Expressive Suppression: What Research Says About Emotional Effects

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

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

Expressive suppression is the deliberate inhibition of observable emotional behavior while an emotional response is already unfolding. Someone may feel sadness but keep their face composed, experience anger but prevent it from appearing in their voice, or feel excitement while maintaining a neutral expression. Psychological research treats this as a specific emotion-regulation strategy: it changes what other people can see or hear, often without proportionally changing what the person feels.

The most consistent experimental finding is that expressive suppression reduces visible emotional expression. Its effects on subjective experience, physiological activity, memory, social connection, and mental health vary with the emotion, situation, duration, and the person's goals. Research on habitual suppression also identifies associations with lower positive affect and less favorable relationship outcomes, while cross-cultural findings challenge any universal rule that concealing an emotion is harmful in every setting. Gross and Levenson (1993), Fernandes and Tone (2021), and Chen et al. (2025) provide complementary experimental and meta-analytic evidence.

What Is Expressive Suppression?

Expressive suppression is a response-focused form of emotion regulation in which a person inhibits facial expression, gesture, vocal signals, or other observable behavior associated with an ongoing emotional response. The definition concerns expression. It does not require the disappearance of an emotion, the rejection of its meaning, or a successful change in the physiological systems involved in arousal.

Imagine receiving upsetting news during a public presentation. You might recognize your distress, decide to maintain your professional composure, and postpone visible emotional expression until later. That is a recognizable example of expressive suppression. Whether it is helpful depends partly on why it is used, how much effort it requires, what happens afterward, and whether appropriate support or communication is still possible.

Emotion regulation encompasses processes that influence which emotions occur, their timing and intensity, and how they are experienced or expressed. Within this broader field, expressive suppression is often classified as response modulation because the regulatory intervention occurs once the emotional response has been activated. The classic process-model experiments compared suppression with cognitive reappraisal, a strategy that modifies the interpretation of a situation earlier in the response sequence. Gross (1998) provides the foundational comparison.

Expression, experience, and physiology are separate outcomes

An emotion episode can involve subjective feeling, attention and appraisal, expressive behavior, action tendencies, and bodily changes. These components usually interact, but they are not interchangeable measures. A neutral face does not demonstrate an absence of distress. Likewise, a change in blood pressure does not independently prove that emotional distress has increased.

Researchers therefore assess expressive suppression using several outcomes: coded facial or bodily behavior, participants' reports of what they felt, physiological indices, performance on attention or memory tasks, and reports of relationship quality. A study may find a substantial effect on one outcome and a smaller, mixed, or absent effect on another. This is a central reason to interpret suppression research at the level of specific measures.

Suppression is a strategy, not a diagnosis

Occasional suppression, habitual reliance on suppression, difficulty identifying feelings, emotional avoidance, restricted affect, and emotional dysregulation describe different phenomena. Expressive suppression itself is neither a psychiatric disorder nor proof that someone has difficulty regulating emotion. A person may intentionally hide a feeling with considerable skill; another person may appear emotionally restrained without consciously attempting to suppress anything.

Clinical assessment requires attention to symptoms, persistence, impairment, context, and relevant diagnostic criteria. A research questionnaire score about suppression cannot establish a mental health diagnosis.

How Expressive Suppression Works in the Process Model

The process model organizes regulation by where a strategy intervenes in the emotion-generating sequence. Situation selection and situation modification affect exposure or circumstances; attentional deployment influences what information receives attention; cognitive change alters interpretation; and response modulation targets an already developing emotional response. Suppression belongs primarily to this final family.

For example, leaving a disruptive environment changes a situation, redirecting attention changes the information being processed, interpreting a critical comment as useful feedback changes its meaning, and keeping an angry facial expression from appearing changes the outward response. These actions can occur together, and real emotional episodes frequently involve repeated selection, monitoring, and adjustment rather than a single isolated step. The published discussions of distraction as an emotion regulation strategy and problem-solving as an emotion regulation strategy explain two other ways to intervene in emotional episodes.

Expressive suppression typically requires monitoring emotional behavior and modifying an impulse to express it. A person may inhibit a smile, reduce facial movement, maintain an even voice, or conceal tears. The specific behavioral demand and its effort may differ substantially among these examples. Laboratory instructions to remain emotionally impassive are more standardized than real-world decisions, where people can selectively disclose some feelings and conceal others.

Early timing models predicted that modifying an emotional response after it has begun would reduce expressive behavior more reliably than emotional experience and might entail regulatory effort. The classic evidence supports parts of this account, but it does not imply that suppression always raises arousal or exhausts a single general pool of self-control. Gross (1998) and Webb, Miles, and Sheeran (2012) help distinguish theoretical timing from observed outcomes.

What Controlled Experiments Show

Expressive behavior changes reliably

In a foundational laboratory study, Gross and Levenson asked participants to watch an emotion-eliciting film and either respond naturally or conceal outward emotional behavior. Suppression reduced the observable expression of disgust, while participants' subjective emotional experience was not significantly altered in that experiment. The physiological findings were mixed across specific indices. This demonstrated that changing visible expression and changing emotional experience can be separable processes. Gross and Levenson (1993).

A later experiment involving 180 women exposed to sad, neutral, and amusing films also found a reduction in expressive behavior under suppression instructions. The effects on feelings differed by stimulus condition, and cardiovascular sympathetic activation increased in the emotionally engaging conditions. These results are informative about acute responses under instruction; they cannot be generalized directly to every natural situation or population. Gross and Levenson (1997).

Subjective emotional intensity may remain

In the 1998 experiment comparing antecedent-focused reappraisal and response-focused suppression, both strategies reduced outward expressive behavior during an unpleasant film. Reappraisal also reduced reported negative experience, whereas suppression did not produce the same change in subjective feeling. The central finding was a divergence among channels of responding rather than a uniform suppression effect. Gross (1998).

Some experiments show that suppressing positive expression also reduces reported positive experience, and effects can depend on the particular emotion and instruction. Research does not justify promising that hiding anger, sadness, or excitement will either remove or intensify the feeling in every case. The measured outcome must be specified.

Physiological effects are neither uniform nor diagnostic

Heart rate, blood pressure, skin conductance, respiration, and facial muscle activity provide different information about bodily responding. Foundational film experiments observed changes in sympathetic cardiovascular activity during suppression, although the pattern was not identical across stimuli and physiological measures. These experiments support the possibility that expressive inhibition can involve physiological effort or altered arousal. They do not establish a universal chronic cardiovascular consequence from occasional suppression.

In social interaction, physiological effects may also appear in another person. In experimental discussions of upsetting topics, Butler and colleagues found that suppression disrupted interaction and increased blood-pressure responses in partners under certain study conditions. The social and physiological effect depended on an interpersonal task, not merely an individual sitting alone with an emotion. Butler et al. (2003).

Does a meta-analysis show suppression is ineffective?

A meta-analysis of 306 experimental comparisons organized strategies by the specific form of regulation and the outcome being changed. It reported an effect for suppressing expression, while suppressing emotional experience and trying to suppress emotion-related thoughts did not show the same benefits in that synthesis. The important implication is that suppressing a visible display can successfully accomplish its immediate behavioral goal, even when it does little to reduce the underlying experience. Webb, Miles, and Sheeran (2012).

The same review found meaningful differences among strategies within broad process families. Comparisons that label every suppression attempt as the same intervention, or define success only through a single outcome, risk obscuring these differences.

Expressive Suppression and Cognitive Reappraisal

Cognitive reappraisal involves changing the meaning of an emotion-eliciting event. Expressive suppression modifies an emotional display after the emotional response has developed. For instance, someone might reappraise critical feedback as information for improvement, or suppress the facial signs of anger while still interpreting the feedback as insulting. The strategies can coexist, and their relative usefulness depends on situational goals.

Research frequently finds more favorable average associations for habitual reappraisal than for habitual suppression across self-reported affect, wellbeing, and interpersonal functioning. Gross and John developed the Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (ERQ) to assess habitual use of these two strategies as separate dimensions; higher reappraisal and higher suppression are not mutually exclusive. Their findings connected greater habitual suppression with lower positive emotional experience and poorer reported social functioning on average. Gross and John (2003).

It is essential to distinguish two comparisons. An experimental contrast asks what happens when a participant is instructed to use a strategy during a task. An individual-difference study asks whether people who report using one strategy more frequently also report different outcomes. The latter is influenced by personality, life circumstances, baseline distress, and cultural norms. Neither design alone establishes that one strategy is the correct choice in every emotionally challenging situation.

Reappraisal may also be unavailable or counterproductive in particular circumstances, such as when reinterpretation distorts important information or distracts from action. The scientifically useful question is whether a strategy fits the current goal and context, rather than whether its name has been categorized as adaptive or maladaptive.

Emotional Experience, Positive Affect, and Well-Being

Positive emotion may be especially relevant

Suppressing expressions of joy, amusement, appreciation, or affection may reduce the signals through which positive experience is shared. This matters because outward emotional behavior can support social reciprocity and communicate enthusiasm, warmth, and interest.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of 41 studies and 11,010 participants reported a small negative average association between expressive suppression and positive affect (r = −0.158). Moderators included cultural grouping and the valence of the emotion being suppressed. The pooled association did not establish that suppression causes reduced positive affect in every individual, and subgroup analyses did not show the same relationship in all anxiety-disorder samples. Fernandes and Tone (2021).

The result is consistent with the possibility that concealing positive emotion can have social and experiential costs. It also shows why the direction, size, and population of an association should be reported before drawing practical conclusions.

Negative affect and life satisfaction

Across correlational studies, habitual suppression has often been linked to greater negative affect or psychological symptoms and lower life satisfaction. A meta-analysis involving 48 studies and 21,150 participants examined relationships between reappraisal and suppression and several mental-health indicators. The results place suppression within a broader literature on regulation and well-being but do not convert a questionnaire association into evidence of causal harm. Hu et al. (2014).

Someone may use suppression more often because they already face frequent conflict, anxiety-provoking situations, or contexts where visible expression has consequences. Over time, habitual patterns and social circumstances may also influence each other. Longitudinal research improves temporal inference, yet even repeated observations cannot eliminate all plausible confounding.

What does emotional relief look like?

Immediate relief might mean appearing calm enough to complete a difficult interaction, lowering the intensity of an emotion, avoiding escalation, maintaining privacy, or temporarily shifting attention. These are different goals. Suppression can meet a goal of outward composure without meeting a goal of internal calming; conversely, it may reduce a socially difficult interaction while leaving important feelings available for later reflection.

For interpretation, the target outcome should be named: external expression, felt intensity, distress duration, task performance, communication quality, or longer-term functioning. Calling a strategy effective or ineffective without identifying the outcome is scientifically underspecified.

Social Relationships and Emotional Communication

Emotional expression provides others with cues about what a person needs, values, fears, or appreciates. Some of those cues help partners coordinate responses and offer support. Regular concealment can make emotional states harder to infer, especially when words and visible behavior convey different information.

A meta-analysis of 43 papers and 105 effect sizes found that greater emotional suppression was associated with poorer social well-being across outcomes such as first impressions, perceived support, relationship satisfaction, and romantic relationship quality. The analysis also found that greater emotional expression was not uniformly beneficial: expressions of anger, for example, had less favorable interpersonal associations. The evidence therefore supports attention to the emotion being expressed and the relationship context. Chervonsky and Hunt (2017).

Experimental interaction studies provide a more direct account of possible mechanisms. Butler and colleagues examined women discussing an upsetting topic and found that instructions to suppress emotional behavior disrupted rapport and aspects of communication relative to comparison conditions. These findings show that suppressing behavior can change an interaction even when another person is unaware of the instruction. They should be generalized cautiously beyond the study's particular dyads, conversations, and measured outcomes. Butler et al. (2003).

A four-year longitudinal study of college students linked earlier habitual suppression with weaker later peer-rated social connections, while reappraisal predicted more favorable social relationships. The prospective design shows that strategy reports can predict later social outcomes, but it does not establish that simply reducing suppression will cause a comparable change. English et al. (2012).

Does suppression always damage relationships?

No universal interpersonal consequence follows from one instance of restraint. Socially skilled communication involves decisions about timing, privacy, sincerity, intensity, and the needs of others. Concealing irritation during an emergency, withholding an impulsive insult, and repeatedly hiding important needs from a partner have different functions and possible effects.

The relevant questions concern the pattern: Is suppression the only available response? Does it prevent truthful communication over time? Does it preserve safety or privacy? Can the individual express an important feeling later? Is restraint expected within a culturally shared interactional convention? These questions place observed associations in context.

Memory, Attention, and Cognitive Effort

Suppressing a display may require monitoring one's own behavior while continuing to process external information. Under some experimental conditions, this divided attention can reduce how much detail is remembered from an event.

Richards and Gross experimentally investigated the memory consequences of emotional regulation. Their studies found that instructed suppression could impair memory for emotional information compared with comparison conditions, whereas reappraisal did not show the same pattern. This supports a limited claim about cognitive costs under those tasks: trying to control expression can compete with attending to and remembering details. Richards and Gross (2000).

The magnitude and direction of the effect depend on task demands, emotional content, and what kind of memory is tested. The evidence does not justify claiming that restrained people have inherently poor memory or that suppressing feelings produces permanent cognitive damage.

An applied example is a stressful conversation in which a person concentrates on keeping their voice steady while also trying to remember several instructions. In some circumstances, minimizing expressive monitoring could free attention for comprehension. In others, maintaining outward composure could support task completion despite continuing emotional arousal. Both are plausible functions that require attention to the concrete setting.

Cultural Norms and Context: Why Findings Differ

Emotion expression is shaped by social display rules, roles, institutions, relationships, and cultural learning. Expectations about showing anger, gratitude, embarrassment, sadness, and enthusiasm vary. A behavior that communicates composure or respect in one context may be interpreted as distance or indifference in another.

An important 2025 systematic review and meta-analysis synthesized 249 articles, 861 effect sizes, and 150,474 participants across 37 countries or regions. Associations between habitual reappraisal or suppression and mental-health indicators varied with cultural dimensions and demographic features. Greater suppression was more negatively associated with mental-health outcomes in some cultural contexts, including more indulgent and competition-oriented national cultures, while age also moderated its association. Chen et al. (2025).

These findings are stronger evidence for cultural variation in associations than for a simple division between Western and Eastern societies. National-level dimensions do not describe every individual within a country. The review analyzed correlational evidence and cannot demonstrate that a country's cultural values cause a person's symptoms through expressive suppression.

Related theoretical and empirical work emphasizes that people learn context-sensitive norms for when emotion should be expressed, concealed, or moderated. Cultural fit, shared expectations, and the meaning of a display can influence outcomes. Ford and Mauss (2015).

Safety, power, and privacy also matter

Emotional visibility can carry different risks in environments shaped by coercion, hostility, discrimination, high-stakes work, or limited personal privacy. A person may restrain expression to reduce immediate conflict or preserve control over personal information. These situational reasons are important when interpreting suppression behavior and making recommendations.

Habitual concealment can also reflect social expectations that restrict opportunities for authentic communication. Whether it creates a burden may depend on the person's autonomy, access to supportive relationships, and ability to choose a different strategy when the situation changes.

Expressive Suppression in Anxiety, Depression, and Other Clinical Research

Clinical researchers examine suppression as one of several transdiagnostic processes associated with psychological symptoms. A meta-analytic review of 114 studies and 241 effect sizes evaluated dispositional emotion-regulation strategies in relation to symptoms across anxiety, depressive, eating, and substance-related disorders. Strategies showed different patterns of association with psychopathology; the findings primarily concern tendencies and symptoms, not diagnosis from a single behavior. Aldao, Nolen-Hoeksema, and Schweizer (2010).

A systematic review focusing on social anxiety disorder and major depressive disorder found that social anxiety is often characterized by greater reliance on expressive suppression and difficulty using reappraisal effectively. The patterns associated with depression were not identical. The review proposed pathways through which regulation difficulties might relate to symptoms while identifying complexities in translating these observations to treatment mechanisms. Dryman and Heimberg (2018).

A person with social anxiety may try to conceal visible nervousness to avoid judgment. That strategy can coexist with fear of negative evaluation, intense self-monitoring, and reduced engagement. Its clinical importance depends on the entire presentation rather than suppression in isolation. A person experiencing depression may report restricted emotional expression for different reasons, including reduced positive experience or situational withdrawal; such a presentation should not automatically be labeled deliberate expressive suppression.

Association is not a treatment mechanism

Clinical treatment studies may find improvement in emotional functioning after a psychological intervention. Such a result does not prove that changing expressive suppression was the mechanism responsible unless the study measures that process appropriately and provides evidence supporting mediation and temporal sequence.

Similarly, studies of reappraisal or suppression during a laboratory task do not establish the clinical effectiveness of an entire psychotherapy protocol. Assessing treatments for diagnosed conditions requires separate evidence from appropriate clinical trials, systematic reviews, and professional guidelines.

Expressive Suppression Compared With Other Processes

Suppression versus emotional acceptance

Acceptance involves allowing an internal feeling to be present with less struggle while choosing how to act. A person may accept sadness and still decide not to display it during a particular event. Acceptance concerns the relationship to an internal experience; expressive suppression concerns observable behavior. They can therefore occur together.

Suppression versus experiential avoidance

Experiential avoidance refers to efforts to escape, alter, or prevent unwanted internal experiences, including thoughts, sensations, memories, and emotions. Expressive suppression may sometimes form part of a broader avoidance pattern, but the two are conceptually distinct. Concealing emotion for privacy does not demonstrate avoidance of the feeling itself.

Suppression versus thought suppression

Thought suppression attempts to prevent a thought from entering awareness or returning to consciousness. Expressive suppression inhibits emotional display. Studies of ironic effects of thought control cannot be transferred directly to expressive suppression without examining the actual instruction and outcome. Their targets differ.

Suppression versus emotional numbing or restricted affect

Emotional numbing usually describes a reduction in emotional experience or responsiveness; restricted affect describes a limited range or intensity of observable expression in clinical description. These can arise for many reasons. Expressive suppression is a deliberate strategy and should not be inferred merely from a neutral appearance.

Suppression versus distress tolerance

Distress tolerance refers to the capacity or skills involved in enduring distress without acting in ways that undermine an important goal. Someone may tolerate intense sadness while expressing it openly, or suppress expression while remaining overwhelmed. Visible calm and effective distress tolerance are not equivalent.

Suppression versus emotional dysregulation

Emotional dysregulation describes difficulties modulating emotional responses in ways that fit the person and situation. Rigid reliance on suppression may contribute to a maladaptive pattern in some settings, but intentional suppression can also be a context-sensitive component of regulation. Emotional dysregulation is a psychological description, not a standalone formal diagnosis.

How Researchers Measure Expressive Suppression

The Emotion Regulation Questionnaire

The Emotion Regulation Questionnaire, introduced by Gross and John, has reappraisal and expressive-suppression subscales. It asks about typical strategies rather than directly observing a person's behavior during a specific event. A higher suppression score generally indicates a greater self-reported tendency to conceal expression. It does not establish why suppression occurs, whether the person is effective at it, or whether a psychiatric condition is present. Gross and John (2003). A separate article, Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (ERQ): What It Measures, examines its construct, scoring, and measurement limitations.

Questionnaire scores can be influenced by memory, interpretation, self-presentation, cultural norms, and the situations participants encounter. Comparisons across populations require attention to measurement equivalence, language, and sampling.

Laboratory observation and physiological recording

Experimental studies can instruct suppression and measure facial movements, vocal expression, autonomic physiology, and reported feelings. Such designs permit stronger conclusions about immediate effects of that instruction. They may not capture the complexity of natural, personally chosen suppression in interactions with real consequences.

Experience sampling and longitudinal methods

Daily-life studies ask participants to report emotions and strategies repeatedly across situations. Longitudinal designs can test whether reported suppression precedes later psychological or relational outcomes. These approaches improve ecological relevance and temporal description, but they remain vulnerable to reporting bias, selective participation, and unmeasured contextual influences.

Other emotion-regulation measures

The Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale (DERS) addresses multiple dimensions of emotional difficulty; it is not interchangeable with the ERQ suppression subscale. Measures of psychological flexibility, such as the AAQ-II and PPFI, address different theoretical constructs, and the AAQ-II has attracted discriminant-validity criticism because of overlap with generalized distress. Using any of these instruments as a diagnostic test for a disease or as a direct substitute for suppression observation would misrepresent their purpose.

When Suppression May Be Useful

Expressive suppression can serve a reasonable short-term purpose when there is a clear external goal: maintaining composure during a hazardous situation, giving oneself privacy, avoiding an impulsive reaction, or completing a critical task before engaging in an emotionally demanding conversation. A person can still recognize the emotion internally and seek support when appropriate.

The strategy becomes more complicated when concealment is the only consistently available response, when important information repeatedly cannot be communicated, or when the effort of monitoring expression compromises attention and connection. Research on relationships suggests possible costs of frequent suppression, while cultural evidence shows that the meaning of suppression depends on the broader social setting.

A practical evaluation asks what a specific decision achieved. Did it help the person finish a task safely? Was the emotional concern later addressed? Did the other person misunderstand the person's needs? Could another strategy have served the same goal with fewer costs? These questions operationalize regulatory flexibility rather than issuing a blanket command to display every feeling.

Can Someone Become More Flexible About Emotional Expression?

A research-informed approach starts with distinguishing the emotion from its visible display. Individuals can recognize what they are feeling, identify the situational demand, choose what to communicate, and review whether the strategy supported their goals. This is a general framework for reflection, not a validated treatment protocol.

For example, during a tense meeting someone might choose a calm tone without denying that they feel frustrated. Afterward, they could evaluate whether the underlying issue requires direct discussion, problem-solving, or support. The key variable is the capacity to revise a strategy when circumstances change.

Other possibilities include reappraising an interpretation, adjusting a solvable situation, permitting an emotion to be present without immediate action, taking time before communicating, and expressing feelings in a clear and proportionate way with a trusted person. Their value depends on circumstances and on the specific difficulties the person faces. None is guaranteed to reduce symptoms or substitute for professional evaluation.

Repeated emotional concealment accompanied by substantial anxiety, depressed mood, inability to function, or deteriorating relationships may warrant assessment by a qualified mental-health professional. When someone is at immediate risk of self-harm or suicide, has symptoms suggesting psychosis or mania, or cannot maintain safety, urgent local clinical or emergency support takes priority over self-directed emotion-regulation exercises.

Evidence Strength and Important Limitations

The evidence that instructed suppression reduces visible emotional expression is established within the types of laboratory tasks studied. Immediate subjective and physiological effects are more heterogeneous, with differences across stimuli, samples, instructions, and endpoints. Experimental findings involving acute blood-pressure responses should not be treated as evidence that suppression alone causes long-term cardiovascular disease.

Associations between habitual suppression, lower positive affect, psychological distress, and reduced social functioning are supported by systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and longitudinal research. These findings vary in magnitude and context, and many contributing studies are observational. Shared personality characteristics, prior distress, relationship quality, and social expectations can confound measured associations.

Cross-cultural heterogeneity is established as a feature of the evidence, while precise causal cultural mechanisms remain open to investigation. Stronger studies are needed that measure contextual goals, differentiate positive and negative emotions, include underrepresented populations, and compare deliberate momentary suppression with automatic or habitual patterns.

Measurement is another limitation. A questionnaire asking how often a person hides feelings cannot reveal every emotion episode, the quality of implementation, or the reason for the behavior. Physiological activation is also not a direct substitute for emotional suffering. The clearest research statements specify the sample, experimental or observational design, and precise outcome.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is expressive suppression the same as bottling up emotions?

Bottling up emotions is a broad everyday phrase. Expressive suppression has a narrower research definition: inhibiting outward emotional expression during an active response. Some people use the everyday phrase to describe avoidance, reluctance to disclose, unprocessed conflict, or an ongoing pattern of emotional concealment. Those processes require separate assessment.

Does suppressing expression make feelings stronger?

Sometimes suppression changes subjective experience, and sometimes it mainly changes visible behavior. Classic experiments often found strong expressive effects without equally strong reductions in negative experience. The effect depends on the emotion, experimental procedure, context, and measurement. A universal rebound or intensification effect has not been established for every episode of expressive suppression.

Can expressive suppression reduce anxiety?

It can hide visible signs of anxiety and may sometimes make a situation easier to navigate, but reducing signs is a different goal from reducing fear or treating an anxiety disorder. Habitual suppression is associated with difficulties in some social anxiety samples; conclusions about treatment require a separate clinical evidence base. Dryman and Heimberg (2018).

Is it healthier to express every emotion?

Research supports context-sensitive communication. Expression can support connection, but its interpersonal effects vary with the emotion, form of expression, relationship, and setting. In the social-outcomes meta-analysis, expression of anger did not have the same favorable pattern as positive expression. Chervonsky and Hunt (2017).

Why might someone suppress positive emotion?

Possible reasons include modesty, workplace expectations, concern about others' reactions, cultural display rules, privacy, or a decision to protect another person's feelings. A reason should be investigated rather than inferred from appearance. The meta-analytic association between suppression and positive affect also varies by the kind of emotion and population studied. Fernandes and Tone (2021).

Is expressive suppression always maladaptive?

No. Its short-term behavioral goal may be achieved successfully. Long-term outcomes depend partly on flexibility, frequency, relationship context, cultural norms, and alternatives available to the individual. The strongest synthesis supports a nuanced account in which habitual suppression often correlates with less favorable outcomes but does not carry the same implications everywhere. Chen et al. (2025).

Can an ERQ suppression score diagnose emotional dysregulation?

No. The ERQ measures self-reported frequency of reappraisal and expressive suppression. Its subscales do not diagnose psychiatric disorders, determine an individual's regulatory ability across contexts, or replace a clinical interview.

Conclusion

Expressive suppression is a specific, observable target within emotion regulation: controlling emotional display after an emotional response begins. Experiments show that this control often works at the behavioral level, while emotional experience, physiology, attention, and memory can follow different trajectories. Large reviews associate habitual suppression with less favorable affective and interpersonal outcomes on average, and contemporary cross-cultural evidence shows that context matters.

The strongest scientific interpretation connects the function of suppression to the person's goal, the emotional episode, the relationship setting, and the ability to select another response when needed. Understanding expressive suppression requires distinguishing what is expressed, what is experienced, what is measured, and what consequences follow over time.

Related Articles

Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (ERQ): What It Measures explains the reappraisal and suppression scales and their limitations.

Distraction as an Emotion Regulation Strategy examines a distinct strategy involving attentional deployment.

Problem-Solving as an Emotion Regulation Strategy explains how modifying a solvable problem can influence emotional responses.

Neuroticism and Emotion Regulation: Strategies, Flexibility, and Distress examines habitual regulation strategies in relation to personality and psychological distress.

Neural Basis of Emotion: Brain Networks, Learning, and Regulation explains the broader brain and psychological processes involved in emotion and regulation.

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.

Cognitive Reappraisal: How It Works and When It Helps — Explains reinterpretation of emotional events, experimental reappraisal procedures, possible benefits, and contextual limits.

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.

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., & Bonanno, G. A. (2025). Emotion regulation and mental health across cultures: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Nature Human Behaviour, 9, 1176–1200. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-025-02168-8.

Chervonsky, E., & Hunt, C. (2017). Suppression and expression of emotion in social and interpersonal outcomes: A meta-analysis. Emotion, 17(4), 669–683. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000270.

Dryman, M. T., & Heimberg, R. G. (2018). Emotion regulation in social anxiety and depression: A systematic review of expressive suppression and cognitive reappraisal. Clinical Psychology Review, 65, 17–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2018.07.004.

English, T., John, O. P., Srivastava, S., & Gross, J. J. (2012). Emotion regulation and peer-rated social functioning: A four-year longitudinal study. Journal of Research in Personality, 46(6), 780–784. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2012.09.006.

Fernandes, M. A., & Tone, E. B. (2021). A systematic review and meta-analysis of the association between expressive suppression and positive affect. Clinical Psychology Review, 88, 102068. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2021.102068.

Ford, B. Q., & Mauss, I. B. (2015). Culture and emotion regulation. Current Opinion in Psychology, 3, 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2014.12.004.

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., & 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.

Gross, J. J., & Levenson, R. W. (1997). Hiding feelings: The acute effects of inhibiting negative and positive emotion. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 106(1), 95–103. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.106.1.95.

Hu, T., Zhang, D., Wang, J., Mistry, R., Ran, G., & Wang, X. (2014). Relation between emotion regulation and mental health: A meta-analysis review. Psychological Reports, 114(2), 341–362. https://doi.org/10.2466/03.20.PR0.114k22w4.

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(3), 410–424. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.79.3.410.

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.