Gross · Journal of personality and social psychology 2003 · Multi-study psychometric validation and correlational design (5 studies) · n=?

Individual differences in two emotion regulation processes: implications for affect, relationships, and well-being.

Cited 11872 times in the scientific literature.

Level 4 - case-series / case-control

Level 4 by design analogy; series of cross-sectional psychometric and correlational studies.

PubMed 12916575 · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.85.2.348 · record verified 2026-08-26

What was done

Across five studies, the authors developed and validated measures assessing individual differences in habitual emotion regulation strategies—specifically cognitive reappraisal and expressive suppression. Study 1 developed the assessment instruments; Study 2 examined convergent and discriminant validity; Study 3 evaluated differences in positive and negative emotional experience and expression; Study 4 assessed interpersonal functioning; and Study 5 tested associations with psychological well-being.

What was found

The abstract reports directional relationships without numerical values, effect sizes, or confidence intervals. Reappraisal was associated with greater experience and expression of positive emotion, lower negative emotion, superior interpersonal functioning, and greater well-being. Conversely, suppression was associated with decreased positive emotion, increased negative emotion, poorer interpersonal functioning, and reduced well-being.

Why it matters

This work establishes a framework and measurement tool distinguishing antecedent-focused reappraisal from response-focused suppression, demonstrating that how individuals regulate their emotions corresponds with distinct affective, social, and psychological outcomes.

Limits

The abstract provides no sample sizes, demographic characteristics, or quantitative metrics. The correlational design prevents causal conclusions regarding whether specific regulation strategies directly drive changes in well-being and interpersonal functioning, and reliance on self-report may introduce response bias.

Cited by