples, ignoring cultural variability within those
samples. In this context, suppression has been repeatedly linked to
poor social outcomes.1 For example, more frequent use of suppression
in daily life is associated with avoidant attachment, reduced sharing of
emotions, lower social support, lower peer-rated likeability, and reduced relationship closeness (Gross, 2002; Gross & John, 2003; John
& Gross, 2004). Similarly, in a study of face-to-face interaction,
experimentally manipulated suppression was found to have negative
consequences including poor interpersonal coordination, decreased
feelings of rapport and affiliation, and increased negative feelings
about the interaction (Butler et al., 2003). Suppression has also been
linked to poor outcomes in studies of marital interaction. In one such
line of research, “stonewalling” by husbands, which is very similar to
suppression, has been shown to be related to declining marital satisfaction for both partners (Gottman & Levenson, 1988; Levenson &
Gottman, 1985).
Cultural Moderation of the Social Consequences of
Emotion Suppression
One important limitation of the prior research is that it does not
take into account cultural norms or values (Butler & Gross, 2004).
Indeed, there is very little direct research on suppression and
culture. However, the literature that does exist suggests that suppression may fulfill a broader range of social functions, may be
more frequent, and may be less associated with negative emotion
in Asian cultures as compared to Western European ones. In the
following sections we consider this evidence and incorporate it
into a heuristic model for understanding how culture might moderate the social impact of emotion suppression (see Figure 1).
Cultural Differences in Habitual Emotion Suppression
To ground our model, we adopt the viewpoint that cultural
values and practices are reciprocally self-constituting (Kitayama,
2002; Kitayama, Karasawa, & Mesquita, 2004; Markus &
Kitayama, 1991, 1994; Matsumoto, 1993; Miller, 2002; Wierzbicka, 1993). That is, cultural practices embody cultural values,
but those values are simultaneously reinforced by daily practices.
This is represented in our model by the bidirectional arrows
linking cultural values and cultural differences in the everyday
functions, frequency, and emotion associated with suppression.
More specifically, we join many other authors in proposing that
Western European values such as independence and self-assertion
encourage open emotion expression in most situations, while constraining the use of emotion suppression to primarily self-protective
acts of withdrawal in the face of social threats (Markus & Kitayama,
1991; Matsumoto, 1990; Oyserman, Coon, & Kemmelmeier, 2002;
Tsai & Levenson, 1997; Wierzbicka, 1993, 1994). Suppression can
also function in a prosocial manner, however. For example, one can
hide glee when beating a peer at a competitive game (Friedman &
Miller-Herringer, 1991) or suppress anger with a friend to preserve
the relationship (Tavris, 1984). Again following previous authors, we
suggest that Asian values such as interdependence and relationship
harmony might encourage suppression equally often for these proso-
31
cial goals and during positive social interactions, rather than constraining it to relatively self-protective purposes.
Consistent with this view, Wierzbicka (1994) presents linguistic
and anthropological evidence that when European Americans engage in suppression, it is in the service of asserting one’s will and
protecting the self. Additional evidence that suppression is often
used in this way by Americans, at least when ignoring cultural
background, comes from the finding that suppression is associated
with avoidant attachment, which involves a lack of trust in others
and a tendency toward social withdrawal (Gross & John, 2003). In
contrast, Wierzbicka argues that Asian cultures encourage suppression in circumstances where there is a concern about hurting
someone else and in an effort to preserve relationships.
If Asian cultures encourage suppression in a broad range of
situations while Western European cultures constrain it to selfprotective functions, then this should be reflected in cultural differences in its frequency of use. The only study to directly assess
this issue found that minorities in the United States, including
Asian Americans, reported higher levels of habitual suppression
than did Caucasians (Gross & John, 2003). A closely related
finding is that Asian Americans, as compared to their Caucasian
counterparts, reported higher levels of masking, which involves a
perceived discrepancy between inner feelings and outward expressions (Gross & John, 1998). Going beyond self-report, peer ratings
of distress were less accurate when Asian Americans were the
target than when European Americans were, suggesting greater
suppression of distress cues by the Asian Americans (Okazaki,
2002). Finally, in a widely cited study, Japanese and European
participants showed the same facial expressions when watching an
emotional film alone, but the Japanese showed more positive and
less negative expressions when an experimenter was present
(Friesen, 1972). Friesen argued that this difference arose because
the Japanese suppressed their emotions more than the Europeans.
Finally, if suppression is typically associated with self-protection
for Western Europeans, then it would not be surprising if it were also
associated with negative emotions such as fear and anger. Indeed,
there is evidence for this in North American samples if we ignore
cultural variability (Butler et al., 2003; Gross & John, 2003). In
contrast, if suppression was more normative for Asians, and often
used prosocially, then this association might not hold for them. Two
studies provide support for this conjecture. First, Suh and colleagues
(1998) found that emotional ambivalence, defined as a conflicting
desire to express versus inhibit emotions, was negatively related to life
satisfaction for European Americans, but not for Chinese. Second, in
a study of Chinese American children, suppression in response to peer
stressors reduced the link between stress and dysphoria for lowacculturated children, although this was not true for high-acculturated
children (Huang, Leong, & Wagner, 1994). Thus, suppression was an
effective coping strategy for children who retained their Chinese
heritage, but not for children who had adopted more mainstream
American culture.
In summary, the first part of our model suggests the hypotheses
that: a) Americans holding Western European values will report
suppressing emotion less often in daily life than will Americans
1
There is also evidence that suppression has experiential, physiological,
and cognitive effects on the regulator and his or her social partner, but
those domains are beyond the scope of the present paper.
BUTLER, LEE, AND GROSS
32
Figure 1.
A model of the social consequences of suppression and culture.
holding Asian values, and that b) for individuals holding Western
European values, habitual suppression will be associated with
self-protective social goals and high levels of negative emotion,
but b) these associations will be weakened or absent for Americans
holding Asian values.
Cultural Differences in Emotion Suppression During
Face-to-Face Interaction
The second half of our model concerns cultural differences in
the impact of suppression on face-to-face interaction. Here the
focus is interpersonal responsiveness, which is defined as the
provision of contingent, appropriate responses to a partner’s conversational contributions (Berg & Derlega, 1987; Davis, 1982;
Davis & Perkowitz, 1979; Laurenceau, Barrett, & Peitromonaco,
1998; Reis & Shaver, 1988). When it is present, responsiveness
facilitates interpersonal coordination and is associated with positive relationship outcomes such as increased affiliation and rapport. When it is absent, it signals a lack of interest in the partner
and desire to withdraw (Berg & Derlega, 1987; Davis, 1982; Davis
& Perkowitz, 1979; Laurenceau et al., 1998; Reis & Shaver, 1988).
Responsiveness requires the ability to attend to a social partner and
to adapt one’s own behaviors to accommodate him or her. Suppression may interfere with this because of the cognitive demands
of continuous self-monitoring and active inhibition (Richards et
al., 2003; Richards & Gross, 1999, 2000, in press). Consistent with
this possibility, in an experimental study of face-to-face interactions we found that suppression increased distraction and led to
decreased responsiveness (Butler et al., 2003). Furthermore, this
reduced responsiveness was responsible for the negative impact of
suppression on interpersonal rapport.
We propose, however, that this effect of suppression on responsiveness should be modest or nonexistent for individuals holding
more Asian values. If they use suppression more frequently, under
more circumstances, and are less likely to be distressed when
doing so, then suppression may be more automatic and require
fewer cognitive resources to execute. This should then free them to
attend to the nuances of a conversation and to remain responsive to
a conversational partner. In support of this, when asked to try to
suppress their responses to a startling sound, Asian Americans
reported trying less hard to accomplish the task than did Mexican
Americans (Soto, Levenson, & Ebling, 2005).
If this line of reasoning is correct, and suppression results in
low responsiveness for individuals with Western European values, then a social partner would be very likely to interpret it as
a sign of withdrawal, disinterest, and even hostility. This could
lead the partner to be unwilling to form a friendship, and to
respond with less friendly and more hostile behaviors as well
(Berg & Derlega, 1987; Davis, 1982; Davis & Perkowitz, 1979;
Laurenceau et al., 1998; Reis & Shaver, 1988). In fact, these are
exactly the sorts of negative social consequences that have been
observed when cultural differences are ignored (Butler et al.,
2003; Gross, 2002; Gross & John, 2003; John & Gross, 2004).
In contrast, if suppression did not entail reduced responsiveness
for individuals with more Asian values, then they may be able
to remain socially connected despite suppressing, and any negative impacts on the social interaction and the relationship may
be avoided.
To summarize, the second part of our model suggests the hypotheses that: a) suppressing emotion during face-to-face interaction will cause Americans with Western European values to become less responsive, and b) this will lead their partners to see
them has hostile and withdrawn, and to be less friendly themselves, but c) these effects should be weak or absent for Americans
holding Asian values.
EMOTION REGULATION AND CULTURE
Present Research
To test our hypotheses, we conducted a two-part study with a
multicultural American sample. In Part 1, we used self-reports to
investigate cultural differences in habitual emotion suppression. In
Part 2, we randomly assigned the same participants to suppress or
respond naturally in an experimental paradigm involving face-toface interaction. This permitted us to test our hypotheses regarding
cultural differences in the impact of suppression on responsiveness
and the subsequent effects on a conversational partner.
For our sample we used multicultural American students at a
culturally diverse university. Although this approach is not as robust
as comparing individuals more immersed in their culture of origin, it
does provide a particularly stringent test of our hypotheses. In addition, although our primary interest was in the contrast between Western European and Asian cultures, we did not limit enrollment to them.
We made this decision on the premise that in a multicultural urban
center there is both diversity within cultural groups as well as similarities across groups, because of varying levels of acculturation. In
this situation categorical distinctions between self-reported cultural
background may have minimal predictive value. To assess culture,
therefore, we used two approaches. In addition to collecting selfreports of cultural background, we also administered items from the
Asian Values Scale (AVS; Kim, Atkinson, & Yang, 1999) and the
European American Values Scale (EAVS; Wolfe, Yang, Wong, &
Atkinson, 2001). Together these measures assess a broad range of
values that differ across cultures, such as independence versus interdependence, and role-norm conformity versus flexibility. Thus, the
individuals in our sample who did not come from an Asian or
European background would still be able to respond meaningfully. In
addition, although such measures are not without problems (for a
critique see Kitayama, 2002), we hoped that cultural values might be
more predictive of socio-emotional outcomes than background in this
diverse sample because of accounting for variability within cultural
groups.
Overview of Participants and Procedure
Women from the Stanford University community were recruited
for a two-part study using posters and an e-mail list-serve that
advertised opportunities to participate in paid psychology experiments. We chose to limit the sample to women, since gender might
interact with culture and because women have been found to be
more emotionally expressive than men (Kring & Gordon, 1998).
To ensure a culturally diverse sample, additional advertisements
were placed in multicultural dormitories, and announcements were
made in Asian studies classes. Volunteers were screened by telephone to establish that they had spoken English on a regular basis
for at least six years so that cultural background would not be
confounded with conversational difficulties. They were then given
the URL for a website where they could complete the questionnaires for Part 1 and were scheduled to participate in Part 2
approximately one week later. Participants were randomly paired
for Part 2, with the stipulation that they did not know each other.
All participants completed measures for Part 1 before coming to
their appointment for Part 2.
33
Part 1: Cultural Differences in Habitual Emotion
Suppression
In Part 1, we asked our participants to report on their cultural
background, cultural values, habitual suppression, interpersonal
goals, and how much they typically experienced negative emotions. We expected women reporting a European background to
endorse higher European values, and women with an Asian
background to endorse higher Asian values, but we had no
predictions regarding the relationship of other cultural backgrounds to values. We also expected values to better predict
cultural effects, because of the limited categorical nature of
self-reported background and the sensitivity of the values measures to within-group variability. Nevertheless, we conducted
all analyses using both self-reported culture and cultural values.
On the basis of our model, we predicted that women with
predominantly European values would report using suppression
less than women holding more Asian values. In addition, for
women with high European values we expected suppression to
be associated with self-protective social goals and high levels of
negative emotion. We expected these associations to be smaller
or nonexistent, however, for women with more Asian values.
Methods
Participants
One hundred and sixty-six women completed Part 1 and were
paid $10.00. The mean age of participants was 20.2 years (SD ⫽
1.9 years).
Measures
Cultural background. Participants chose between six categories
in response the question, “Which best describes your cultural background?” The categories were European American, Asian American,
African American, Latin American, Native American, and Other.
Thirty-eight percent described themselves as Asian American, 45.2%
as European American, 1.2% as Latin American, 1.2% as African
American, 12.0% as Other, and 2.4% did not respond to this item.
Cultural values. To assess cultural values, we included items
taken from the AVS (Kim et al., 1999) and from the EAVS (Wolfe,
Yang, Wong, & Atkinson, 2001). Although these measures include
a few items directly assessing beliefs about emotion inhibition,
they also index a range of other dimensions that can differ between
cultures, such as interdependence versus independence and role
and norm conformity versus flexibility.2 In order to minimize
participants’ burden, we selected the 10 items from each scale that
maximally separated Asian and European Americans in the original scale development studies (Kim et al., 1999; Wolfe et al.,
2001). The items chosen are presented in the Appendix. Responses
were given on a 7-point scale ranging from ⫺3, anchored by
“strongly disagree,” to ⫹3, anchored by “strongly agree.” The
AVS items had an alpha of .69, and alpha for the EAVS was .63.
2
To ensure that our measures of emotion suppression and cultural values
were not confounded, we conducted all analyses both including and excluding the emotion items on the values measures. This did not alter the
substantive results in anyway, and so results are presented with the emotion
items included.
34
BUTLER, LEE, AND GROSS
In the present sample the two scales were negatively correlated
(r ⫽ ⫺.26, p ⬍ .01). Plotting the two scales against each other
(Figure 2) showed that the present sample ranged from holding
strongly dominant European values to holding fairly balanced
European and Asian values. In other words, no participants reported strongly dominant Asian values or a rejection of both sets
of values, reflecting the bicultural status of the non-European
women in the study. Following Rudmin (2003), the two scales
were combined by subtracting the AVS from the EAVS.3 The
range for this composite measure was 5.50 (high European value
dominance) to ⫺0.80 (fairly balanced European-Asian value preference), with a mean of 2.60 (moderate European value dominance). It may be worth noting that this fairly limited range makes
it more difficult to demonstrate cultural effects, providing a conservative test of our hypotheses.
Suppression. To assess habitual suppression, we used Gross
and John’s (2003) Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (ERQ). An
example of a suppression item is, “I control my emotions by not
expressing them.” Alpha for the 4 item scale was .71.
Social goals. The Circumplex Scale of Interpersonal Values
(CSIV; Locke, 2000) is a 64-item measure that assesses interpersonal goals throughout a space defined by the two dimensions of
affiliation and assertiveness. For each item, participants respond to
the question, “When I am in interpersonal situations (such as with
close friends, with strangers, at work, at social gatherings, and so
on), in general how important is it to me that I act or appear or am
treated this way?” using a 5-point scale ranging from “Not at all
important” to “Extremely important.” Items are clustered into
octants defined by their loadings on affiliation and assertiveness.
Three of the eight scales assess goals involving low affiliation and
high self-defense, making them relevant to our hypotheses. The
first of these is defined by low affiliation and indicates a desire to
remain detached. An example is, “When I am with him/her/them,
it is _________ they keep their distance from me.” The second is
marked by low affiliation combined with high assertiveness and
indicates a desire to actively defend the self, for example, “When
I am with him/her/them, it is _________ I attack back when I am
attacked.” The third is defined by low affiliation combined with
low assertiveness, indicating a desire to protect the self from
rejection or ridicule. An example is “When I am with him/her/
them, it is _________ I not show I care about them.” Although
these scales are distinct, they all index some form of self-protective
motivation and so we used the mean across the three scales as our
measure of self-protective goals (␣ ⫽ .79).
Negative emotion. To assess negative emotion, participants
indicated the degree to which they “generally or usually felt” 10
clusters of emotions. Responses were on a 5-point scale ranging
from “none” to “more than most people.” The emotion terms were:
angry/irritated/annoyed/frustrated, disgusted, self-conscious/
embarrassed, afraid/scared, guilty/ashamed, sad, lonely/isolated/
ignored, impersonal/distant/cold, anxious/nervous/tense, and negative (␣ ⫽ .75).
Data Analysis
We ran two sets of analyses. The first used cultural background
as the measure of culture and the second used cultural values. For
each dependent variable of interest, we conducted a multiple
regression analysis predicting it from one of the culture measures,
self-reported suppression, and the interaction of the two. We also
conducted exploratory analyses including both cultural background and values, as well as the interaction of the two. Cultural
background had no significant effects, nor did it interact with
cultural values. As might be expected, however, the pattern of
effects for background was the same as that for values. On this
basis we present results from the models using cultural values, but
we report the means for background whenever there is a non-zero
(but nonsignificant) effect.
Results
Cultural Background and Values
As expected, European Americans reported higher European
values (M ⫽ 1.67, SD ⫽ 0.57) than Asian Americans (M ⫽ 1.39,
SD ⫽ 0.74; Dunnet’s MD ⫽ 0.28, SE ⫽ 0.11, p ⬍ .05, Cohen’s
d ⫽ 0.43). Similarly, Asian Americans reported higher Asian
values (M ⫽ ⫺0.59, SD ⫽ 0.77) than European Americans (M ⫽
⫺1.36, SD ⫽ 0.71; Dunnet’s MD ⫽ 0.77, SE ⫽ 0.13, p ⬍ .01,
Cohen’s d ⫽ 1.04). Not surprisingly, therefore, European Americans had higher scores on the composite measure (European minus
Asian values; M ⫽ 3.05, SD ⫽ 0.96) than did Asian Americans
(M ⫽ 1.99, SD ⫽ 1.17, Dunnet’s MD ⫽ 1.06, SE ⫽ 0.18, p ⬍ .01,
Cohen’s d ⫽ 0.99). All other cultural groups were intermediate
between the European and Asian Americans on both values measures and the composite, and did not differ significantly from
either. For subsequent analyses using cultural background, therefore, we combined African American, Latin American, and Other
into a single category that we will refer to as “Other.”
Frequency of Suppression
Based on our model we predicted that suppression would be
used less frequently in daily life by women holding Western
European values as compared to women with bicultural AsianEuropean values. This hypothesis was supported. Suppression was
negatively correlated with European value dominance, r(165)
⫺.23, p ⬍ .01. Although not significant, the effects of cultural
background were similar, with European American women reporting lower levels of habitual suppression (M ⫽ 2.95, SD ⫽ 1.21)
than either the Asian American women (M ⫽ 3.19, SD ⫽ 1.08,
Cohen’s d ⫽ ⫺0.21) or the Other women (M ⫽ 3.09, SD ⫽ 0.89,
Cohen’s d ⫽ ⫺0.13). This is in accord with our suggestion that
suppression is used across a wider range of situations by Americans with bicultural values, as compared to those with predominantly European ones.
Social Goals
We predicted that habitual suppression would have a positive
association with self-protective goals for women with predomi3
Although difference scores entail more measurement error than the
original scores themselves, we felt that the loss of precision due to using a
difference score would be made up for by model parsimony. If both the
AVS and the EAVS were included separately in our models, then the
simplest model in Study 2 would entail 13 predictors as opposed to the 5
required using the difference score, making it more difficult to interpret the
outcomes and stretching the acceptable limits of the ratio of number of
predictors to data.
EMOTION REGULATION AND CULTURE
Figure 2.
35
The joint distribution of the European American Values Scale and the Asian Values Scale.
nantly European values, but that the two would be unrelated for
women with bicultural values. This hypothesis was supported by
the significant interaction of suppression and cultural values, F(1,
161) ⫽ 5.53, p ⬍ .05. The first panel of Figure 3 shows that
suppression had opposite associations with self-protective goals
depending on cultural values. For women with European values,
suppression was marginally positively associated with selfprotective goals b ⫽ 0.26, B ⫽ 0.55, t(162) ⫽ 1.76, p ⬍ .08, while
it was marginally negatively associated for women with bicultural
values b ⫽ ⫺0.37, B ⫽ ⫺0.78, t(162) ⫽ ⫺1.84, p ⬍ .07. There
was no suggestion of this interaction when cultural background
was used as the measure of culture (F ⬍ .10, ns). Despite the
failure of the less sensitive measure of culture to pick up this
effect, these findings are in accord with our conjecture that emotion suppression often serves a self-protective function for women
with predominantly European values, although this was clearly not
the case for the women with bicultural values. For them, if anything, the reverse was true, with self-protective goals being served
by lower suppression.
Although not predicted, we also found a main effect of cultural
values, F(1, 161) ⫽ 21.05, p ⬍ .01, such that women with higher
European values reported holding less self-protective goals, given
an average level of suppression, than did women with more bicultural values. A similar nonsignificant pattern emerged for cultural
background, with European American women reporting fewer
self-protective goals (M ⫽ 2.25, SD ⫽ 0.55), than Asian American
women (M ⫽ 2.27, SD ⫽ 0.57, Cohen’s d ⫽ ⫺0.04), but not
compared to Other women (M ⫽ 2.25, SD ⫽ 0.53, Cohen’s d ⫽
0.00). Although not directly relevant to our hypotheses, this finding is in accord with research showing that Asian Americans, as
compared to Caucasian Americans, typically report more social
anxiety (Okazaki, 2002; Okazaki, Liu, Longworth, & Minn, 2002)
and a higher prevention focus (Lee, Aaker, & Gardner, 2000).
Negative Emotion
The predicted interaction between habitual suppression and cultural values on negative emotion also emerged, F(1, 161) ⫽ 7.98,
p ⬍ .01. The second panel of Figure 3 shows that for women with
strong European values, greater suppression was accompanied by
greater negative emotion, b ⫽ 0.14, B ⫽ 0.25, t(162) ⫽ 2.54, p ⬍
.05, whereas for women with bicultural values the slope was
marginally negative, b ⫽ ⫺0.15, B ⫽ ⫺0.27, t(162) ⫽ ⫺1.90, p ⬍
.06. Although nonsignificant, the pattern of results was the same
for cultural background. For European American women, the slope
of negative emotion on suppression was positive b ⫽ 0.057, B ⫽
0.10, SE ⫽ 0.06, while it was essentially zero for Asian American
women, b ⫽ 0.005, B ⫽ 0.00, SE ⫽ 0.09, and was negative for
Other women, b ⫽ ⫺0.113, B ⫽ ⫺0.21, SE ⫽ 0.17. Thus, as
expected, habitual suppression was accompanied by high levels of
negative emotion for women with predominantly European values,
BUTLER, LEE, AND GROSS
36
Figure 3. Part 1: The interaction of habitual suppression and cultural values in predicting social goals and
negative emotion.
but for women with bicultural values higher suppression was
actually associated with less negative emotion.
As with social goals, there was also a main effect of cultural
values, F(1, 161) ⫽ 12.94, p ⬍ .01, because of women with
bicultural values reporting higher levels of negative emotion than
women with more European values, given an average level of
suppression. Again a similar, nonsignificant pattern emerged for
cultural background. Asian American women (M ⫽ 2.03, SD ⫽
0.61, Cohen’s d ⫽ 0.11) and Other women (M ⫽ 2.00, SD ⫽ 0.62,
Cohen’s d ⫽ 0.06) both reported higher levels of negative emotion
than European American women (M ⫽ 1.96, SD ⫽ 0.66). Again
this finding was not predicted, but it is in accord with research
showing that Asian Americans report higher levels of anxiety than
do Caucasian Americans (Lee, Aaker, & Gardner, 2000; Okazaki,
2002; Okazaki et al., 2002).
Discussion
Based on the existing literature on cultural differences in
emotion suppression, we proposed that cultural values should
predict differences in the frequency and functions of habitual
suppression, and in the amount of negative emotion associated
with it. Our findings generally supported these predictions.
Women with predominantly European values reported lower
levels of habitual suppression than did women with bicultural
European-Asian values. In addition, for the women with high
European values, suppression was associated with more selfprotective goals and higher levels of negative emotion, while
these associations were, if anything, reversed for the women
with bicultural values.
Two unpredicted effects also emerged. These were that
women with bicultural values reported more self-protective
social goals and higher levels of negative emotion than did
women with predominantly European values, given an average
level of suppression. Although these findings are in accord with
prior research showing that Asian Americans report higher
levels of social anxiety and prevention focused self-regulation
than do Caucasian Americans (Lee, Aaker, & Gardner, 2000;
Okazaki, 2002; Okazaki et al., 2002), they do not bear on our
hypotheses, which address cultural variations in the relationship
of suppression to socio-emotional outcomes, rather than cultural differences in levels of those outcomes. The central issue
for our research is that habitual suppression was positively
linked to self-protective goals and negative emotion for women
with European values, and the reverse was true for women with
bicultural values.
Although never statistically reliable, the pattern of findings
using background as the measure of culture was very similar to
that obtained when using values. This is an important point,
given the potential for psychometric problems with self-report
culture scales (for example see Kitayama, 2002). The fact that
both measures present the same general picture lends convergent validity that the observed effects resulted from actual
cultural differences. The greater predictive power of cultural
values as opposed to background in the present study likely
arose because of a combination of the highly multi-cultural
sample and the relatively gross categorical measurement of
cultural background, combined with large within group variability in acculturation. Although this may not generalize to
situations where cultural groups are better defined and more
EMOTION REGULATION AND CULTURE
homogenous, we feel it attests to the power of cultural factors
to influence socio-emotional processes even in a relatively
blended cultural context.
In Part 1, we used self-report methodology, which was ideally suited to testing our hypotheses regarding cultural differences in habitual suppression. This approach, however, did not
allow us to test our second set of hypotheses addressing cultural
differences in the effects of suppression during actual social
interactions. Our model suggests that women with more Asian
values should be more practiced and comfortable with suppressing emotion, and thus should be able to remain interpersonally
responsive while doing so during face-to-face interactions. As a
result, we predicted that when women with more Asian values
suppressed they would have fewer negative effects on their
partner, and on the relationship, than when women with more
European values suppressed. The second part of our study was
designed to afford the experimental control required to test
these hypotheses.
Part 2: Cultural Differences in Emotion Suppression
During Face-to-Face Interaction
The ideal situation for testing our second set of hypotheses
would be one in which we could compare cultural moderation of
social outcomes following experimentally manipulated low and
high levels of suppression in a controlled situation. To achieve this
we employed a paradigm that we knew from our prior research
would allow us to compare a control group, characterized by low
to moderate levels of spontaneous suppression, with an experimental group in which higher levels of suppression were elicited
(Butler et al., 2003). The paradigm we used involved randomly
assigning the participants from Part 1 to pairs and asking them to
watch and then discuss an upsetting documentary war film. Each
pair was randomly assigned to either a suppression group or a
control group. In the suppression group one woman in each pair
was randomly chosen to secretly receive suppression instructions
asking her to hide her emotions during the conversation. The
control participants, and the partners of the suppressors, heard
instructions asking them to discuss the film as the normally would.
During such discussions of a shared negative event, it is very
common for people to disclose their emotions, even if they did not
know each other before (Luminet, Bouts, Delie, Manstead, &
Rimè, 2000; Rime, Mesquita, Philippot, & Boca, 1991). However,
it is also not unusual for people to inhibit their emotional expression at least somewhat because of interacting with a relative
stranger (Berg & Clark, 1986; Clark & Taraban, 1991). In keeping
with these expressive norms, we have shown in earlier research
that this situation elicits low to moderate levels of spontaneous
suppression when women are uninstructed, but that women can
increase their levels of suppression when requested to do so
(Butler et al., 2003).
Given this context, competing hypotheses present themselves
regarding the influence of cultural values on amounts of suppression. On the one hand, if women with Asian values use suppression more often, then they might be expected to suppress more in
this situation as well. On the other hand, there is evidence that
individuals from Asian cultures are more sensitive to social norms
37
and contextual constraints on behavior (Markus & Kitayama,
1991). Furthermore, all our participants would be immersed in the
same daily cultural framework (i.e., a North American university
setting), would have some familiarity with suppressing emotions,
and would be likely to comply with the fairly strong expressive
norms of the situation. These factors suggest that cultural values
may not predict differences in amounts of suppression in this
specific situation. In order to evaluate these possibilities, we obtained self-reports of how much the women had suppressed their
emotions during the conversation, and we also rated their expressive behavior from videotapes. This gave us two methods for
assessing amounts of suppressive behavior, and thereby a means of
controlling for cultural influences on this variable, if they emerged,
when evaluating other outcomes.
Turning to our central hypotheses, our model suggests that
for women with Asian values, as compared to those with
European values, suppression may be more automatized and
demand fewer cognitive resources. This would enable them to
remain responsive while suppressing, unlike women with more
Western European values who may be distracted by the effort.
Thus, we predicted that suppression would result in reduced
responsiveness for women with high European values, but that
this effect would be reduced or eliminated for women with more
Asian values.
We also expected that if cultural differences exist in the impact
of suppression on responsiveness, then there should be corresponding cultural differences in the impact of suppression on a social
partner. Specifically, we predicted that when women with high
European values suppressed it would be interpreted by their partners as a sign of hostility and social withdrawal. This should be
accompanied by an unwillingness to deepen the relationship and
by behavioral indicators of low affiliation along with increased
signs of hostility. Again, however, we expected these negative
social consequences to be reduced or eliminated when women with
more Asian values suppressed.
Methods
Participants and Design
The same women participated in Part 2 as in Part 1. One
hundred and twenty of the original sample were randomly
assigned to one of the groups of interest (29 suppression dyads
vs. 31 uninstructed control control). The additional 46 women
were randomly assigned to a second regulation group that is not
relevant to this report. For the suppression dyads, the women in
a pair were randomly assigned to be either the regulator or the
uninstructed partner. Participants were paid $40 for completing
Part 2.
On the basis of our findings in Part 1, we expected values to be
a more sensitive measure of culture than self-reported background.
Nevertheless, when interacting face-to-face, cultural background
may play a role since it is more observable (e.g., eye and hair
color) than values. Therefore, in order to control for potential
interactive effects of self-reported cultural background within
pairs, we constrained random assignment such that both the suppression and the control group included roughly one third Euro-
38
BUTLER, LEE, AND GROSS
pean dyads, one third non-European dyads, and one third mixed
dyads.4
Procedure
Following Butler et al. (2003), when the participants arrived at
the lab, they were briefly introduced, and then seated 2 meters
apart on either side of an opaque partition. A television monitor
was positioned so that participants could view the monitor but not
each other. The experimenter explained that the purpose of the
study was to better understand emotions during conversations.
Everyday emotion-laden conversations often revolve around a
shared emotional event. To provide such an event for the participants to discuss, we showed them an upsetting 11-minute documentary film about the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
during World War II. Our prior research has shown that this film
elicits high levels of sadness, anger, and disgust as well as strong
religious and political opinions (Butler et al., 2003). Given the
cultural composition of the dyads in this study, we felt that this
film would provide a particularly provocative topic for conversation and would be equally relevant and distressing to both Asian
and European women. To ensure there were no cultural differences
in emotional reactions to the film, however, we collected selfreports of emotional experience following it.
Random assignment to conditions took place immediately after
viewing the war film. The first step was to assign a dyad to either
the suppression or the control group. Next, the women in the
suppression dyads were assigned to be either the regulator or the
uninstructed partner. After the film, but before the conversation,
and unbeknownst to their uninstructed partners, the suppression
regulators received tape-recorded instructions via headphones.
They were asked, “to try to behave in such a way that your partner
does not know that you’re feeling anything at all,” and “to try not
to show any emotion in your face or your voice.” The uninstructed
partners, plus the individuals in the control condition, were asked
“to try to interact normally,” followed by a bland musical segment.
Following the delivery of the instructions, the experimenter
removed the partition and asked participants to discuss their
thoughts and feelings during the film, the implications of the film
for human nature, and its relevance to their religious and political
beliefs. Participants were free to signal the end of the conversation
when they so chose. After the conversation, the opaque partition
was replaced, and participants privately responded to the selfreport measures (see below). Finally, participants were fully debriefed and given the opportunity to discuss the experiment
together.
Measures
Cultural background and values. Participants’ responses to
the cultural background item and their scores on the composite of
the cultural values measures were taken from Part 1 (see Measures
section from Part 1 for details).
Emotional response to the stimulus film. Following the film
participants reported how much they had experienced both positive
and negative emotions. They rated five positive items (amused/
entertained, happy/contented, loving/affectionate/caring, interested/
engaged, positive) and 10 negative items (angry/irritated/annoyed/
frustrated, disgusted, self-conscious/embarrassed, afraid/scared,
guilty/ashamed, sad, lonely/isolated/ignored, impersonal/distant/
cold, anxious/nervous/tense, negative) using a 5-point scale that
ranged from “None” to “The most you’ve felt in the last month.”
Alpha for the positive scale was .65 and for the negative it was .74.
Suppression. We included two measures to assess levels of
suppression. The first was a state version of the Emotion Regulation Questionnaire that was used in Part 1 (Gross & John, 2003).
This state measure was identical to the original ERQ, but asked the
participants to respond with respect to their emotion regulatory
efforts during the conversation, rather than their habitual tendencies. Alpha for the 4-item suppression scale was .62. The second
index of suppression is described below in the section on behavioral measures.
Emotion expression and responsiveness. By definition, suppression involves reducing both positive and negative expressive behavior. As a second measure of suppression levels,
therefore, we rated emotional expressions from videotapes of
the conversations. Emotional expression, however, can be differentiated based upon whether it is “about” a referential topic
or third party, or directed “at” a conversational partner. Although the former is usually assumed to be a communication
about a person’s internal state, the latter typically functions as
a social signal of relationship intentions or goals (Davis, Haymaker, Hermecz, & Gilbert, 1988; Frijda & Mesquita, 1994;
Keltner & Kring, 1998; Kennedy-Moore & Watson, 2001;
Timmers, Fischer, & Manstead, 1998; Tomaka et al., 1999). For
example, smiling and laughing generally signal that a person is
willing to affiliate while a glare or sneer communicate hostility.
Although suppression should reduce all forms of emotional
expression, we expected the impact of suppression on the
partner to be reflected in the partner’s expressions of affiliation
and hostility. Thus, our measures of expressive behavior served
as an index of suppression levels and as a test of our hypotheses
regarding the partners’ behavioral responses to the suppressors.
Finally, we also rated nonresponsiveness (the failure to respond
appropriately) to test our hypotheses regarding cultural moderation of the impact of suppression on responsive behavior.
Participants were videotaped using two cameras hidden behind darkened glass and positioned so that one camera focused
on each participant’s face and upper torso. The two camera
images were then combined into a single split-screen image
using a special effects generator. The videos were scored for
each participants’ behavior using custom designed computer
software (CodeBlue, R. Levenson) that allows real-time coding
of behaviors with 1 second resolution. We used a “cultural
informant” approach to coding in which the gestalt of all
simultaneously occurring communicative signals, both verbal
4
Unconstrained random assignment would be adequate in a large sample to ensure an even distribution of dyadic cultural composition across
manipulation groups. Given our relatively small sample (dyads ⫽ 60),
however, we were concerned that some cells of the design would be
under-represented. To avoid this we used a randomization procedure that
constrains group sizes to be equal, given a pre-specified number of
participants.
EMOTION REGULATION AND CULTURE
and nonverbal, is taken into account when assigning a behavioral segment to one of the coding categories.
Positive expressions about the topic were almost exclusively
verbal, such as, “Well, at least the bomb ended the war and
probably prevented a lot of other people from dying.” Negative
expressions about the topic came both in the form of explicit
statements, such as “The film was really upsetting,” as well as in
nonverbal grimaces and frowns that clearly referred to the topic.
Positive expressions directed at the partner (affiliative expressions)
included smiling, laughing, and agreements, which could be either
verbal or nonverbal (e.g., a nod of agreement). Negative expressions directed at the partner (hostile expressions) were exclusively
nonverbal and included looks of disgust, annoyance, and frustration. Finally, as in our prior research (Butler et al., 2003), we
defined a nonresponse (the failure to respond appropriately) as a
sequence in which one person finished an utterance and the other
person either did not respond within 2 seconds, or they responded
with an utterance of less than three words followed by silence, or
they responded with content that was unrelated to the previous
person’s contribution. Because conversations differed in length,
we used proportions for all analyses.
Coders were blind to the participants’ experimental condition.
One person coded all videotapes, while four others provided reliability ratings on eight tapes each. Thus 32 of the 60 tapes were
coded by two raters. Reliabilities were excellent (positive expression about topic: average r ⫽ .90; negative expression about topic:
average r ⫽ .95; responsiveness: average r ⫽ .90; positive expressions at partner: average r ⫽ .78; negative expressions at partner:
average r ⫽ .82). For tapes that were coded by two raters the mean
of the ratings was used for final analyses.
Partners’ perceptions. To measure partner perceptions of the
suppressors’ hostility and social withdrawal we used the Impact
Message Inventory (IMI; Kiesler, 1985). Like the CSIV used in
Part 1, the 56-item IMI is based on circumplex theories of interpersonal behavior and includes eight scales defined by combinations of affiliation and assertiveness (Horowitz, Dryer, &
Krasnoperova, 1997; Kiesler, 1983; Wiggins, 1979). Participants
are asked to rate their partners with items such as “She made me
feel unappreciated,” using a 4-point scale ranging from “Not at all”
to “Very much.” As in Part 1, the three scales defined by low
affiliation, either by itself or combined with high or low assertiveness, are relevant to our hypotheses. The first scale indexes perceptions that a partner is cold and distant. The second indicates that
a partner appears rude and aggressive. The third indexes perceptions that a partner is nervous and withdrawn. We used the mean
across these scales as a measure of the perception that a partner is
generally hostile and withdrawn (␣ ⫽ .87).
Affiliation. As an index of the extent to which a participant
liked her partner and would be interested in developing a friendship, we combined items used in research on the affiliative consequences of self-disclosure (Collins & Miller, 1994), of responsiveness (Davis & Perkowitz, 1979), and of rapport
(Tickle-Degnan & Rosenthal, 1990). The resulting scale included
10 statements, such as “I would be interested in talking to my
partner again,” “I like my partner,” and “I think my partner is the
kind of person I could become close friends with.” Responses were
on a 5-point scale ranging from “Very much disagree” to “Very
much agree.” The ␣ for this scale was .91.
39
Data Analysis
Data arising from face-to-face interactions are likely to violate
the assumption of independence that is required for standard
ANOVA and regression approaches. For example, friendly people
are likely to elicit friendly responses, resulting in correlated error
terms. This lack of independence can result in inaccurate significance tests and erroneous conclusions (Campbell & Kashy, 2002;
Kashy & Kenny, 1997; Kenny, 1996a, 1996b; Kenny, Mannetti,
Pierro, Livi, & Kashy, 2002). To test our hypotheses, therefore, we
used SAS PROC MIXED to implement Kenny’s Actor-Partner
Interdependence Model (APIM; Campbell & Kashy, 2002; Kashy
& Kenny, 1997; Kenny, 1996a, 1996b). This model deals appropriately with nonindependent data and allowed us to investigate
the simultaneous effects of both partners’ cultural background or
values, the manipulation, and the interaction of each partner’s
culture with her manipulation status.
General implementation details for the APIM are provided in
Campbell and Kashy (2002). The regulation manipulation was
dummy-coded and treated as a fixed factor with three levels
(suppression, suppression partner, control). As in Study 1, we
conducted two sets of analyses, first using cultural background,
then using cultural values. For each dependent variable of interest,
we conducted an APIM analysis including the dummy-coded
manipulation, both partners’ cultural background or values, and
the two interaction terms (partner-1’s culture measure* manipulation, partner-2’s culture measure* manipulation). We also ran
these analyses including the interaction of the partners’ cultural
values, the interaction of their backgrounds, and the interactions of
both person’s values by their backgrounds. None of these additional interaction effects substantively altered the findings so we
report results without them. As in Study 1, the pattern of results
from cultural background was very similar to that provided by
cultural values, but was generally not significant, so we provide
the pattern of means from cultural background whenever there is a
non-zero effect.
Finally, the behavioral measures were non-normally distributed,
because of being in the form of proportions. To accommodate this,
for analyses in which the dependent variable was behavioral, we
used a SAS macro (GLIMMIX) to embed the APIM within a
generalized model using a log link function and a poisson error
distribution (Littell, Milliken, Stroup, & Wolfinger, 1996). This
approach provides accurate significance tests in the transformed
space. Descriptive measures, however, are presented in the original
units.
Results
Film Manipulation Check
We assumed that the stimulus film would induce strong emotions to be suppressed, and that there would not be cultural
differences in emotional responses to it. These assumptions were
verified. Participants reported very low levels of positive emotion
in response to the film (M ⫽ 0.9, SD ⫽ 0.5) and very high levels
of negative emotion (M ⫽ 2.6, SD ⫽ 1.0). These means corresponded to an answer of “a little” for positive emotions and “a lot”
for negative emotions. There were also no cultural differences in
these responses using either the measure of values or of background (all Fs ⬍ 1, ns).
BUTLER, LEE, AND GROSS
40
Suppression Levels
Spontaneous suppression. We had competing hypotheses regarding the influence of cultural values on spontaneous suppression levels in the uninstructed control group. On the one hand,
women with bicultural values may suppress more in this situation,
since they had reported doing so in daily life. On the other hand,
they may conform to the expressive norms of the situation and join
the women with more European values in relatively low levels of
suppression. The results are in accord with the latter prediction,
since we did not find any evidence that the women’s own cultural
values influenced either their self-reported suppression or any of
the emotional expression variables (all Fs ⬍ 1.0, ns). Cultural
background similarly did not show any suggestion of influencing
suppression levels (all Fs ⬍ 1.5, ns). Although it is not possible to
establish the null hypothesis, this lack of results suggests that all of
our participants were sensitive to, and complied with, the expressive norms of the situation regardless of their cultural values.
Experimentally elicited suppression. As a manipulation check,
we expected the participants who had received suppression instructions to report suppressing more, and to be less expressive of
all categories of emotion, as compared to the control participants.
These predictions were generally supported. The manipulation had
the predicted main effects on self-reported suppression, F(2, 56) ⫽
70.17, p ⬍ .01, positive, F(2, 56) ⫽ 5.22, p ⬍ .01, and negative,
F(2, 56) ⫽ 16.78, p ⬍ .01, expression about the topic, and on
affiliative expressions, F(2, 56) ⫽ 48.98; p ⬍ .01. Specifically,
suppressors reported suppressing more than the controls, t(104) ⫽
11.50, p ⬍ .01; Cohen’s d ⫽ 0.38, and they expressed less positive
emotion about the topic, t(89) ⫽ ⫺3.22, p ⬍ .01; Cohen’s d ⫽
⫺0.11 and less negative emotion about it, t(106) ⫽ ⫺5.71, p ⬍
.01; Cohen’s d ⫽ ⫺0.20. Also as predicted, they showed fewer
affiliative expressions (b ⫽ ⫺0.05, t(93) ⫽ ⫺9.17, p ⬍ .01;
Cohen’s d ⫽ ⫺0.39). They did not, however, express less hostility
towards their partners (t(95) ⫽ 1.00, ns; Cohen’s d ⫽ 0.00), but
this is likely because of the very low rates of this behavior in the
control group (see Table 1).
As with spontaneous suppression, we were unsure of whether
the effects of the manipulation on suppression levels would interact with cultural values. Again the results suggest the null hypothesis, with all interaction Fs ⬍ 2.25, ns This was also true when
cultural background was used as the predictor. Given the lack of
significant interactions, estimated suppressor and control group
means and standard errors are given in Table 1 with both partners’
cultural values set to the mean. These main effects, and the lack of
Table 1
Estimated Suppression and Control Group Means and SEs for
Dependent Variables in the Absence of Significant Interaction
Effect
Variable
Self-reported suppression
Positive expression about the topic
Negative expression about the topic
Positive expression at partner
Negative expression at partner
Suppressors
Controls
5.7 (0.2)
1% (.05%)
8% (2%)
2% (.04%)
.05% (.03%)
2.8 (0.1)
4% (.04%)
19% (1%)
6% (.03%)
.02% (.02%)
Note. Both partners’ cultural values are set to the mean.
significant interactions, suggest that all participants were equally
capable of fulfilling the experimenter’s request to suppress regardless of cultural values or background.
Responsiveness
We expected that our suppression manipulation would lead to
nonresponsiveness to a greater degree for women with European
values than for women with bicultural values. This hypothesis was
supported by a significant interaction between a woman’s own
cultural values and the suppression manipulation in predicting her
lack of responsiveness, F(2, 104) ⫽ 3.89, p ⬍ .05. As shown in
Figure 4, a simple slopes analysis demonstrated that having high
European values was associated with being more nonresponsive
for suppressors, b ⫽ 0.02, B ⫽ .50, t(106) ⫽ 3.48, p ⬍ .01, but
there was no relationship between these variables for the controls
or the suppressors’ partners. The same significant interaction
emerged for cultural background, F(4, 111) ⫽ 2.91, p ⬍ .05.
European American women who suppressed were more nonresponsive (M ⫽ .085, SD ⫽ .33) than European American women
in the control group (M ⫽ .019, SD ⫽ .42, Cohen’s d ⫽ 0.18), but
this effect was smaller for Asian American women (Suppress M ⫽
.065, SD ⫽ .36; Control M ⫽ .021, SD ⫽ .48, Cohen’s d ⫽ 0.10)
and nonexistent for Other women (Suppress M ⫽ .015, SD ⫽ .60;
Control M ⫽ .019, SD ⫽ .78, Cohen’s d ⫽ ⫺0.00).
There was also a main effect of the manipulation such that
suppressors were less responsive than the controls, given an average level of own and partner’s cultural values, t(89) ⫽ 5.19, p ⬍
.01; Cohen’s d ⫽ 0.12. This suggests that suppression is accompanied by reduced responsiveness over a range of cultural values,
although the significant interactions demonstrate that this association was stronger when the suppressor held high European values
or came from a European background.
Partners’ Perceptions
We expected that if suppressors with more European values
were less responsive than those with more Asian values, then their
partners should see them as more hostile and withdrawn. This
hypothesis was supported by the significant interaction between a
partner’s cultural values and the manipulation in predicting perceptions of the partner’s hostility/withdrawal, F(2, 106) ⫽ 6.04,
p ⬍ .01. As shown in Figure 5, the suppressors’ cultural values
were associated with their partners’ perceptions, such that suppressors with higher European values were seen as more hostile and
withdrawn than suppressors with more bicultural values, b ⫽ 0.27,
B ⫽ 0.67, t(107) ⫽ 4.21, p ⬍ .01. Again, there was no association
between cultural values and perceptions of hostility/withdrawal for
the controls or the suppressors’ partners. As with responsiveness,
there was also a main effect of the manipulation, F(2, 55) ⫽ 16.63,
p ⬍ .01, such that suppressors were seen as more hostile and
withdrawn than the controls, given an average level of own and
partner’s cultural values, t(91) ⫽ 5.62, p ⬍ .01; Cohen’s d ⫽ 0.11.
Although not significant, cultural background displayed the
same pattern of means. European American women who suppressed were seen as more hostile than European American
women in the control group (Suppress M ⫽ 0.90, SD ⫽ 3.72;
Control M ⫽ 0.33, SD ⫽ 5.76, Cohen’s d ⫽ 0.12), but this effect
was smaller for Asian women (Suppress M ⫽ 0.61, SD ⫽ 4.29;
EMOTION REGULATION AND CULTURE
41
Figure 4. Part 2: The interaction of the manipulation and cultural values in predicting lack of responsiveness
during the conversation.
Control M ⫽ 0.25, SD ⫽ 5.52, Cohen’s d ⫽ 0.07) and nonexistent
for Other women (Suppress M ⫽ 0.55, SD ⫽ 6.87; Control M ⫽
0.43, SD ⫽ 8.64, Cohen’s d ⫽ 0.01).
In contrast to the prior results, self-reported affiliation did not
show the expected interaction effect. We predicted that suppressors with higher European values would be less liked by their
partners than suppressors with more bicultural values, but this was
not the case. Cultural background also showed no signs of an
interaction effect (both Fs ⬍ 1.0, ns). Only the main effect of the
manipulation was significant, F(2, 55) ⫽ 18.10, p ⬍ .01. Thus
compared to the controls, the partners of suppressors reported less
willingness to affiliate, t(90) ⫽ ⫺5.42, p ⬍ .01; Cohen’s d ⫽
⫺0.18, regardless of cultural values. Estimated group means and
standard errors with both partners’ cultural values set to the mean
are provided in Table 2.
Partners’ Behavioral Response
We predicted that suppressors with higher European values, as
compared to those with bicultural values, would have partners who
would show more behavioral signs of hostility, and fewer signs of
affiliation. Although the first part of this hypothesis was supported,
the second was not. For expressions of hostility, the expected
interaction was found, F(2, 109) ⫽ 3.93, p ⬍ .05. Figure 6 shows
that suppressors with higher European values had partners who
expressed more hostility towards them than did bicultural suppressors, b ⫽ 0.008, B ⫽ 0.58, t(110) ⫽ 3.51, p ⬍ .01, but that cultural
values were unrelated to being the target of hostile expressions for
the controls and suppressors’ partners. The main effect of the
manipulation was also significant, F(2, 55) ⫽ 11.23, p ⬍ .01.
Suppressors were shown more hostility by their partners than the
controls, given an average level of own and partner’s cultural
values, t(95) ⫽ 4.65, p ⬍ .01; Cohen’s d ⫽ 0.11.
Again, the same pattern emerged for cultural background but
was not significant. European American women who suppressed
had partners who expressed more hostility than did European
American women in the control group (Suppress M ⫽ .011, SD ⫽
.12; Control M ⫽ .001, SD ⫽ .18, Cohen’s d ⫽ 0.06), but this
effect was smaller for Asian women (Suppress M ⫽ .003, SD ⫽
.12; Control M ⫽ .001, SD ⫽ .18, Cohen’s d ⫽ 0.01) and
nonexistent for Other women (Suppress M ⫽ .005, SD ⫽ .24;
Control M ⫽ .004, SD ⫽ .12, Cohen’s d ⫽ 0.00).
For affiliative behaviors, we did not find the predicted interaction, although the main effect of the manipulation was significant, F(2, 55) ⫽ 48.79, p ⬍ .01. Overall, partners of
suppressors showed fewer behavioral signs of affiliation than
the controls, t(93) ⫽ ⫺7.32, p ⬍ .01; Cohen’s d ⫽ ⫺0.25,
regardless of cultural values or cultural background. Estimated
group means and standard errors with both partners’ cultural
BUTLER, LEE, AND GROSS
42
Figure 5. Part 2: The interaction of the manipulation and cultural values in predicting perceptions of a partner’s
hostility and social withdrawal.
values set to the mean are provided in Table 2. This finding is
in accord with the lack of an interaction for self-reported
affiliation, suggesting that although suppressors with more bicultural values were able to be more responsive, appeared less
hostile and withdrawn, and had fewer expressions of hostility
directed at them, these mitigating influences were not enough to
completely offset the negative impact of suppression on
affiliation.
Mediation Analyses
The prior results provide evidence for two aspects of our model:
a) cultural values moderated the impact of suppression on the
Table 2
Estimated Suppression Partner and Control Group Means and
SEs for Dependent Variables in the Absence of Significant
Interaction Effects
Variable
Suppressors’
partners
Controls
Affiliation
Positive expression at partner
Positive expression about the topic
Negative expression about the topic
1.6 (0.1)
3% (.04%)
2% (.05%)
15% (2%)
2.5 (0.1)
6% (.03%)
4% (.04%)
19% (1%)
Note. Both partners’ cultural values are set to the mean.
regulators’ responsiveness, and b) cultural values moderated the
impact of suppression on the partners’ perceptions of the suppressors’ hostility/withdrawal, and the partners’ own hostile behavior.
Our model additionally suggests that these effects should be connected in the form of a mediated moderation model. Specifically,
we predicted that the reduced responsiveness of suppressors with
high European values should mediate their increased negative
effect on their partners. Following Baron and Kenny (1986) we
conducted a three-step analysis to test for this. This approach is
extremely conservative, so it provided a very stringent test of our
model (MacKinnon, Lockwood, Hoffman, West, & Sheets, 2002).
Step 1. First, we wish to show that the suppression manipulation had differential social consequences depending upon cultural
values. This has already been demonstrated above for the suppressors’ partners’ perceptions of the regulators’ hostility/withdrawal,
and for the partners’ own hostile behavior.
Step 2. Second, we wish to show that the manipulation had
differential effects on the suppressors’ responsiveness depending
upon cultural values. Again, this has already been demonstrated
above.
Step 3. In the third step we predict each dependent variable
identified in Step 1 from a model containing the manipulation,
both partners’ cultural values, both interaction terms
(manipulation*person1-values, manipulation*person2-values), and
both persons’ responsivity scores. Mediated moderation would be
EMOTION REGULATION AND CULTURE
43
Figure 6. Part 2: The interaction of the manipulation and cultural values in predicting expressions of hostility
during the conversation.
suggested if Steps 1 and 2 were met, and additionally in Step 3
responsivity predicted social outcomes while the differential impact of
the manipulation depending on cultural values was reduced. Finally,
this indirect path can be tested for significance (Baron & Kenny,
1986; MacKinnon et al., 2002; Preacher & Leonardelli, 2001).
Given these criteria we found evidence for mediated moderation for both dependent variables identified in Step 1. When all
predictors were included in the model, we found significant
main effects of partner’s responsivity on perceptions of hositility/withdrawal, F(1, 106) ⫽ 22.65, p ⬍ .01, and on hostile
expressions directed at a partner, F(1, 109) ⫽ 27.23, p ⬍ .01.
Less responsive women were seen as more hostile/withdrawn,
b ⫽ 9.44, B ⫽ 0.93, t(106) ⫽ 4.76, p ⬍ .01, and had more
hostile expressions directed at them, b ⫽ 0.16, B ⫽ 0.46,
t(109) ⫽ 5.22, p ⬍ .01. Meanwhile, the interaction of the
manipulation and cultural values no longer predicted differences in the suppressors’ partners’ perceptions or hostile expressions. The tests of the indirect effects were also significant
(Perception of partner hostility/withdrawal: Sobel test statistic ⫽ 2.40, p ⬍ .02; Hostile expressions at partner: Sobel test
statistic ⫽ 2.45, p ⬍ .02), suggesting that the reason that
suppressors with more European values were seen as more
hostile and withdrawn, and had more hostile expressions directed at them, was because of them being less responsive than
suppressors with bicultural values.
Discussion
In Part 2, we investigated the moderating influence of cultural
values on the acute social consequences of suppression during
face-to-face interaction. We found that suppression resulted in
multiple negative outcomes, and that these effects were greatest for
women with European values, and least for women with bicultural
Asian-European values. In general, suppressors were seen as hostile and withdrawn, and their partners engaged in actively hostile
behavior towards them. However, these consequences were moderated by cultural values in ways predicted by our model. Suppressors with more bicultural Asian-European values were seen
less hostile and withdrawn than suppressors with predominantly
European values. Their partners were also less hostile in their
behavioral responses. In addition, these cultural differences in the
outcomes of suppression were mediated by cultural differences in
the suppressors’ responsiveness. Suppressors with bicultural values were more responsive than those with primarily European
values, and this difference accounted for the reduction in negative
outcomes. This same pattern of findings was obtained, although in
a weaker form, when cultural background was considered instead
of cultural values.
Despite this clear evidence of cultural moderation, some of the
social impacts of suppression appeared to be independent of culture. In particular, regardless of cultural values, socially rewarding
BUTLER, LEE, AND GROSS
44
behaviors such as emotional disclosure, smiling, and laughing
were reduced in both partners when one woman suppressed. In
keeping with this, relationship formation was hindered, with the
partners of the suppressors reporting an unwillingness to pursue a
friendship. It appears that holding bicultural values reduced the
socially punishing aspects of suppression but could not off-set the
lack of rewards that accompanied it.
General Discussion
Are the social consequences of emotion suppression culturespecific? Based on a two-part study the answer appears to be a
qualified “yes.” As predicted by our model, we found fairly
extensive cultural moderation of both the correlates of habitual
suppression and its immediate consequences during social interaction. In Part 1, women with predominantly European values
reported suppressing emotions less frequently in daily life than did
women with bicultural Asian-European values. In addition, habitual suppression was related to self-protective social goals and
negative emotional experience for women holding European values, but these associations were actually reversed for women
holding bicultural values. Thus, higher levels of habitual suppression appeared to be problematic for women with European values,
while the reverse was true for women with more Asian values.
Also in support of our model, experimentally elicited suppression
in Part 2 led to reduced responsiveness and negative social outcomes for women with high European values, but these effects
were reduced for women with bicultural values. Furthermore,
cultural differences in responsiveness accounted for the observed
cultural differences in suppression’s negative social impact. Despite this fairly extensive evidence in accord with our hypotheses,
however, we also found some signs of cross-cultural consistency.
Thus, the qualification to our “yes” regarding the cultural specificity of suppression’s impact comes from our finding that suppression uniformly reduced emotional disclosure, smiling, laughing, and affiliation during face-to-face interactions, regardless of
cultural values.
Implications for Relationship Formation
In contemporary metropolitan settings we all interact on a
regular basis with people from cultures other than our own. The
present results are encouraging in that they suggest that holding
different cultural values should not by itself interfere with developing friendships. We found no evidence of cultural values directly predicting social outcomes. One place where this is notable
is the control group in Part 2. Women with more bicultural values
reported suppressing more in daily life, and we thought they might
also do so in the laboratory situation. If so, cultural differences in
spontaneous suppression might have created social discord in
dyads from different cultural backgrounds. It appears, however,
that the women with bicultural values adapted their behavior to fit
the expressive norms of the situation and suppressed at similarly
low levels to their more European counterparts. This is in keeping
with research suggesting that Asian cultures encourage norm conformity and are willing to sacrifice individual consistency in order
to encourage social cohesion (Kim et al., 1999; Markus &
Kitayama, 1991).
We did find, however, that cultural values can influence the
relationship impact of self-regulatory efforts. When women with
predominantly European values controlled their emotions by suppressing them, it resulted in actively hostile interactions. In contrast, when women with bicultural Asian-European values suppressed emotion, it was seen by their partners as less hostile and
withdrawn, and resulted in less hostile conversations. Although we
all suppress our emotions some of the time (Gross & John, 2003),
these findings suggest that those of us holding predominantly
European values would do well to limit those occasions, while
those of us with more bicultural values can afford to do so more
often.
The present results also demonstrate, however, that even women
with bicultural values can incur some social costs for suppressing.
Regardless of cultural values, suppressing emotion while discussing a shared negative experience uniformly reduced smiling,
laughing, emotional disclosure, and the willingness to establish a
friendship. The fact that the women in the control condition of our
study spontaneously suppressed at relatively low levels suggests
that, to some extent, they may have been aware of this potential
outcome. Indeed, there is some research suggesting that the most
important determinant of the outcome of suppression is how flexibly it is used. For example, the ability to flexibly enhance and
suppress emotion expression during an experimental task predicted
levels of distress two years later (Bonnano, Papa, O’Neill,
Westphal, & Coifman, 2004). Perhaps one of the reasons that
habitual suppression was associated with high levels of negative
emotion for women with high European values was a tendency to
use suppression rigidly, without sensitivity to contextual constraints. In contrast, perhaps the emphasis Asian cultures place on
accommodating social demands and adjusting to others (Morling,
Kitayama, & Miyamoto, 2002) enables women with bicultural
values to avoid using suppression in situations where it would have
a negative social impact.
Limitations and Future Directions
To our knowledge, the present research represents the first
investigation of the joint influence of culture and emotion regulation on social outcomes. As such, we had to make numerous
limiting decisions regarding methods and theoretical focus, and a
wealth of research remains to be done. Perhaps the greatest limitation is the sample we used. Our participants were highly educated, privileged, urban female students in an unusually multicultural part of the world. In this context we found that values were
a better predictor of cultural effects than was self-reported background; however, it is quite possible that this aspect of the research
is specific to this sample. Nevertheless, the fact that cultural values
related to cultural background in the expected way, and that the
same general pattern of results emerged from both values and
background, suggests that the effects we observed were because of
genuine cultural influences despite the high levels of acculturation
and cultural blending in our sample. We expect that the cultural
moderation of the social consequences of suppression would be
even more dramatic if more homogenous, clearly differentiated
cultural groups were studied. For example, suppression may have
even fewer negative effects when Asians living in Asia engage in
it, but this hypothesis awaits future research.
EMOTION REGULATION AND CULTURE
Other limitations of the present research stem from the inherent
constraints of an experimental protocol. For example, we used an
evocative film to induce a shared emotional experience for participants to discuss, which ensured that the conversations were similar in content and emotional tone. It is possible, however, that the
particular characteristics of that film may have influenced our
results. For example, Asian participants may have been more
familiar with the events depicted (the bombing of Hiroshima and
Nagasaki), and hence may have been better able to control their
emotional responses.5 Although we cannot rule out this possibility,
it seems unlikely given that we found no cultural differences in
either emotional experience or expressive behavior regarding the
film. Other methodological constraints included a focus on previously unacquainted dyads as opposed to established relationships,
a single relatively short conversation, and same-sex female dyads.
Clearly further research is required to establish the boundary
conditions on the effects we observed.
As with any initial research in a new area, we have not eliminated alternate explanations for our findings. One open question,
in particular, is why the suppressors with bicultural values were
more responsive. One possible reason for this, and the one that we
have maintained so far, is that suppression is used more frequently
by women with bicultural values and is therefore more automatized for them. Other possibilities exist, however. Several studies
have shown that emotion regulation strategies other than suppression can have a negative impact on concurrent cognitive functioning, and therefore presumably on responsiveness. For example,
trying to distract oneself by thinking of other things (Richards &
Gross, in press) and trying to exaggerate emotional expression
(Bonnano et al., 2004) both produced memory decrements of the
same magnitude as suppression. This suggests that any selffocused task might negatively impact responsiveness. Perhaps the
emphasis that Asian cultures place on attending to relationships
enabled our bicultural women to maintain a greater degree of
other-focus despite engaging in a self-focused task. This possibility is in accord with research showing that Japanese are more
attuned to situations involving adjustment to others, while Americans are more attuned to influencing others (Morling, Kitayama,
& Miyamoto, 2002), and with a recent study suggesting that
Western cultures foster focused attention, and hence may be less
able to divide attention between suppressing and attending to a
social partner, while Asian cultures support holistic attention and
hence may be better able to multitask (Miyamoto, Nisbett, &
Takahiko, 2006). Another possibility is that the bicultural women
had a larger repertoire of responsive behaviors to replace emotion
expression with. For example, they may have been quicker to ask
their partner questions and to encourage their partners to elaborate.
Or the women with more European values may have been more
explicit and overt in their compliance with our suppression instructions, leading to overly blunt and insensitive suppression. Disentangling such possibilities offers a rich direction for future research
that would shed light on the interface of emotion, self-regulation,
cognition, social interaction, and culture.
Concluding Comment
The present research serves as a reminder that cultural differences exist within very small geographic areas, in the present case
within a university population. Furthermore, when we ignore cul-
45
tural influences, we risk drawing erroneous conclusions about a
large portion of contemporary North America, not to mention
about the rest of the world. Prior research on the social consequences of suppression, including our own, points towards the
conclusion that suppression is typically an undesirable form of
emotion regulation. The present results suggest, however, that at
least some cultural groups are able to suppress without becoming
less responsive, and without provoking negative responses from
their partners. Above all, the present research reminds us that
emotion regulation is not something that occurs purely within an
individual, but rather occurs within a cultural context and with
implications that extend to the regulator’s social partners and
relationships.
5
The authors would like to thank an anonymous reviewer for pointing
out this possible confound.
References
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator/mediator variable
distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and
statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
51, 1173–1182.
Berg, J. H., & Clark, M. S. (1986). Differences in social exchange between
intimate and other relationships: Gradually evolving or quickly apparent? In V. J. Derlega & B. A. Winstead (Eds.), Friendship and social
interaction (pp. 101–128). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Berg, J. H., & Derlega, V. J. (1987). Responsiveness and self-disclosure.
New York: Plenum Press.
Bonnano, G. A., Papa, A., O’Neill, K., Westphal, M., & Coifman, K.
(2004). The importance of being flexible: The ability to enhance and
suppress emotional expression as a predictor of long-term adjustment.
Psychological Science, 15, 482– 487.
Butler, E. A., Egloff, B., Wilhelm, F. H., Smith, N. C., Erickson, E. A., &
Gross, J. J. (2003). The social consequences of expressive suppression.
Emotion, 3, 48 – 67.
Butler, E. A., & Gross, J. J. (2004). Hiding feelings in social contexts: Out
of sight is not out of mind. In P. Philippot & R. S. Feldman (Eds.), The
regulation of emotion (pp. 101–126). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Campbell, L., & Kashy, D. A. (2002). Estimating actor, partner, and
interaction effects for dyad data using PROC MIXED and HLM: A
user-friendly guide. Personal Relationships, 9, 327–342.
Campos, J. J., Campos, R. G., & Barrett, K. C. (1989). Emergent themes
in the study of emotional development and emotion regulation. Developmental Psychology, 25, 394 – 402.
Clark, M. S., & Taraban, C. (1991). Reactions to and willingness to express
emotion in communal and exchange relationships. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 27, 324 –336.
Collins, N. L., & Miller, L. C. (1994). Self-disclosure and liking: A
meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 457– 475.
Davis, D. (1982). Determinants of responsiveness in dyadic interactions. In
W. Ickes & E. G. Knowles (Eds.), Personality, roles and social behavior
(pp. 85–140). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Davis, D., & Perkowitz, W. T. (1979). Consequences of responsiveness in
dyadic interaction: Effects of probablity of response and proportion of
content-related responses on interpersonal attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 534 –550.
Davis, H. C., Haymaker, D. J., Hermecz, D. A., & Gilbert, D. G. (1988).
46
BUTLER, LEE, AND GROSS
Marital interaction: Affective synchrony of self-reported emotional components. Journal of Personality Assessment, 52, 48 –57.
Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Guthrie, I. K., & Reiser, M. (2000). Dispositional emotionality and regulation: Their role in predicting quality of
social functioning. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78,
136 –157.
Fredrickson, B. L. (1998). What good are positive emotions? Review of
General Psychology, 2, 300 –319.
Friedman, H. S., & Miller-Herringer, T. (1991). Nonverbal display of
emotion in public and in private: Self-monitoring, personality, and
expressive cues. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61,
766 –775.
Friesen, W. V. (1972). Cultural differences in facial expressions in a
social situation: An experimental test of the concept of display rules.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, San Francisco.
Frijda, N. H., & Mesquita, B. (1994). The social roles and functions of
emotions. In H. R. Markus & S. Kitayama (Eds.), Emotion and culture
(pp. 51– 87). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Gottman, J., M., & Levenson, R. W. (1992). Marital processes predictive
of later dissolution: Behavior, physiology, and health. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 221–233.
Gottman, J. M., & Levenson, R. W. (1988). The social psychophysiology
of marriage. In P. Noller & M. A. Fitzpatrick (Eds.), Perspectives on
marital interaction (pp. 182–200). Clevedon, England: Multilingual
Matters Ltd.
Gross, J. J. (1998a). Antecedent- and response-focused emotion regulation:
Divergent consequences for experience, expression, and physiology.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 224 –237.
Gross, J. J. (1998b). The emerging field of emotion regulation: An integrative review. Review of General Psychology, 2, 271–299.
Gross, J. J. (1999). Emotion and emotion regulation. In L. A. Pervin &
O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (2nd
ed., pp. 525–552). New York: Guilford.
Gross, J. J. (2002). Emotion regulation: Affective, cognitive, and social
consequences. Psychophysiology, 39, 281–291.
Gross, J. J., & John, O. P. (1998). Mapping the domain of expressivity:
Multimethod evidence for a hierarchical model. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 74, 170 –191.
Gross, J. J., & John, O. P. (2003). Individual differences in two emotion
regulation processes: Implications for affect, relationships, and wellbeing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 348 –362.
Gross, J. J., & Levenson, R. W. (1993). Emotional suppression: Physiology, self-report, and expressive behavior. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 64, 970 –986.
Gross, J. J., & Levenson, R. W. (1997). Hiding feelings: The acute effects
of inhibiting negative and positive emotion. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 106, 95–103.
Hagedoorn, M., Kuijer, R. G., Buunk, B. P., DeJong, G. M., Wobbes, T.,
& Sanderman, R. (2000). Marital satisfaction in patients with cancer:
Does support from intimate partners benefit those who need it the most?
Health Psychology, 19, 274 –282.
Harker, L., & Keltner, D. (2001). Expressions of positive emotion in
women’s college yearbook pictures and their relationship to personality
and life outcomes across adulthood. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 80, 112–124.
Horowitz, L. M., Dryer, D. C., & Krasnoperova, E. N. (1997). The
circumplex structure of interpersonal problems. In R. Plutchik & H. R.
Conte (Eds.), Circumplex models of personality and emotions (pp.
347–384). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Huang, K., Leong, F. T. L., & Wagner, N. S. (1994). Coping with peer
stressors and associated dysphoria: Acculturation differences among
Chinese-American children. Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 7, 53– 69.
John, O. P., & Gross, J. J. (2004). Healthy and unhealthy emotion regu-
lation: Personality processes, individual differences, and life span development. Journal of Personality, 72, 1301–1333.
Kashy, D. A., & Kenny, D. A. (1997). The analysis of data from dyads and
groups. In H. Reis & C. M. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of research methods
in social psychology (pp. 451– 477). New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Keltner, D., & Kring, A. (1998). Emotion, social function, and psychopathology. Review of General Psychology, 2, 320 –342.
Kennedy-Moore, E., & Watson, J. C. (2001). How and when does emotional expression help? Review of General Psychology, 5, 187–212.
Kenny, D. A. (1996a). The design and analysis of social-interaction research. Annual Review of Psychology, 47, 59 – 86.
Kenny, D. A. (1996b). Models of nonindependence in dyadic research.
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 13, 279 –294.
Kenny, D. A., Mannetti, L., Pierro, A., Livi, S., & Kashy, D. A. (2002).
The statistical analysis of data from small groups. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 83, 126 –137.
Kiesler, D. J. (1983). The 1982 interpersonal circle: A taxonomy for complementarity in human transactions. Psychological Review, 90, 185–214.
Kiesler, D. J. (1985). The impact message inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Mind
Garden.
Kim, B. S. K., Atkinson, D. R., & Yang, P. H. (1999). The Asian values
scale: Development, Factor analysis, validation, and reliability. Journal
of Counseling Psychology, 46, 342–352.
Kitayama, S. (2002). Culture and basic psychological processes—Toward
a system view of culture: Comment on Oyserman et al. (2002). Psychological Review, 128, 89 –96.
Kitayama, S., Karasawa, M., & Mesquita, B. (2004). Collective and personal
processes in regulating emotions: Emotion and self in Japan and the United
States. In P. Philippot & R. S. Feldman (Eds.), The regulation of emotion
(pp. 251–273). Mahwah, New Jersey: Erlbaum.
Kitayama, S., Markus, H. R., & Kurokawa, M. (2000). Culture, emotion,
and well-being: Good feelings in Japan and the United States. Cognition
& Emotion, 14, 93–124.
Kring, A. M., & Gordon, A. H. (1998). Sex differences in emotion:
Expression, experience, and physiology. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 74, 686 –703.
Laurenceau, J., Barrett, L. F., & Peitromonaco, P. R. (1998). Intimacy as
an interpersonal process: The importance of self-disclosure and partner
disclosure, and perceived partner responsiveness in interpersonal exchanges. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1238 –1251.
Lee, A. Y., Aaker, J. L., & Gardner, W. L. (2000). The pleasures and pains
of distinct self-construals: The role of interdependence in regulatory
focus. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 1122–1134.
Levenson, R. W., & Gottman, J. M. (1983). Marital interaction: Physiological linkage and affective exchange. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 45, 587–597.
Levenson, R. W., & Gottman, J. M. (1985). Physiological and affective
predictors of change in relationship satisfaction. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 49, 85–94.
Littell, R. C., Milliken, G. A., Stroup, W. W., & Wolfinger, R. D. (1996).
SAS system for mixed models. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.
Locke, K. D. (2000). Circumplex scales of interpersonal values: Reliability, validity, and applicability to interpersonal problems and personality
disorders. Journal of Personality Assessment, 75, 249 –267.
Luminet, O., Bouts, P., Delie, F., Manstead, A. S. R., & Rimè, B. (2000).
Social sharing of emotion following exposure to a negatively valenced
situation. Cognition & Emotion, 14, 661– 688.
MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G., &
Sheets, V. (2002). A comparson of methods to test mediation and other
intervening variable effects. Psychological Methods, 7, 83–104.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for
cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224 –253.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1994). The cultural shaping of emotion: A
EMOTION REGULATION AND CULTURE
conceptual framework. In H. R. Markus & S. Kitayama (Eds.), Emotion
and culture (pp. 339 –351). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Matsumoto, D. (1990). Cultural similarities and differences in display
rules. Motivation and Emotion, 14, 195–214.
Matsumoto, D. (1993). Ethnic differences in affect intensity, emotion
judgements, display rule attitudes, and self-reported emotional expression in an American sample. Motivation and Emotion, 17, 107–123.
Mesquita, B. (2001). Emotions in collectivist and individualist contexts.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 68 –74.
Mesquita, B., & Frijda, N. H. (1992). Cultural variations in emotions: A
review. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 179 –204.
Miller, J. G. (2002). Bringing culture to basic psychological theory—
Beyond individualism and collectivism: Comment on Oyserman et al.
(2002). Psychological Bulletin, 128, 97–109.
Miyamoto, Y., Nisbett, R. E., & Takahiko, M. (2006). Culture and the
physical environment: Holistic versus analytic perceptual affordances.
Psychological Science, 17, 113–119.
Morling, B., Kitayama, S., & Miyamoto, Y. (2002). Cultural practices
emphasize influence in the United States and adjustment in Japan.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 311–323.
Okazaki, S. (2002). Self-other agreement on affective distress scales in
Asian Americans and White Americans. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 49, 428 – 437.
Okazaki, S., Liu, J. F., Longworth, S. L., & Minn, J. M. (2002). Asian
American-White American differences in expressions of social anxiety:
A replication and extension. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority
Psychology, 8, 234 –247.
Oyserman, D., Coon, H. M., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2002). Rethinking
individualism and collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions
and meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 3–72.
Preacher, K. J., & Leonardelli, G. J. (2001). Calculation for the Sobel test:
An interactive calculation tool for mediation tests [Computer software].
From http://www.unc.edu/⬃preacher/sobel/sobel.htm
Reis, H. T., & Shaver, P. (1988). Intimacy as an interpersonal process. In
S. W. Duck (Ed.), Handbook of personal relationships (pp. 367–389).
Oxford, England: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Richards, J. M., Butler, E. A., & Gross, J. J. (2003). Emotion regulation in
romantic relationships: The cognitive consequences of concealing feelings. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 20, 599 – 620.
Richards, J. M., & Gross, J. J. (1999). Composure at any cost? The
cognitive consequences of emotion suppression. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 25, 1033–1044.
Richards, J. M., & Gross, J. J. (2000). Emotion regulation and memory:
The cognitive costs of keeping one’s cool. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 79, 410 – 424.
Richards, J. M., & Gross, J. J. (in press). Personality and emotional
memory: How regulating emotion impairs memory for emotional events.
Journal of Reseach in Personality.
Rime, B., Mesquita, B., Philippot, P., & Boca, S. (1991). Beyond the
emotional event: Six studies on the social sharing of emotion. Cognition
& Emotion, 5, 435– 465.
Rudmin, F. W. (2003). Critical history of the acculturation psychology of
assimilation, separation, integration, and marginalization. Review of
General Psychology, 7, 3–37.
Scherer, K. R. (1997). The role of culture in emotion-antecedent appraisal.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 902–922.
47
Schimmack, U., Oishi, S., Radhakrishnan, P., & Dzokoto, V. (2002).
Culture, personality, and subjective well-being: Integrating process
models of life satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 582–593.
Semin, G. R., Gorts, C. A., Nandram, S., & Semin-Goossens, A. (2002).
Cultural perspectives on the linguistic representation of emotion and
emotion events. Cognition & Emotion, 16, 11–28.
Shiota, M. N., Campos, B., Keltner, D., & Hertenstien, M. J. (2004).
Positive emotion and the regulation of interpersonal relationships. In P.
Philippot & R. S. Feldman (Eds.), The regulation of emotion (pp.
127–155). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Soto, J. A., Levenson, R. W., & Ebling, R. (2005). Cultures of moderation
and expression: Emotional experience, behavior, and physiology in
Chinese Americans and Mexican Americans. Emotion, 5, 154 –165.
Stephan, C. W., Saito, I., & Barnett, S. M. (1998). Emotional expression in
Japan and the United States: The nonmonolithic nature of individualism
and collectivism. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29, 728 –749.
Suh, E., Diener, E., Oishi, S., & Triandis, H. C. (1998). The shifting basis
of life satisfaction judgements across cultures: Emotions versus norms.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 482– 493.
Suls, J., Green, P., Rose, G., Lounsbury, P., & Gordon, E. (1997). Hiding
worries from one’s spouse: Associations between coping via protective
buffering and distress in male post-myocardial infarction patients and
their wives. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 20, 333–349.
Tavris, C. (1984). On the wisdom of counting to ten: Personal and social
dangers of anger expression. Review of Personality & Social Psychology, 5, 170 –191.
Tickle-Degnan, L., & Rosenthal, R. (1990). The nature of rapport and its
nonverbal correlates. Psychological Inquiry, 1, 285–293.
Timmers, M., Fischer, A. H., & Manstead, A. S. (1998). Gender differences in motives for regulating emotions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 974 –985.
Tomaka, J., Palacios, R., Schneider, K. T., Colotla, M., Concha, J., &
Herrald, M. M. (1999). Assertiveness predicts threat and challenge
reactions to potential stress among women. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 76, 1008 –1021.
Totterdell, P., & Parkinson, B. (1999). Use and effectiveness of selfregulation strategies for improving mood in a group of trainee teachers.
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 4, 219 –232.
Tsai, J. L., & Chentsova Dutton, Y. E. (2003). Variation among European
Americans in emotional facial expression. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 34, 650 – 657.
Tsai, J. L., & Levenson, R. W. (1997). Cultural influences on emotional
responding: Chinese American and European American dating couples
during interpersonal conflict. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 28,
600 – 626.
Wierzbicka, A. (1993). A conceptual basis for cultural psychology. Ethos,
21, 205–231.
Wierzbicka, A. (1994). Emotion, language, and cultural scripts. In S.
Kitayama & H. R. Markus (Eds.), Emotion and culture (pp. 133–196).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Wiggins, J. S. (1979). A psychological taxonomy of trait-descriptive terms:
The interpersonal domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 395– 412.
Wolfe, M. M., Yang, P. H., Wong, E. C., & Atkinson, D. R. (2001). Design
and development of the European American Values Scale for Asian Americans. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 7, 274 –283.
(Appendix follows)
BUTLER, LEE, AND GROSS
48
Appendix
Items taken from the Asian Values Scale (Kim et al., 1999).
1.
Items taken from the European American Values Scale (Wolfe
et al., 2001).
Children should not place their parents in retirement
homes.
1.
Sometimes, it is necessary for the government to stifle
individual development. (Reverse scored)
The worst thing one can do is bring disgrace to one’s
family reputation.
2.
A woman who is living alone should be able to have
children.
One need not achieve academically to make one’s parents proud. (Reverse scored)
3.
I’m confident in my ability to handle most things.
4.
It is important for me to serve as a role model for others.
5.
When one receives a gift, one should reciprocate with a
gift of equal or greater value.
The idea that one spouse does all the housework is
outdated.
6.
I am rarely unsure about how I should behave.
6.
One should not make waves.
7.
7.
One need not follow the role expectations (gender,
family hierarchy) of one’s family. (Reverse scored)
I prefer not to take on responsibilities unless I must.
(Reverse scored)
8.
Educational and career achievements need not be one’s
top priority. (Reverse scored)
I do not like to serve as a model for others (Reverse
scored)
9.
Good relationships are based on mutual respect.
2.
3.
4.
5.
8.
Parental love should be implicitly understood and not
openly expressed.
9.
One should be able to question a person in an authority
position. (Reverse scored)
10.
One need not remain reserved and tranquil. (Reverse
scored)
10.
Abortion is okay when the mother’s health is at risk.
Received December 20, 2005
Revision received May 8, 2006
Accepted May 11, 2006 䡲