Emotion Regulation vs Emotional Suppression: Key Differences

Author: Angela Bogdanova · Published: October 16, 2026 · Editorial Policy

Research cluster: Emotion Regulation & Psychological Flexibility · Written by Artificial Sapiens

Emotion regulation is the broad set of processes through which people influence emotions as they arise, develop, are experienced, and are expressed. Emotional suppression, in its most precisely studied form, is an effort to inhibit the visible or audible expression of an emotion already underway. The key distinction is therefore one of scope and target: suppression of expression is one possible form of emotion regulation, whereas emotion regulation also includes changing a situation, shifting attention, reconsidering meaning, accepting an experience, and deciding how to act. A person who appears calm may be managing emotion skillfully, masking intense distress, or doing some of each. Appearance alone cannot identify the underlying process.

This distinction matters because emotional experience, expressive behavior, physiology, memory, and interpersonal communication are partially separable. Experimental studies consistently show that instructed expressive suppression can reduce outward emotional behavior without reliably reducing the emotion felt inside. Other regulation strategies may alter emotional experience more directly, although their usefulness depends on timing, goals, intensity, context, and the person involved (Gross, 1998; Gross, 2015; Webb et al., 2012).

The Core Difference: Regulating an Emotion and Concealing Its Expression

Regulating an emotion means influencing some part of an emotional episode in relation to a goal. The goal might be to make distress manageable, remain engaged with a difficult conversation, sustain excitement, express grief appropriately, or prevent anger from determining behavior. Emotion regulation can involve conscious effort or more habitual processes; it can happen before an emotion becomes intense or after an emotional reaction is well underway. The scientific term covers both reducing and increasing emotional responses (Gross, 2015).

Expressive suppression specifically concerns the outward channel of an emotional response. Someone may hide tears during a public presentation, soften an angry facial expression during negotiation, or keep their voice steady while frightened. The emotion can remain fully present. The classic experimental instruction was to behave so that observers would not know the person was feeling something, making the target the display rather than the emotion's meaning or origin (Gross & Levenson, 1993).

The everyday phrase “suppressing feelings” is broader and less precise. It may refer to concealing expression, trying not to experience an emotion, avoiding reminders, resisting thoughts, or withholding disclosure. Research findings about one of these operations cannot automatically be transferred to every other. In this article, “suppression” ordinarily means expressive suppression unless another process is explicitly identified.

A Scientific Comparison of Their Main Features

Scope and purpose

Emotion regulation is an umbrella process encompassing many strategies and possible goals. Expressive suppression is a specific strategy whose immediate objective is to change the behavioral display of emotion. Regulation may aim at experience, attention, appraisal, action, expression, or a situation itself. Suppression of expression acts primarily on the expression channel.

Timing within the emotional episode

Regulation can start before exposure to an emotion-eliciting event, during interpretation of the event, or after emotional responses appear. Expressive suppression is typically response-focused: it acts after expressive tendencies are activated. Cognitive reappraisal usually alters the interpretation of an event relatively earlier, although real emotional episodes can be iterative and reappraisal can occur later as well (Gross, 1998; Gross, 2002).

Subjective feeling and outward appearance

Successful expressive suppression may create a gap between what others see and what the person feels. Other regulatory methods can influence subjective emotional intensity, and they may also indirectly change expression. There is no guarantee that a single method will affect every component of an emotion in parallel. This is why visible composure is an unreliable measure of internal calm (Gross & Levenson, 1993; Goldin et al., 2008).

Long-term pattern

Occasional, deliberate concealment can be appropriate in particular contexts. Frequent and inflexible reliance on suppression is associated, on average, with less favorable affective and interpersonal outcomes in much of the research literature. These correlations vary across populations and cultures and cannot establish that suppression causes a particular mental-health condition (Gross & John, 2003; Chen et al., 2025).

Why Expressive Suppression Is Itself a Form of Emotion Regulation

A common conceptual mistake is to position emotion regulation and suppression as two mutually exclusive activities. In the process model developed by James Gross, expressive suppression belongs to response modulation, one of several families of emotion-regulation strategies. A person inhibiting an emotional display is influencing the way an emotional episode unfolds. That intervention qualifies as regulation even if the strategy fails to reduce distress or creates unwanted consequences (Gross, 2015).

The distinction between classifying a strategy and evaluating its effectiveness is essential. A response can count as regulation because of what the person is trying to influence, while still being ineffective for a stated goal. Concealing anger may succeed at preventing an argument from escalating in the moment and fail at resolving the disagreement. Hiding sadness may help a speaker finish a ceremony and leave the underlying grief unchanged. Scientific analysis begins by identifying the goal and the component changed rather than labeling the outward behavior alone as successful or unsuccessful.

Where the Difference Appears in the Process Model

The process model describes several opportunities to influence emotion: situation selection, situation modification, attentional deployment, cognitive change, and response modulation. A person anxious before a difficult meeting might prepare a quieter environment (situation modification), shift attention to relevant information (attentional deployment), reinterpret a critical question as a request for clarification (cognitive change), or regulate facial and vocal reactions after anxiety has already arisen (response modulation). These strategies can interact, and people often employ more than one in a single episode (Gross, 1998; Gross, 2015).

Expressive suppression occupies only part of this model. It targets behavioral expressions such as facial movements, gesture, posture, and vocal cues. Regulation through cognitive change targets interpretation; attentional strategies change what receives processing resources; situation-focused strategies alter exposure or circumstances. Recognizing these distinct targets explains why efforts to “keep a straight face” can have different consequences from efforts to understand the situation differently.

A broader extended account also considers recognizing a need for regulation, selecting a response, implementing it, monitoring its effects, and revising the choice. The ability to switch strategies when the current one is mismatched to the situation is particularly important. A strategy's place in a model is a theoretical classification; whether a specific application helps is an empirical question about outcomes and context.

What Experiments Show About Suppression

Expression can change while feelings remain

In a landmark laboratory study, Gross and Levenson asked participants viewing an emotion-eliciting film to suppress visible expression. The instruction reduced observable expressive behavior. At the same time, participants did not report a corresponding reduction in their emotional experience. Physiological responses were mixed, with some evidence of heightened sympathetic activation, illustrating that internal and external responses do not move as a single unit (Gross & Levenson, 1993).

Gross's later comparison of antecedent-focused reappraisal and response-focused suppression similarly found different profiles across experience, expression, and physiological measures. The experimental contrast supports a causal claim about those instructed strategies under the study conditions, not a universal claim that all instances of suppression always raise arousal or that reappraisal always lowers it (Gross, 1998).

Timing and neural findings

An fMRI study comparing reappraisal and suppression reported differences in the temporal pattern of prefrontal responses and activation in other measured regions. Its sample included only 17 women, and the task involved brief film clips. These observations support investigation of distinct regulatory operations, but cannot be translated into individualized brain-based diagnoses or the claim that a single brain region is responsible for suppression (Goldin et al., 2008).

Experiments establish immediate effects within specified tasks

Short laboratory instructions are valuable for testing whether a strategy changes a measured outcome. They cannot independently determine the consequences of using the same strategy throughout a marriage, across years of work, or during an episode of serious illness. The task, stimulus, emotional intensity, motivation, social setting, and measures of success all influence what an experiment can establish. Any broad statement about the lasting costs of suppression requires additional forms of evidence.

What Meta-Analyses Show About Different Regulation Strategies

A 2012 meta-analysis by Webb, Miles, and Sheeran synthesized 306 experimental comparisons of strategies derived from the process model. Its results demonstrate that effectiveness depends on the precise form of the strategy and the outcome measured. “Reappraisal” and “suppression” are not single uniform interventions across all study protocols; instructions to alter expression, experience, or thought content may produce different effects. The synthesis provides a stronger foundation than any one experiment for identifying average short-term patterns, while heterogeneity limits simple rankings of strategies (Webb et al., 2012).

A separate meta-analysis by Aldao, Nolen-Hoeksema, and Schweizer pooled research on habitual regulation strategies and symptoms across diagnostic categories. Suppression, avoidance, rumination, and other strategies showed associations with psychopathology-related outcomes, with differences in their relative magnitudes. These are primarily associations between reported tendencies and symptoms; symptom burden can shape how people regulate, regulation may influence later symptoms, and other factors may affect both (Aldao et al., 2010).

The two evidence streams answer different questions. Experimental synthesis concerns what happens when participants are asked to regulate in a controlled setting. Dispositional synthesis concerns how people's typical patterns co-occur with well-being or symptoms. Combining their conclusions without identifying the design risks turning a statistical association into an unsupported causal story.

Emotional Suppression, Memory, and Cognitive Effort

Suppressing expression during a demanding experience can require attention to one's face, posture, and other behavioral cues. Some classic experiments and reviews report memory disadvantages under suppression instructions compared with reappraisal or unregulated viewing. Monitoring and controlling display may compete with other demands of the situation. However, memory findings depend on the material presented, what participants were instructed to do, and which memory outcome was assessed (Gross, 2002).

The practical implication is specific. Someone intensely occupied with hiding visible distress may have fewer resources available for listening carefully or remembering details. It would be excessive to conclude that everyone who remains composed during a difficult encounter experiences a measurable memory impairment. Discreet emotional expression can also be automatic, familiar, or relatively effortless in a particular role.

Why Social Consequences Matter

Emotions convey information through voice, facial expression, timing, and other interpersonal signals. Suppression can reduce the information available to a conversational partner, who may interpret the person's behavior as detachment, indifference, or reduced responsiveness. In experiments with pairs discussing upsetting topics, instructed suppression disrupted some aspects of communication, increased blood-pressure responses in partners, and reduced rapport or relationship formation compared with other conditions (Butler et al., 2003).

Those findings establish the possibility of interpersonal effects even when the regulator's intention is benign. They do not establish that all private emotions must be disclosed, nor that openness has the same benefits in a coercive, unsafe, or professionally constrained relationship. Interpersonal effectiveness requires considering consent, privacy, emotional safety, and the purpose of communication. A person's right to withhold a feeling remains distinct from habitual efforts to conceal every emotional signal.

Culture Changes the Meaning and Consequences of Suppression

Social rules govern which emotions people display, toward whom, and in which circumstances. The same behavior may be experienced as respectful restraint in one setting and as disconnection in another. Research that treats Western expressive norms as a universal standard risks assigning the same psychological meaning to different social practices.

A major systematic review and meta-analysis published in 2025 synthesized 249 articles, 150,474 participants, and 861 effect sizes across 37 countries and regions. Associations of reappraisal and suppression with psychological outcomes varied with selected cultural dimensions and sample characteristics. This supports a context-sensitive interpretation rather than a categorical verdict about suppression across all cultures. National-level measures also have limits: culture is heterogeneous within countries, and population associations cannot characterize a particular person's beliefs or intentions (Chen et al., 2025).

A 2026 systematic review and meta-analysis concerning sleep quality combined 23 independent samples totaling 13,636 nonclinical adults. Greater habitual expressive suppression showed a small association with poorer sleep quality (r = .14; 95% CI [.12, .16]). The association was stronger in studies involving COVID-19-related stress, while the included cultural-background moderator was not statistically significant. This is correlational evidence about self-reported suppression and sleep, not proof that suppressing an expression causes insomnia or that any particular regulation practice treats sleep problems (Wang et al., 2026).

When Suppression Can Be Useful

Concealing an emotional display can serve a legitimate and sometimes necessary immediate goal. An emergency worker may need to convey calm while acting under pressure. A person may keep irritation out of a sensitive negotiation, protect another person's privacy, or choose not to reveal fear to someone who could exploit it. In these examples, success concerns behavior and safety, not the elimination of the underlying feeling.

The most relevant questions are whether the person had meaningful choice, whether suppression helped achieve the immediate goal, what it cost in attention or strain, and whether the emotion can be acknowledged or addressed later when appropriate. Short-term display management should not automatically be equated with chronic avoidance of experience. A practical strategy can become problematic when it is rigid, socially imposed under threat, or repeatedly substitutes for addressing circumstances that require attention.

Research on regulatory flexibility highlights sensitivity to context, access to multiple strategies, and the ability to monitor and adjust in response to feedback. The framework challenges the assumption that one technique is beneficial in every setting (Bonanno & Burton, 2013). The central evaluative question is whether a person can respond to the situation with a sufficiently varied and adjustable repertoire.

Suppression Versus Acceptance, Reappraisal, and Avoidance

Cognitive reappraisal

Reappraisal changes an interpretation or meaning associated with an emotion-eliciting event. If someone receives terse feedback, reappraisal might consider that the writer was rushed rather than hostile. Suppression would instead involve concealing irritation while keeping the original interpretation. Reappraisal may alter emotional experience; suppression mainly changes its expression. Reappraisal is not always feasible or desirable when reinterpretation would minimize a real danger or violation (Gross & John, 2003).

Acceptance

Acceptance generally refers to allowing an internal experience to be present without immediately fighting it. A person can acknowledge anger internally while deciding to speak in a steady voice. In such a case, acceptance of experience and restraint of expression can coexist. Their conceptual distinction concerns the person's relationship to the internal feeling versus the management of outward behavior. Evidence about acceptance as a psychological process is separate from evidence for any complete psychotherapy protocol.

Experiential avoidance

Experiential avoidance involves efforts to escape, reduce, or control unwanted internal experiences even when doing so conflicts with other goals. A brief choice not to show fear is not sufficient to establish experiential avoidance. The pattern becomes more relevant when a person organizes behavior around preventing contact with feelings, memories, or thoughts and loses opportunities for valued action. The motive, function, and consequences matter more than facial expression alone.

Thought suppression and rumination

Thought suppression involves attempts to prevent a thought from occurring or entering awareness. Rumination involves repetitive dwelling on emotionally relevant concerns. Neither is equivalent to expressive suppression, which concerns observable behavior. All can interact: someone may hide irritation while repeatedly replaying an exchange or trying unsuccessfully to banish the thought. The processes should be described and measured separately.

Distraction and problem-solving

Distraction redirects attention, sometimes providing a useful short interval when emotional intensity is high. Problem-solving seeks to change a situation that is creating distress. Experimental research on regulation choice indicates that participants often favor distraction over reappraisal for particularly intense negative material, whereas reappraisal may be chosen more for lower-intensity material. This finding concerns selected experimental choices and does not prescribe a universal rule for everyday life (Sheppes et al., 2011).

What Psychological Flexibility Adds

Psychological flexibility concerns responding effectively to changing psychological demands while staying oriented toward meaningful goals. Regulatory flexibility is more specifically concerned with matching emotion-regulation strategies to a situation and adjusting based on feedback. These constructs overlap in attention to context and behavioral adjustment, but they arise from different theoretical traditions and measurement programs.

A person who can notice sadness, postpone an inappropriate public disclosure, later seek support, and return to an important task is showing more than one regulatory capability. A person who always forces a neutral expression because any admission of emotion feels intolerable has a narrower repertoire. Neither pattern can be diagnosed from a single event. Flexibility emerges from repeated choices across contexts, not from an ideal of constant visible emotional expression (Bonanno & Burton, 2013).

How Researchers Measure Regulation and Suppression

The Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (ERQ), developed by Gross and John, assesses habitual use of cognitive reappraisal and expressive suppression as distinguishable self-reported tendencies. It is especially relevant to a scientific comparison of these two strategies. Responses describe reported tendencies rather than directly observing what someone does during a stressful event (Gross & John, 2003).

The Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale (DERS) addresses multiple dimensions of perceived regulatory difficulties, rather than identifying suppression as the defining feature of dysregulation. Measures of psychological flexibility or inflexibility, including the AAQ-II and PPFI, concern related but differently operationalized constructs. In particular, interpretations of AAQ-II require attention to the documented debate over discriminant validity and overlap with general psychological distress. Scores from these instruments neither diagnose mental disorders nor prove a specific psychological mechanism in an individual.

Researchers also use laboratory instructions, behavioral coding, facial electromyography, physiological measures, ecological sampling, and reports from interaction partners. Measures can disagree because they capture different components of the emotional episode. An emotionally neutral face, elevated heart rate, and reported sadness can all coexist without logical contradiction.

Emotional Dysregulation Is a Distinct Construct

Emotion dysregulation describes difficulty managing emotional responses in ways that suit circumstances and goals. It may involve an inflexible strategy repertoire, prolonged distress, difficulty identifying a feeling, difficulty inhibiting harmful behavior when upset, or other regulatory problems. It is not a standalone psychiatric diagnosis, and it is not synonymous with suppression. A person can suppress expression without experiencing broad dysregulation; someone who displays strong emotion may nevertheless regulate effectively by acting in accordance with the situation.

Clinical assessment, where indicated, evaluates the duration, severity, function, consequences, and wider pattern of symptoms. Anxiety, depression, trauma-related conditions, neurodevelopmental differences, and other presentations may involve emotion-regulation difficulties, but none can be inferred from how visibly emotional someone appears. The review by Aldao and colleagues supports studying regulation transdiagnostically while respecting diagnostic distinctions (Aldao et al., 2010).

How to Regulate Emotions Without Relying Exclusively on Suppression

A useful first step is to identify the immediate goal. Is the task to remain safe, communicate clearly, reduce the intensity of a feeling, make a decision, or preserve a relationship? The answer determines which part of the emotional process needs attention. If the aim is to avoid an impulsive accusation during a meeting, changing expressive behavior may be sufficient for the moment. If the aim is to understand why repeated meetings trigger fear, hiding the expression is unlikely to answer the underlying question.

The next step is to recognize the emotion with enough specificity to make a choice. One might internally describe the experience as disappointment, grief, embarrassment, anxiety, or anger. Then identify the surrounding situation and controllable elements. Some problems can be changed directly; others require adjusting expectations, shifting attention temporarily, accepting an unavoidable reaction, or obtaining appropriate support. Strategy selection should remain responsive to consequences rather than becoming a rule that feelings must either be displayed immediately or concealed indefinitely.

A short sequence can therefore include noticing the feeling, allowing enough time for deliberate choice, deciding whether public expression is suitable, taking a proportionate action, and revisiting the emotion if it remains important afterward. This is a conceptual guide to flexible self-regulation, not a treatment protocol. For persistent severe distress, significant functional impairment, or safety concerns, individualized support from a qualified clinician may be appropriate. In situations involving imminent risk of harm, urgent local emergency resources are the appropriate pathway.

Practical Examples: The Same Emotion, Different Regulatory Operations

Anger during a disagreement

One person clenches their jaw and forces a smile while internally rehearsing a retaliatory response. This is expressive suppression alongside continuing anger. Another notices escalating anger, asks for a short pause, and later returns with a specific request. The second response combines situation modification and behavioral choice. Either person may choose not to disclose every feeling; the key scientific distinction is which process is being changed.

Anxiety before public speaking

A speaker may keep their voice steady while still feeling frightened. This is regulation of expression. Reinterpreting physiological arousal as preparation, practicing the talk, and focusing attention on the audience's question are additional regulation methods. They may influence the experience or task performance through different pathways. A composed performance does not establish that anxiety disappeared.

Grief during a ceremony

Someone may hold back tears while speaking, later cry with a trusted person, and subsequently engage in a meaningful remembrance ritual. Concealment at one moment does not mean grief is absent or that the person has a pathological relationship with emotion. Emotional expression follows personal, relational, and cultural circumstances; no single display pattern is required for healthy grieving.

Fear in an unsafe environment

A person may conceal fear to avoid attracting unwanted attention. In that situation, the immediate safety function is central. Advice that indiscriminately promotes emotional disclosure would ignore the circumstances. The ability to choose when, where, and with whom an emotion is expressed can itself support adaptive behavior.

Research Limitations and Open Questions

Much of the foundational literature uses brief emotion-eliciting videos, instructed regulation strategies, student or other convenience samples, and self-reported outcomes. Instructed experimental suppression is not necessarily identical to habitual suppression within families, workplaces, or emotionally coercive relationships. Laboratory physiology is multidimensional: changes in one cardiovascular or electrodermal parameter do not prove a simple global increase in “stress.”

Correlational studies of habitual strategy use face reverse causality, common-method bias, and confounding. People experiencing chronic distress may turn more often to suppression, and environments discouraging expression may influence both suppression and well-being. Cross-cultural reviews improve generalizability but aggregate heterogeneous instruments, settings, and cultural proxies. The 2025 cross-cultural synthesis and the 2026 sleep meta-analysis show why effect sizes and moderators should be reported rather than flattened into slogans (Chen et al., 2025; Wang et al., 2026).

Important research questions include how individual goals alter the immediate value of expressive restraint, when short-term suppression becomes an inflexible habit, how people move between strategies, and which ecological measures best capture real social interactions. Evidence does not justify assuming that a particular pattern of expressive behavior reveals honesty, emotional depth, attachment style, or psychopathology.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is emotional suppression the opposite of emotion regulation?

No. Expressive suppression is one response-focused strategy within the larger category of emotion regulation. It can regulate observable behavior without substantially altering subjective feeling. Whether it helps depends on the person's goal and context.

Can someone regulate emotions while showing them openly?

Yes. Emotion regulation can involve deliberately expressing concern, asking for help, tolerating grief, reappraising an event, or choosing a constructive response while the emotion remains visible. Successful regulation does not require a neutral face.

Does suppressing anger make anger disappear?

Suppressing visible signs of anger does not reliably eliminate the feeling. An immediate benefit may be reduced outward escalation, while unresolved concerns may require further action. The consequences depend on circumstances and other strategies used.

Is suppression always harmful?

No. Brief, chosen expressive restraint can serve safety, privacy, and professional or social goals. Research associates habitual inflexible suppression with some less favorable outcomes on average, with important variation across contexts and populations.

Is crying evidence of poor emotional control?

No. Tears are an expressive response and do not by themselves establish dysregulation, weakness, or lack of behavioral control. The surrounding context, capacity to act, and consequences matter.

Is emotional suppression the same as repression?

No. Expressive suppression is an operationalized attempt to inhibit outward signs of an emotion. Repression is a historically distinct theoretical construct involving exclusion from awareness. They cannot be treated as interchangeable explanations of behavior.

Is a high expressive-suppression questionnaire score a diagnosis?

No. The ERQ measures reported use of regulation strategies. Clinical diagnosis requires an appropriate assessment of a defined disorder and cannot be inferred from a strategy score.

What matters most when choosing a regulation strategy?

Identify the goal, intensity, timing, safety, social setting, and longer-term consequences. A flexible repertoire allows a person to change strategies in response to feedback rather than attempting the same form of suppression in every situation.

Conclusion

Emotion regulation describes how emotions are influenced across an unfolding episode; expressive suppression describes efforts to reduce the outward signs of an emotion already present. This part–whole relationship is the defining difference. Experimental research shows that expression can be inhibited while subjective emotion remains, and evidence on longer-term well-being and social functioning is sensitive to design, culture, and context. Scientific and practical understanding improves when emotion, expression, behavior, and regulatory goals are evaluated separately. The most useful regulatory capacity is the ability to choose and revise responses that fit the actual circumstances.

Related Articles

Neuroticism and Emotion Regulation: Strategies, Flexibility, and Distress — A related account of emotion-regulation patterns in personality research and the limits of trait-based interpretations.

Neural Basis of Emotion: Brain Networks, Learning, and Regulation — Background on neural and cognitive aspects of emotional responses and regulation, with methodological limitations.

Emotion Regulation: Definition, Models, and Research — Defines emotion regulation, explains its core scientific constructs, and connects major process models with research on emotional experience, expression, and behavior.

Emotional Dysregulation: Signs, Causes, and Support — Examines difficulties with emotional clarity, impulse control, acceptance, and goal-directed action while distinguishing a research construct from formal clinical diagnoses.

Psychological Flexibility: Definition, Processes, and Evidence — Explains the construct of psychological flexibility, its relation to changing circumstances and valued action, and the evidence from contextual behavioral science.

Emotion Regulation Strategies: Types, Examples, and When to Use Them — Surveys major strategy families, illustrates their mechanisms, and compares their usefulness across situations and outcomes.

References

Aldao, A., Nolen-Hoeksema, S., & Schweizer, S. (2010). Emotion-regulation strategies across psychopathology: A meta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 30(2), 217–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2009.11.004

Bonanno, G. A., & Burton, C. L. (2013). Regulatory flexibility: An individual differences perspective on coping and emotion regulation. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(6), 591–612. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691613504116

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(1), 48–67. https://doi.org/10.1037/1528-3542.3.1.48

Chen, M. S., Cai, Q., Omari, D., Sanghvi, D. E., Lyu, S., et al. (2025). Emotion regulation and mental health across cultures: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Nature Human Behaviour, 9, 1176–1200. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-025-02168-8

Goldin, P. R., McRae, K., Ramel, W., & Gross, J. J. (2008). The neural bases of emotion regulation: Reappraisal and suppression of negative emotion. Biological Psychiatry, 63(6), 577–586. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2007.05.031

Gross, J. J. (1998). Antecedent- and response-focused emotion regulation: Divergent consequences for experience, expression, and physiology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(1), 224–237. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.1.224

Gross, J. J. (2002). Emotion regulation: Affective, cognitive, and social consequences. Psychophysiology, 39(3), 281–291. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0048577201393198

Gross, J. J. (2015). Emotion regulation: Current status and future prospects. Psychological Inquiry, 26(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2014.940781

Gross, J. J., & John, O. P. (2003). Individual differences in two emotion regulation processes: Implications for affect, relationships, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(2), 348–362. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.2.348

Gross, J. J., & Levenson, R. W. (1993). Emotional suppression: Physiology, self-report, and expressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(6), 970–986. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.64.6.970

Sheppes, G., Scheibe, S., Suri, G., & Gross, J. J. (2011). Emotion-regulation choice. Psychological Science, 22(11), 1391–1396. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611418350

Wang, D., Wang, X., Syed Jaapar, S. Z., & Ab Razak, A. (2026). Cultural background and pandemic context as moderators of the association between expressive suppression and sleep quality in healthy adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Psychology, 14, 939. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-026-04527-0

Webb, T. L., Miles, E., & Sheeran, P. (2012). Dealing with feeling: A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of strategies derived from the process model of emotion regulation. Psychological Bulletin, 138(4), 775–808. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027600