Attachment anxiety and the curvilinear effects of expressive suppression on individuals’ and partners’ outcomes.

Abstract

Suppressing the expression of negative emotions tends to undermine individuals' and their partners' wellbeing. However, sometimes expressive suppression may be relatively innocuous given that individuals commonly withhold negative emotions in order to maintain close relationships, and this may be especially the case when expressive suppression is enacted by people who exhibit amplified expressions of negative emotions, such as those high in attachment anxiety. The current research examined when and for whom expressive suppression may be more or less costly by testing whether the curvilinear effect of individuals' expressive suppression on individuals' and partners' outcomes is moderated by individuals' attachment anxiety. Our results across 3 dyadic studies revealed a linear effect of expressive suppression when predicting individuals' outcomes: greater expressive suppression had costs for individuals (lower relationship satisfaction, reported responsiveness and discussion success, and greater discussion threat). Furthermore, in 4 of the 5 models, a moderated curvilinear effect of expressive suppression emerged when predicting partners' outcomes. For individuals low in attachment anxiety, low levels of expressive suppression did not incur costs for their partners' relationship satisfaction, perceptions of individuals' responsiveness, discussion success, and discussion threat. Once expressive suppression surpassed moderate levels, however, greater expressive suppression had a detrimental effect on partners' outcomes. In contrast, for individuals high in attachment anxiety, the negative effect of moderate-to-high levels of expressive suppression on partners' outcomes was attenuated. These novel results demonstrate how considering curvilinear methods can uncover when and for whom expressive suppression may be more or less costly in intimate relationships.

Prospective associations between emotion regulation and depressive symptoms among Mexican-origin adolescents.

“…Although the current study provided important insights into how reappraisal and suppression are associated with symptoms of two core affective facets of depression among Mexican-origin in late adolescence, several limitations need to be considered. First, our focus on self-reported habitual reappraisal and suppression may not fully reflect the potential utility of these strategies in particular contexts and variability in whether these strategies are successfully implemented (Ford & Troy, 2019; Girme et al, 2020). Since contexts can influence the difficulty of using emotion regulation strategies (Suri et al, 2018; Young & Suri, 2020), they can moderate the relation between emotion regulation and psychological health (Troy et al, 2017).…”

Individual differences in emotion regulation and cardiovascular responding to stress.

“…Habitual use of suppression tends to be associated with greater negative affect, greater anxiety and depressive symptoms, and lower positive affect (e.g., Nolen-Hoeksema & Aldao, 2011). However, under certain conditions reappraisal may not always be positive (Ford & Troy, 2019) and suppression always negative (Geisler & Schröder-Abé, 2015; Girme et al, 2020). Importantly, habitual use of these strategies appears to reflect stable behavioral tendencies and show temporal stability (e.g., Balzarotti et al, 2010; Batistoni et al, 2013; Gross & John, 2003).…”

Individual Differences in Emotion Regulation and Cardiovascular Responding to Stress

“…Habitual use of suppression tends to be associated with greater negative affect, greater anxiety and depressive symptoms, and lower positive affect (e.g., Nolen-Hoeksema & Aldao, 2011). However, under certain conditions reappraisal may not always be positive (Ford & Troy, 2019) and suppression always negative (Geisler & Schröder-Abé, 2015;Girme et al, 2020). Importantly, habitual use of these strategies appears to reflect stable behavioural tendencies and show temporal stability (e.g., Balzarotti et al, 2010;Batistoni et al, 2013;Gross & John, 2003).…”