International Journal of Psychophysiology 94 (2014) 100–107

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Psychophysiology
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijpsycho

Physiological and cognitive consequences of suppressing and expressing
emotion in dyadic interactions
Brett J. Peters a,⁎, Nickola C. Overall b, Jeremy P. Jamieson aab

Department of Psychology, University of Rochester, United States
School of Psychology, University of Auckland, New Zealanda r t i c l e

i n f oArticle history:
Received 12 April 2014
Received in revised form 29 July 2014
Accepted 31 July 2014
Available online 7 August 2014
Keywords:
Dyads
Emotion regulation
Psychophysiology
Stressa b s t r a c t
Engaging in emotional suppression typically has negative consequences. However, relatively little is known
about response-focused emotion regulation processes in dyadic interactions. We hypothesized that interactingwith suppressive partners would be more threatening than interacting with expressive partners. To test predictions, two participants independently watched a negatively-valenced video and then discussed their emotional
responses. One participant (the regulator) was assigned to express/suppress affective signals during the interaction. Their partner was given no special instructions prior to the interaction. Engaging in suppression versus
expression elicited physiological responses consistent with threat—sympathetic arousal and increased vasoconstriction—in anticipation of and during dyadic interactions. Partners of emotional suppressors also exhibited
more threat responses during the interaction, but not before, compared to partners of emotional expressors.
Partner and interaction appraisals mirrored physiological ﬁndings. Emotional suppressors found the task more
uncomfortable and intense while their partners reported them as being poor communicators. This work
broadens our understanding of connections between emotion regulation, physiological responses, and cognitive
processes in dyads.
© 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Imagine that you are debating politics with a close friend (always apleasant endeavor). Although you may be frustrated that your friend
disagrees with your point of view, you try to remain stoic rather thandisplay your displeasure to keep the conversation from escalating into
an argument. Or, during a poker game you get dealt a terrible hand but attempt to suppress your emotional response so as to potentially deceive
your opponents and win the pot (i.e., bluff). As exempliﬁed above, regulating emotional expressions via suppression is common in social situations (Gross and John, 2003).
A large corpus of research has accumulated demonstrating the effects of antecedent- and response-focused emotion regulation for individuals employing those strategies—the regulators (Gross, 1998, 2002;
Gross and Barrett, 2011). However, emotion regulation does not occur
in a vacuum. Social–situational factors must be considered. One social
function of regulating emotion, especially response-focused strategies
such as suppression, is to alter affective signals to others. For example,
the person suppressing negative emotions about the political discussion
attempts to signal to his friend that he is not dismayed by the differing⁎ Corresponding author at: Meliora Hall, Box 270266, Rochester, NY, United States14627-0266. Tel.: +1 920 427 9892.
E-mail address: brettpeters@rochester.edu (B.J. Peters).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2014.07.015
0167-8760/© 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

viewpoint. Or, the poker player maintaining a neutral expression denies
her opponents emotionally-relevant information that could be used to
inform their behavior. Thus, emotion regulation can impact partners(those interacting with the regulators) as well as the regulators.
The dyadic nature of emotion regulation should be fully considered
so as to best understand the effects of regulation on downstream
outcomes. However, relatively little is known about how regulation strategies enacted by regulators impact outcomes in partners. The primary
goal of the research reported here was to examine expressive suppressionin vivo during a dyadic interaction with a focus on motivationally-tuned
physiological measures and cognitive appraisals.
1.1. Emotion regulation
The process model of emotion regulation considers the dynamic
nature of emotion (Gross, 2002). Experienced emotions can be regulatedby altering underlying antecedent psychological, physiological, and situational mechanisms (i.e., the “ingredients” of emotion) occurring more
upstream. For instance, altering cognitive appraisals of internal or situational signs of arousal can change subsequent affective experiences(Jamieson et al., 2013b; Mauss et al., 2007). In contrast, responsefocused regulation strategies are implemented after emotions havebeen experienced; the most common strategy being suppression. The
poker player in the example above suppressed displays of affect, but
this suppression would not be expected to alter the negative affect felt

B.J. Peters et al. / International Journal of Psychophysiology 94 (2014) 100–107

from receiving the poor hand. The process model of emotion regulation
makes a temporal distinction between regulation strategies. In the
research presented here, we focus on response-focused regulation strategies. Suppression, as operationalized here, refers to inhibiting outward
displays of affect.
Hallmarks of emotional suppression research are that suppression iseffortful and does not alter felt affect because—by deﬁnition—it occurs
after emotional experiences (Gross and Levenson, 1997; Gross, 1998;
Harris, 2001). Downstream, suppression has been linked to myriad negative outcomes. For instance, suppression impairs memory processes(Dunn et al., 2009; Richards and Gross, 2000), predicts psychopathology(Haga et al., 2007; John and Gross, 2004; Moore et al., 2008), and elicits
maladaptive physiological responses (Gross and Levenson, 1997; Gross,
1998; Hagemann et al., 2006) to name a few. Suppression also has
negative social consequences, such as reducing access to social support
resources, lowering “social satisfaction,” and harming relationships(Amirkhan et al., 1995; Srivastava et al., 2009; Von Dras and Siegler,1997). More long-term, engaging in suppression predicts weaker social
connections (English et al., 2012). The extant literature—with exceptions in boundary conditions such as cross-cultural comparisons(Butler et al., 2009) and long-term adjustment in response to trauma(Bonanno et al., 2004; Seery et al., 2008)—illustrates that engaging insuppression has negative consequences for affective regulators.
On the other hand, comparatively little research has examinedthe effects of emotional suppression (and emotion regulation moregenerally) in partners (i.e., individuals who interact with regulators).
Expression of emotion is crucial for interpersonal communication
and, when disrupted, can have negative consequences for theinteraction (Ben-Naim et al., 2013; Butler et al., 2003; Christenfeld
et al., 1997; Glynn et al., 1999; Lepore et al., 1993; Lepore, 1995;
Smith, 1992).
However, the speciﬁc physiological effects of suppression forpartners of emotional regulators remain unclear. For instance,
Butler et al. (2006) found that women who regulated their emotions(via reappraisal and suppression) during conversations exhibited increased respiratory sinus arrhythmia (RSA; indicative of increased
vagal tone) and reports of negative affect compared to uninstructed
controls. However, no differences in RSA emerged for partners whointeracted with emotional regulators. This suggests that, at least interms of parasympathetic nervous system (PNS) activity, partners
may be minimally inﬂuenced by interacting with suppressive
partners. Other research has found increases in blood pressure (BP)—frequently (but not always) diagnostic of sympathetic arousal—inpartners who interacted with emotional suppressors (Butler et al.,2003). However, increases in BP can stem from multiple sources(e.g., contractile force of the heart or constriction/dilation of thevasculature), which can index different psychophysiological processes.
Contractile force, for instance, increases with sympathetic arousal, butconstriction/dilation modulates the delivery of oxygenated blood tothe periphery and better maps onto motivational orientation.
Additionally, in research with romantic couples, Ben-Naim et al.
(2013) found that expressive suppression increased cardiovascular
arousal (as indexed by a composite of physiological measures,
including interbeat interval (IBI), skin conductance, ﬁnger pulse
amplitude, ﬁnger pulse transit time, ear pulse transit time, and ear
pulse amplitude). However, as touched on above, arousal does notdirectly map onto motivational orientation or affective state.
As outlined above, previous research has laid the groundwork forunderstanding the interactions between physiological responses andemotion regulation in dyads. The current research extends these ﬁndings by using motivationally-tuned physiological measures in a controlled dyadic emotion regulation context to help clarify the mixed
physiological and affective ﬁndings for partners of regulators reported
in previous research. Motivationally-tuned affective and physiologicalresponses were examined in anticipation of and during social interactions in unacquainted, opposite-sex regulators and partners.

101

1.2. Stress and emotion regulation
Social interactions can be stressful. In fact, social evaluative situations are some of the most reliable means of instantiating stress in thelaboratory (see Dickerson and Kemeny, 2004, for a review) and evaluative pressures are key components of social threats (cf. Jamieson andHarkins, 2010). Here, we conceptualize “social stress” as a social situation that disrupts homeostasis (allostasis) by presenting acute task
demands that must be addressed. A social interaction in which one
individual is suppressing her/his emotional expressions falls in thiscategory. Regulators must expend resources in order to suppress,
while partners seek to evaluate the verbal and (lack of) behavioral/
non-verbal signals so as to respond accordingly. Examining physiologicalindexes of stress may provide a window into the affective mechanisms
underlying dyadic emotion regulation.
The biopsychosocial (BPS) model of challenge and threat provides atheoretical framework for understanding how cognitive and situational
factors interact to shape physiological responses in acutely stressful
social situations (see Blascovich and Mendes, 2010, for a review). Brieﬂy,when coping resources exceed situational task demands, individuals
experience challenge. On the other hand, threat manifests when appraisals of demands exceed resources. These differential stress response
patterns are important for understanding emotion regulation because
they are accompanied by differences in motivationally-tuned physiological responses.
Physiologically, both challenge and threat states are accompanied byincreased sympathetic nervous system (SNS) arousal. Challenge stateselicit relatively greater sympathetic–adrenal–medullary (SAM) axis
activation, increased cardiac efﬁciency (e.g., higher cardiac output,CO), and dilation of the peripheral vasculature (e.g., lower total peripheral resistance, TPR). Alternatively, threat is associated with relatively
greater activation of the hypothalamus–pituitary–adrenal (HPA) axis,
decreased cardiac efﬁciency (little change in or lower CO), and constriction of the peripheral vasculature (higher TPR). Motivationally, thephysiological responses observed during challenge signal an approachorientation by preparing the body to actively address acute stressors,
whereas threat responses signal an avoidance orientation in anticipationof damage and defeat (Jamieson et al., 2013a; Mendes et al., 2007,2008). Couching predictions in the framework provided by the BPS
model of challenge and threat will help clarify the limited, ambiguous
physiological effects observed in the dyadic emotion regulation literature (Ben-Naim et al., 2013; Butler et al., 2003, 2006).

1.3. Current study
In the research reported here we examined the effects of responsefocused emotion regulation on physiological and affective responses,
and interaction and partner appraisals. Unacquainted (i.e. strangers),
opposite-sex dyads ﬁrst watched a video intended to induce negative
affect. Then participants were informed that they would discuss theiremotional reactions to the video with an unacquainted partner. One
participant (the regulator) was instructed to either suppress or express
outward facial and bodily displays of emotion, while the other partner
was given no special instructions. Prior to beginning, partners prepared
their thoughts in anticipation of the interaction. We predicted regulators instructed to engage in suppression would experience an anticipatory threat response as indexed by decreased PEP and increased TPR
compared to expressive regulators.
The dyadic interaction also allowed for us to examine partners of
suppressive and expressive regulators. During the interaction (but notduring the anticipatory phase when regulators and partners had yet tomeet), we predicted similar physiological and cognitive effects for partners of suppressive regulators. Partners who interacted with suppressive regulators were expected to exhibit more of a physiological threat
pattern of responding (decreased PEP and increased TPR) and appraise

102

B.J. Peters et al. / International Journal of Psychophysiology 94 (2014) 100–107

2. Method

regulator/partner role were counterbalanced across dyads. Following
the preparation period participants were brought together for the
5-minute conversation. Participants were then escorted back to theirprivate testing rooms, and completed post-task measures.

2.1. Sample size estimation

2.4. Measures

We ﬁrst conducted a power analysis to estimate the number ofparticipants needed to test hypotheses. Although no prior research has
used a design identical to this research, we calculated effect sizes fromprevious dyadic suppression studies that included physiological measures to obtain an estimate (Butler et al., 2003, 2006; Mendes et al.,2003). Using an average of these effect sizes (Cohen's d = .53) and a target power level of .80, we required a minimum of 45 regulators andpartners to be assigned to each level of the emotion regulation condition(minimum total N = 180 participants in 90 dyads).

2.4.1. Questionnaires

the interaction and their partners more negatively compared to partnersof expressive regulators.

2.2. Participants
One hundred eighty-two community members and undergraduate
students, forming 91 opposite-sex dyads (99 White, 49 Asian, 12
Hispanic, 10 Black, 12 mixed/other) were recruited via an online study
pool (SONA) and ﬂyers. Participants were pre-screened and excluded
for physician diagnosed hypertension, the presence of a cardiac pacemaker, cardiac medications, and pregnancy/breast-feeding, and compensated $10 or 2-h of course credit (Mage = 19.88, SD = 1.40, 18–27).
2.3. Procedure
Upon arrival participants (one male, one female) were escorted to a
private testing room, where they provided consent and completed
initial questionnaires. The experimenter then afﬁxed physiologicalsensors and participants relaxed for a 5-minute baseline recording.
After baseline, participants remained in their private testing room andwatched an 11-minute clip from a documentary about World War IIthat originally aired on the BBC titled, “Hiroshima: BBC History ofWorld War II” (from minutes 46:54 to 57:54). Similar videos havebeen used previously to elicit negative affect in emotion regulation
paradigms (see Butler et al., 2003, 2006). Following the video, participants completed questionnaires assessing their affective state.
At this point participants were told they would be discussing theiremotional reactions to the video with another participant. One personfrom the dyad (the regulator) was randomly assigned to receive additional emotion regulation instructions. In the expressive suppression
condition, participants were told:
Behave in such a way that your partner does not know you are feelingany emotions at all. That is, try not to express your emotions outwardly.
Keep stoic even when speaking about your feelings regarding the video.
In the emotion expression condition participants were instead
instructed:
Behave in such a way that the emotions you are feeling are clear to yourpartner. That is, try to express your emotions outwardly. Use expressive
gestures and facial expression to convey your feelings regarding thevideo.
Please refer to the Supplemental online material (SOM) for full
instruction materials.
Participants assigned to the partner role received no additional instructions. They were simply told to converse with their partner about
their emotional reactions to the video and were unaware of the instructions given to regulators. After receiving interaction instructions, regulators and partners remained in their private testing rooms for an
anticipatory period during which they were given 3 min to “gather
their thoughts” and prepare for the upcoming conversation. Sex and2.4.1.1. Affective state. Affective state was assessed at two time-points:
before and after the emotion induction video using the Positive and
Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS; Watson et al., 1988), with a 5-point
Likert scale (1 = not at all, 5 = a great deal). Scores were averaged toform positive (before video: Cronbach's α = .895, after: α = .873) andnegative (before: α = .845, after: α = .850) affect composites.
2.4.1.2. Partner attributions. After the conversation, participants completed measures assessing their attributions of their interaction partner.
Speciﬁcally, participants rated the extent to which their interaction
partner made eye contact, communicated emotions using hand positions and movements, expressed emotion, and would make an excellent
communicator on 9-point Likert scales (− 4 = strongly disagree, 4 =strongly agree).
2.4.1.3. Interaction attributions. Participants rated the extent towhich they were able to hold back their emotions and whether the interaction was intense, uncomfortable, and difﬁcult on 9-point Likert
scales (−4 = strongly disagree, 4 = strongly agree).
2.4.2. Physiological measures
The following physiological signals were collected at baseline,
during anticipation of the conversation, and throughout the conversation: electrocardiography (ECG), impedance cardiography (ICG), andblood pressure. Signals were integrated using Biopac MP150 hardware.
ECG and ICG signals were scored ofﬂine by trained personnel. Signals
were visually examined, and the ensemble averages were analyzed
using Mindware software. Reactivity scores were computed bysubtracting scores taken during the ﬁnal minute of baseline (i.e., themost relaxed period) from those collected during the ﬁrst minute of
preparation and the ﬁrst minute of the conversation (i.e. the most reactive periods).
Analyses focused on pre-ejection period (PEP)—a measure of sympathetic activation—and two measures that allow distinction between
approach-motivated challenge and avoidance-motivated threat states:
cardiac output (CO) and total peripheral resistance (TPR). PEP indexes
the contractile force of the heart by measuring the time from the initiation of left ventricle contraction to aortic valve opening. Greater sympathetic activation is indicated by shorter PEP intervals. CO is the amountof blood ejected from the heart during 1 min and is calculated byestimating stroke volume (the amount of blood ejected per beat) andmultiplying by heart rate. Increases in CO indicate improved cardiac
efﬁciency, and typically are observed in challenge states (Mendes
et al., 2007). TPR is a measure of overall vasoconstriction/vasodilation.
When threatened, the vasculature constricts so as to limit blood ﬂow
to the periphery, producing high TPR scores.
2.5. Data analysis planOne dyad was excluded from analyses because the emotion regulation manipulation was disclosed by the regulator during the interaction,leaving a ﬁnal sample of 180 participants across 90 dyads. After dataprocessing, artifacts in the physiological signals led to exclusion ofseven participants' PEP and CO data, and eleven participants' TPR data.
Moreover, ﬁve participants did not fully complete pre-task stressappraisals, four participants did not fully complete post-task stressB.J. Peters et al. / International Journal of Psychophysiology 94 (2014) 100–107

appraisals, and three participants did not fully complete interaction
appraisals.
Data were analyzed in 2 (Emotion Regulation Condition: suppression vs. expression) × 2 (Role: sender vs. receiver) mixed ANOVAs.
Due to the dyadic nature of the data varying throughout the study—
dyads do not form until after the anticipatory phase—data collected before the conversation were treated as independent (see SOM for tests of
non-independence), whereas data collected during and after the conversation were analyzed accounting for the non-independence in thedata. Planned contrasts (Kirk, 1995) were used to test a priori predictions and decompose interactions.

Table 1
Partner and interaction attributions as a function of the Emotion Regulation Condition andRole. R—emotional regulator; P—partner.
Emotion Regulation Condition
Suppression
Measures
Partner attributions
Eye contact
Gestures & movements
Partner expressed emotions

3. Results
3.1. Questionnaires
3.1.1. Affective responses
PANAS scores were analyzed in 2 (time: pre- vs. post-video) × 2(Emotion Regulation Condition) × 2 (Role) mixed ANOVAs to assess
affective responses to viewing the video. Analysis of negative affectproduced the expected main effect for time, F(1, 178) = 117.32,
p b .001, d = 1.62. Negative affect reports were higher after watching
the video (M = 2.04, SD = .65) than before (M = 1.53, SD = .50).
Similarly, participants reported less positive affect after watching
the video (M = 2.20, SD = .67) than before (M = 2.83, SD = .77),
F(1, 89) = 173.21, p b .001, d = 2.79.
3.1.2. Partner attributions
Partner attributions were analyzed in 2 (Role) × 2 (Emotion Regulation Condition) mixed ANOVAs (see Table 1 for means, standard deviations, and mean comparisons). Partner attribution measures werecollected after the dyad had formed. Thus, non-independence in thedata was accounted for by entering Role (regulator vs. partner) as
a within-subject factor.1 Analyses revealed signiﬁcant Role × Emotion
Regulation interactions for reports of: “gestures and movements,”
F(1, 86) = 8.50, p b .01, d = .63; partners′ emotional expression,
F(1, 86) = 4.22, p = .04, d = .44; and partners' overall communication
skills, F(1, 86) = 8.52, p b .01, d = .63. Regulators' reports of their partners' behavior did not differ as a function of the emotion regulation
condition, ps N .18. As expected, however, partners of suppressive regulators reported that they: gestured less, F(1, 86) = 7.87, p b .01, d = .61;
expressed less emotion, F(1, 86) = 5.16, p b .01, d = .49; and were
worse overall communicators, F(1, 86) = 7.51, p b .01, d = .59, compared to partners interacting with expressive regulators. No signiﬁcantdifferences were observed for the eye contact measure, p N .24.
3.1.3. Interaction attributions
Again, because the interaction attributions were collected after dyad
formation, the non-independence in the data was accounted for byentering Role as a within-subject factor. We observed a main effectof Role for assessments of intensity of the conversation, F(1, 86) =11.13, p b .01, d = .72. Regulators reported that the conversation was
more intense than their partners.
We then examined self-reports of how much participants withheld
their own emotions as a manipulation check for the emotion regulation
manipulation administered to regulators. We observed main effects
for Emotion Regulation Condition, F(1, 86) = 6.33, p = .01, d = .54,
and Role F(1, 86) = 43.70, p b .001, d = 1.43, but these were qualiﬁed
by a Role × Emotion Regulation interaction, F(1, 86) = 16.34, p b .001,
d = .87. Consistent with predictions, suppressive regulators reported“holding back” their emotions more so than expressive regulators,
1
For an alternative data analytic strategy that accounts for non-independent data,
multi-level regression analyses were conducted and are presented in the SOM. The ﬁndings from this data analytic strategy are consistent with ﬁndings presented in the main
manuscript.

103

Partner would make excellent
communicatorInteraction attributions
Interaction intensity“Holding back” own emotions
Interaction uncomfortable
Discussion difﬁculty

Expression

M

SD

M

SD

R: 1.70a
P: 1.41a
R: .93aP: −.30b
R: 1.25a,b
P: .95a
R: 1.45a
P: .48b

1.88
1.77
1.91
2.03
1.95
1.89
1.53
1.90

R: 1.89a
P: 1.64a
R: .39a,b
P: .86a
R: 1.00a
P: 1.82b
R: 1.02a,b
P: 1.34a

1.63
2.02
1.94
2.06
1.82
1.76
1.30
1.80

R: .11a
P: −.84b
R: 1.91a
P: −1.30c
R: 1.36a
P: −.05b
R: .41a
P: −.20a,b

1.67
2.00
1.97
2.02
1.78
2.33
2.32
2.48

R: .14a
P: −.91b
R: −.14b
P: −.91b,c
R: .07b
P: −.59b
R: −.27a,b
P: −.73b

1.84
1.99
2.09
2.28
2.41
2.34
2.24
2.39

Note: Means not sharing a subscript within a measure differ at p b .05.

F(1, 86) = 23.22, p b .001, d = 1.04, whereas partners did not differ
as a function of the emotion regulation manipulation, p = .36.
Finally, we examined participants' reports of how comfortable theinteraction was. This analysis produced main effects for Emotion Regulation, F(1, 86) = 7.72, p b .01, d = .60, and Role F(1, 86) = 9.23, p b .01,
d = .66. Regulators reported the conversation as being more uncomfortable than their partners, and both regulators and partners in the
suppression condition reported the conversation as being more uncomfortable than regulators and partners in the expression condition.
We observed no signiﬁcant effects for reports of conversation
difﬁculty as a function of Emotion Regulation or Role, ps N .11.
3.2. Physiological responses
We ﬁrst examined raw PEP, CO, and TPR scores taken at baseline to
examine whether differences might obscure reactivity effects. No
differences in baseline measures were observed, ps N .25. See Table 2
for means and standard deviations.2
3.2.1. Preparation period
Data collected during the preparation period were treated as independent (see SOM for non-independence tests) because the dyad had
not yet formed.
3.2.1.1. PEP. As expected, during the anticipatory phase no signiﬁcanteffects for PEP emerged as a function of the Emotion Regulation
Condition or Role, ps N .52 (see Fig. 1a). All participants exhibitedan increase in SNS arousal as overall reactivity was signiﬁcantly
lower than zero where zero indicates no change from baseline and anegative score indicates lower PEP, or more sympathetic arousal(overall M = −3.64, SD = 6.60), t(176) = 7.34, p b .001, d = 1.11.
3.2.1.2. CO. Analysis of CO reactivity during the anticipatory phase produced no signiﬁcant effects, ps N .23 (see Fig. 1b).
3.2.1.3. TPR. Analysis of TPR during the anticipatory phase produced
a marginally signiﬁcant main effect for Emotion Regulation,
2
Some research suggest that gender inﬂuences social interactions (Mendes et al.,2003). However, including gender as a covariate or factor had no discernible impact on
the physiological ﬁndings.

104

B.J. Peters et al. / International Journal of Psychophysiology 94 (2014) 100–107

Table 2Means and standard deviations for raw physiological scores as a function of the Emotion
Regulation Condition and Role.
Emotion Regulation Condition
Suppression
Reactivity scores
Baseline
PEP
CO
TPR

Preparation
PEP
CO
TPR

Conversation
PEP
CO
TPR

Expression

M

SD

M

SD

R: 92.60
P: 103.34
R: 6.52
P: 7.62
R: 1147.98
P: 992.45

10.15
13.86
1.78
2.47
331.21
327.49

R: 90.11
P: 104.78
R: 6.60
P: 7.07
R: 1095.08
P: 1138.24

11.39
11.30
1.25
2.77
258.46446.15

R: 88.80
P: 101.06
R: 6.45
P: 7.31
R: 1271.20
P: 1083.52

11.45
16.29
1.82
2.35
381.05347.34

R: 87.97
P: 101.94
R: 6.51
P: 6.75
R: 1149.74
P: 1226.89

12.10
11.10
1.41
2.50
297.01428.66

R: 84.52
P: 99.49
R: 6.54
P: 7.14
R: 1357.92
P: 1217.52

11.71
14.84
2.00
2.51
444.30525.51

R: 84.60
P: 99.27
R: 6.49
P: 6.86
R: 1247.08
P: 1294.79

11.42
10.30
1.45
2.82
346.06483.97

Note: R = regulators, P = partners of regulators, PEP = pre-ejection period,
CO = cardiac output, TPR = total peripheral resistance.

F(1, 169) = 2.92, p = .09, d = .26 (see Fig. 1c). No other TPR effects
were signiﬁcant, p N .30. To test the a priori prediction that suppressive
regulators would exhibit greater vasoconstriction during the anticipatory phase than expressive regulators and partners of both expressive andsuppressive regulators, a planned contrast model was run using the following contrast weights: suppressive regulators = 1; expressive regulators, and partners of expression and suppression = − .33. The
predicted model was signiﬁcant, F(1, 169) = 3.99, p = .05, d = .31, suggesting that suppressive regulators had higher TPR reactivity scoresthan the other three groups.
Taken together, suppressive regulators exhibited a pattern of physiological responding associated with the experience of threat (SNSarousal combined with vasoconstriction) before even beginning theconversation. On the other hand, partners were, as expected, unaffectedby the emotion regulation manipulation during preparation since they
had yet to interact with the regulators.
3.2.2. Conversation
Participants were introduced (thus the dyad forms) at the start ofthe conversation. Analyses of all conversation data account for any
non-independence resulting from dyad.3
3.2.2.1. PEP. As with the anticipatory phase, we observed no signiﬁcant
PEP effects as a function of the Emotion Regulation Condition or Role,
ps N .12 (see Fig. 2a). During the conversation all participants exhibited
increased SNS activation relative to both baseline (overall M = −9.97,
SD = 8.17), t(175) = 16.14, p b .001, d = 2.44.
3.2.2.2. CO. Regulators exhibited higher CO scores (M = .27, SD = .89)
than partners (M = −.03, SD = .88), F(1, 83) = 5.29, p = .02, d = .50.
However, the main effect for Role was qualiﬁed by a marginally3
Despite the analyses suggesting that regulators' and partners' scores on many measures were largely independent (see SOM), we continued to recognize the potential dependence across regulators and partners once the dyad had formed by employing anappropriate, albeit conservative, approach that treated any data collected after the dyad
had formed as non-independent.

Fig. 1. Mean cardiovascular data and standard errors for participants during the preparation
period by Role and Emotion Regulation Condition. PEP = pre-ejection period; CO = cardiac
output; TPR = total peripheral resistance. a—preparation PEP; b—preparation CO;
c—preparation TPR.

signiﬁcant Emotion Regulation × Role interaction, F(1, 83) = 3.82,
p = .051, d = .42. Planned contrasts were used to test the hypothesisthat regulators of suppression and their partners would exhibit lower

B.J. Peters et al. / International Journal of Psychophysiology 94 (2014) 100–107

105

3.2.2.3. TPR. Consistent with predictions, we observed a main effect for
Emotion Regulation in our analysis of TPR reactivity during the conversation, F(1, 82) = 7.08, p b .01, d = .59 (see Fig. 2c). Both regulators andtheir partners in the suppression condition exhibited greater vasoconstriction (M = 199.95, SD = 220.96) than regulators and partners in
the expression condition (M = 113.91, SD = 185.52). No other effects
were signiﬁcant, ps N .56. In sum, participants in social interactions inwhich one was instructed to suppress affective displays exhibited a pattern of physiological reactivity consistent with the experience of threat(SNS arousal—see PEP data—combined with vasoconstriction).

4. Discussion

Fig. 2. Mean cardiovascular data and standard errors for participants during the conversation by Role and Emotion Regulation Condition. PEP = pre-ejection period; CO = cardiac
output; TPR = total peripheral resistance. a—conversation PEP; b—conversation CO;
c—conversation TPR.

CO scores than dyads in the expression condition by applying the following contrast weights: regulators and partners of expression = 1;
regulators and partners of suppression, =− 1. This model did not ﬁt
the observed data, p = .29 (see Fig. 2b).

This study examined the effects of response-focused emotion regulation (speciﬁcally expressive suppression and expression) in anticipation of and during dyadic social interaction on physiological andcognitive responses in regulators and partners of regulators. There
were several noteworthy ﬁndings. First, suppressive regulators reported
holding back their emotions more than expressive regulators, and partners who interacted with suppressive regulators (and were unaware of
the manipulation) reported that those individuals displayed signiﬁcantly less emotion, facial expressions, and gestures. The emotion regulation
manipulation also had negative consequences for interaction appraisals.
Regulators (across both levels of the manipulation) experienced the interaction as more intense and uncomfortable than their partners. Moreinterestingly, partners of suppressive regulators indicated that theirpartners were worse overall communicators compared to partners ofexpressive regulators.
Notable effects also emerged in our analyses of individuals' physiological responses. During the anticipatory preparation period, we
expected only suppressive regulators (not their interaction partners)
to exhibit adverse effects of suppressing affect because the dyad had
yet to interact. This prediction was supported. Whereas all participants
exhibited SNS arousal when anticipating an emotionally-charged
conversation with a stranger, only suppressive regulators exhibited
greater vasoconstriction, which is typically diagnostic of threat(e.g., see Blascovich and Mendes, 2010 for a review; Jamieson et al.,2013b, 2012). During the emotional conversation, however, bothsuppressive regulators and their partners (i.e. the dyad) exhibited
maladaptive physiological threat responses: SNS arousal combinedwith vasoconstriction. The negative effects exhibited by suppressive
regulators impacted the physiological responses of their partners. Thispattern of ﬁndings may have implications for health as threat proﬁleshave been associated with impaired decision making in the shortterm and accelerated “brain aging”, cognitive decline, and cardiovascular disease in the long-term (Jefferson et al., 2010; Kassam et al., 2009;
Matthews et al., 1997).
Taken together, these results provide the ﬁrst empirical evidence
using motivationally-tuned physiological measures that suppression ofnegative emotions has negative consequences for cardiovascularresponses in both regulators and partners during social interactions(cf., Ben-Naim et al., 2013; Butler et al., 2003, 2006). Lay theories
suggest that withholding negative emotions may beneﬁt interactions.
As the old adage goes, “if you don't have anything nice to say [or display
in this case], don't say anything at all.” However, the data presented
here indicate that limiting displays of negative affect cannot only
harm the quality of social interactions, but can also have deleterious
effects for physiological responses. When discussing disappointments,
problems, or any general negative event, it may be disadvantageous
not to display appropriate negative affect. Consistent with a large bodyof research demonstrating affective signals enhance social communication (Haidt and Keltner, 1999; Keltner and Kring, 1998; Tangney et al.,2013), this research suggests that expressing negative affect when
discussing an emotionally-negative topic can promote beneﬁcial
responses in both regulators and their partners.

106

B.J. Peters et al. / International Journal of Psychophysiology 94 (2014) 100–107

More broadly, the current study advances emotion regulation theory. Down-regulating negative affect has been a primary focus of emotion
regulation research since the area's conception (see Gross, 2002, for areview). However, the ﬁndings presented here suggest it can be advantageous to express, not limit, negative emotions. Because the situation
here was objectively negative (watching a negatively-valenced video),
expressing negative emotions during a social exchange facilitated theinteraction. Just as it is more adaptive to reappraise stress arousal asfunctional in acutely stressful situations than to down-regulate SNS
arousal (see Jamieson et al., 2013b, for a review), expressing appropriate negative affect is better than withholding affective displays.
Thus, situational/contextual information must be considered when determining the effectiveness of different regulation strategies.
When considering these ﬁndings, however, limitations should beconsidered. Importantly, research suggests differences in cultural
norms for various emotion regulation strategies. For instance, whereas
expressing emotion may beneﬁt Westerners, emotional expressivity
has been correlated with worse health outcomes in East Asians (Butler
et al., 2009; Soto et al., 2011). Similarly, the race of interaction partners
can potentially have a profound effect on physiological responses insocial situations (cf., Jamieson et al., 2013a). Despite Asians or AsianAmericans representing over a quarter (27%) of our sample, post-hoc
exploratory analyses revealed no differences in any measure as a function of race/ethnicity. However, this research was not designed to testfor differences as a function of culture or race/ethnicity. Follow-up
research may seek to examine expressive suppression in same- versus
cross-race interactions.
Along similar lines, prior studies suggest expressing emotion with an
opposite-sex stranger can elicit physiological threat responses (Mendes
et al., 2003), and women engage in less suppression than men (Gross
and John, 2003). Although gender had no signiﬁcant effects here,
there were several substantial differences between this and previous
research. First, the current study had unacquainted, non-confederate
strangers interact. Second, we had disparate conceptualizations ofexpressive suppression. Instead of allowing or delaying a conversation,
we manipulated emotional context via expression and suppression ofaffective signals. These differences open up avenues for future researchby varying contextual factors.
Another possible limitation stemmed from the well-controlled
nature of the experiment. Regulators were given explicit emotion regulation instructions, which could have created an artiﬁcial context. For
example, not only were suppressive regulators required to exert effort
concealing affective displays, but expressive regulators, too, may haveexerted effort trying to maximize affective signaling. The effort exerted
in both regulator conditions could have attenuated observed effect sizes
for comparisons of suppressive and expressive regulators. In line withthis reasoning, Robinson and Demaree (2009) found when participants
were viewing a ﬁlm, exaggeration led to sympathetic arousal (increased
skin conductance level (SCL) and shorter PEP intervals), whereas
suppression led to the opposite pattern (increased SCL, longer PEP).
However, the physiological responses observed here during the anticipatory phase, as well as regulators' and partners' cognitive appraisals
suggest that suppression was driving the observed effects rather thanthe expressive condition up-regulating affective signaling. For example,
expressive regulators, partners of expressive regulators, and partners of
suppressive regulators all exhibited similar patterns of physiologicalreactivity during the anticipatory phase. Even though the two partnergroups were given no regulation instructions, they responded similarly
as the expressive regulators.
These data raise the possibility that the emotion regulation effects
observed here could be extended to acquainted interaction partners.
Threat-related physiological responses were observed in response to
suppressing emotion in unacquainted opposite-sex strangers. Recently,
researchers have started to examine emotion regulation processes inacquainted dyads such as romantic couples (Ben-Naim et al., 2013). It
is possible that the emotion regulation processes speciﬁed here may

unfold differently in romantic partners compared to unacquainted partners. For example, partners who are familiar with their partners, but
unaware of emotion regulation instructions, may be alarmed at thesudden change in affective signaling leading to exacerbated physiological responses. However, follow-up research is needed to elucidate
the physiological and cognitive responses to suppression/expressionin couples.
4.1. Conclusion
In sum, this research is the ﬁrst to examine how responsefocused emotion regulation (suppression and expression) impacted
motivationally-tuned physiological responses and interaction outcomes in both regulators and their partners. Suppressing affective signals led to threat-related physiological and psychological responses
for regulators and partners, despite the suppressed emotions being
negatively-valenced. More generally, this study demonstrates the utility of using motivationally-tuned physiological measures to tap into underlying processes of dyadic interactions and is part of the burgeoning
area of research that seeks to bring the “social” back into social psychology research by examining situational inﬂuences in social interactive
contexts (Reis, 2008).
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2014.07.015.
References
Amirkhan, J., Risinger, R., Swickert, R., 1995. Extraversion: a “hidden” personality factor in
coping? J. Pers. 63 (2), 189–212. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1995.
tb00807.x.
Ben-Naim, S.,Hirschberger, G., Ein-Dor, T.,Mikulincer, M., 2013. An experimental study ofemotion regulation during relationship conﬂict interactions: the moderating role ofattachment orientations. Emotion 13 (3), 506–519. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
a0031473.
Blascovich, J.J.,Mendes, W.B., 2010. Social psychophysiology and embodiment, In: Fiske, S.
T., Gilbert, D.T., Lindzey, G. (Eds.), Handbook of Social Psychology, 5th ed. John Wiley& Sons Inc., New York, NY, pp. 194–227.
Bonanno, G.a, Papa, A., Lalande, K., Westphal, M., Coifman, K., 2004. The importance ofbeing ﬂexible: the ability to both enhance and suppress emotional expression predicts long-term adjustment. Psychol. Sci. 15 (7), 482–487. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00705.x.
Butler, E.A., Egloff, B., Wlhelm, F.H., Smith, N.C., Erickson, E.A., Gross, J.J., 2003. The social
consequences of expressive suppression. Emotion 3 (1), 48–67. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037/1528-3542.3.1.48.
Butler, E.A., Wilhelm, F.H., Gross, J.J., 2006. Respiratory sinus arrhythmia, emotion, andemotion regulation during social interaction. Psychophysiology 43 (6), 612–622.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.2006.00467.x.
Butler, E.A., Lee, T.L., Gross, J.J., 2009. Does expressing your emotions raise or lower yourblood pressure? The answer depends on cultural context. J. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 40(3), 510–517. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022022109332845.
Christenfeld, N., Gerin, W., Linden, W., Sanders, M., Mathur, J., Deich, J.D., Pickering, T.G.,
1997. Social support effects on cardiovascular reactivity: is a stranger as effective asa friend? Psychosom. Med. 59 (4), 388–398.
Dickerson, S.S., Kemeny, M.E., 2004. Acute stressors and cortisol responses: a theoretical
integration and synthesis of laboratory research. Psychol. Bull. 130 (3), 355–391.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.130.3.355.
Dunn, B.D., Billotti, D., Murphy, V., Dalgleish, T., 2009. The consequences of effortful emotion regulation when processing distressing material: a comparison of suppression
and acceptance. Behav. Res. Ther. 47 (9), 761–773. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.
2009.05.007.
English, T., John, O.P., Srivastava, S., Gross, J.J., 2012. Emotion regulation and peer-ratedsocial functioning: a four-year longitudinal study. J. Res. Pers. 46 (6), 780–784.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2012.09.006.
Glynn, L.M., Christenfeld, N., Gerin, W., 1999. Gender, social support, and cardiovascularresponses to stress. Psychosom. Med. 61 (2), 234–242.
Gross, J.J., 1998. Antecedent- and response-focused emotion regulation: divergent consequences for experience, expression, and physiology. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 74 (1),
224–237.
Gross, J.J., 2002. Emotion regulation: affective, cognitive, and social consequences. Psychophysiology 39 (3), 281–291. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0048577201393198.
Gross, J.J., Barrett, L.F., 2011. Emotion generation and emotion regulation: one or two
depends on your point of view. Emot. Rev. 3 (1), 8–16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
1754073910380974.

B.J. Peters et al. / International Journal of Psychophysiology 94 (2014) 100–107
Gross, J.J.,John, O.P., 2003. Individual differences in two emotion regulation processes: implications for affect, relationships, and well-being. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 85 (2),348–362. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.2.348.
Gross, J.J., Levenson, R.W., 1997. Hiding feelings: the acute effects of inhibiting negativeand positive emotion. J. Abnorm. Psychol. 106 (1), 95–103.
Haga, S.M.,Kraft, P.,Corby, E.K., 2007. Emotion regulation: antecedents and well-being outcomes of cognitive reappraisal and expressive suppression in cross-cultural samples.
J. Happiness Stud. 10 (3), 271–291. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10902-007-9080-3.
Hagemann, T., Levenson, R.W.,Gross, J.J., 2006. Expressive suppression during an acoustic
startle. Psychophysiology 43 (1), 104–112. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.
2006.00382.x.
Haidt, J., Keltner, D., 1999. Social functions of emotions at four levels of analysis. Cogn.
Emot. 13 (5), 505–521.
Harris, C., 2001. Cardiovascular responses of embarrassment and effects of emotional
suppression in a social setting. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 81 (5), 886–897. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1037//0022-3514.81.5.886.
Jamieson, J.P.,Harkins, S.G., 2010. Evaluation is necessary to produce stereotype threat performance effects. Soc. Inﬂu. 5 (2), 75–86. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15534510903512409(Jeremy P.).
Jamieson, J.P., Nock, M.K., Mendes, W.B., 2012. Mind over matter: reappraising arousal
improves cardiovascular and cognitive responses to stress. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 141(3), 417–422. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0025719.
Jamieson, J.P., Koslov, K., Nock, M.K., Mendes, W.B., 2013a. Experiencing discrimination
increases risk taking. Psychol. Sci. 24 (2), 131–139. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
0956797612448194.
Jamieson, J.P., Mendes, W.B., Nock, M.K., 2013b. Improving acute stress responses: thepower of reappraisal. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 22 (1), 51–56. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1177/0963721412461500.
Jefferson, A.L., Himali, J.J., Beiser, A.S., Au, R., Massaro, J.M., Seshadri, S., …, Manning, W.J.,
2010. Cardiac index is associated with brain aging: the Framingham Heart Study.
Circulation 122 (7), 690–697. http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.109.905091.
John, O.P., Gross, J.J., 2004. Healthy and unhealthy emotion regulation: personality
processes, individual differences, and life span development. J. Pers. 72 (6),1301–1333. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2004.00298.x.
Kassam, K.S.,Koslov, K.,Mendes, W.B., 2009. Decisions under distress: stress proﬁles inﬂuence anchoring and adjustment. Psychol. Sci. 20 (11), 1394–1399. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02455.x.
Keltner, D., Kring, A.M., 1998. Emotion, social function, and psychopathology. Rev. Gen.
Psychol. 2 (3), 320–342. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//1089-2680.2.3.320.
Kirk, R., 1995. Experimental Design. Brooks/Cole, Paciﬁc Grove, CA.
Lepore, S.J., 1995. Cynicism, social support, and cardiovascular reactivity. Health Psychol.
14 (3), 210–216.
Lepore, S.J., Allen, K.A., Evans, G.W., 1993. Social support lowers cardiovascular reactivity
to an acute stressor. Psychosom. Med. 55 (6), 518–524.
Matthews, K.A.,Gump, B.B.,Block, D.R.,Allen, M.T., 1997. Does background stress heighten
or dampen children's cardiovascular responses to acute stress? Psychosom. Med. 59,
488–496.

107

Mauss, I.B.,Cook, C.L.,Cheng, J.Y.J.,Gross, J.J., 2007. Individual differences in cognitive reappraisal: experiential and physiological responses to an anger provocation. Int. J.
Psychophysiol. 66 (2), 116–124. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2007.03.017.
Mendes, W.B., Reis, H.T., Seery, M.D., Blascovich, J.J., 2003. Cardiovascular correlates of
emotional expression and suppression: do content and gender context matter? J.
Pers. Soc. Psychol. 84 (4), 771–792. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.4.771.
Mendes, W.B.,Blascovich, J.,Hunter, S.B., Lickel, B.,Jost, J.T., 2007. Threatened by the unexpected: physiological responses during social interactions with expectancy-violating
partners. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 92 (4), 698–716. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.
92.4.698.
Mendes, W.B.,Major, B.,McCoy, S.,Blascovich, J., 2008. How attributional ambiguity shapes
physiological and emotional responses to social rejection and acceptance. J. Pers. Soc.
Psychol. 94 (2), 278–291. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.94.2.278.
Moore, S.A., Zoellner, L.A., Mollenholt, N., 2008. Are expressive suppression and cognitive
reappraisal associated with stress-related symptoms? Behav. Res. Ther. 46 (9),993–1000. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2008.05.001.
Reis, H.T., 2008. Reinvigorating the concept of situation in social psychology. Pers. Soc.
Psychol. Rev. 12 (4), 311–329. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1088868308321721.
Richards, J.M., Gross, J.J., 2000. Emotion regulation and memory: the cognitive costs ofkeeping one's cool. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 79 (3), 410–424.
Robinson, J.L., Demaree, H.a., 2009. Experiencing and regulating sadness: physiologicaland cognitive effects. Brain Cogn. 70 (1), 13–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.
2008.06.007.
Seery, M.D., Silver, R.C., Holman, E.A., Ence, W.A., Chu, T.Q., 2008. Expressing thoughts andfeelings following a collective trauma: immediate responses to 9/11 predict negative
outcomes in a national sample. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 76 (4), 657–667. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.76.4.657.
Smith, T.W., 1992. Hostility and health: current status of a psychosomatic hypothesis.
Health Psychol. 11 (3), 139–150.
Soto, J.A., Perez, C.R., Kim, Y.-H., Lee, E.A., Minnick, M.R., 2011. Is expressive suppression
always associated with poorer psychological functioning? A cross-cultural comparison
between European Americans and Hong Kong Chinese. Emotion 11 (6), 1450–1455.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0023340.
Srivastava, S., Tamir, M., McGonigal, K.M., John, O.P., Gross, J.J., 2009. The social costs ofemotional suppression: a prospective study of the transition to college. J. Pers. Soc.
Psychol. 96 (4), 883–897. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0014755.
Tangney, J.P., Stuewig, J., Malouf, E.T., Youman, K., 2013. Communicative functions ofshame and guilt. In: Sterelny, K., Joyce, R., Calcott, B., Fraser, B. (Eds.), Cooperation
and Its Evolution. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 486–501.
Von Dras, D.D., Siegler, I.C., 1997. Stability in extraversion and aspects of social support at
midlife. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 72 (1), 233–241.
Watson, D., Clark, L.A., Tellegen, A., 1988. Development and validation of brief measuresof positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 54 (6),1063–1070.