Content uploaded by Asmir Gračanin
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Asmir Gračanin on May 10, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
Available via license: CC BY-SA 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Psychological Topics, 30 (2021), 1, 145-159
Original Scientific Paper
https://doi.org/10.31820/pt.30.1.8
UDC: 159.942.072-055
Igor Kardum, Department of Psychology, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences,
University of Rijeka, Sveučilišna avenija 4, 51000 Rijeka, Croatia. E-mail:
kardum@ffri.hr
This work has been fully supported by the University of Rijeka under the project number
uniri-drustv-18-231.
145
Emotion Regulation and Romantic Partners’ Relationship
Satisfaction: Self-Reports and Partner Reports
Igor Kardum, Asmir Gračanin, Jasna Hudek-Knežević, and Barbara Blažić
University of Rijeka, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences,
Department of Psychology, Rijeka, Croatia
Abstract
Studies investigating the effects of emotion regulation on romantic partners’ relationship satisfaction
(RS) found that proneness to use cognitive reappraisal exerts positive, whereas expressive
suppression negative effects on both one’s own and partner’s satisfaction. However, no studies
explored the effects of partner reported use of the two emotion regulation strategies on RS, which
might allow the exclusion of method-related explanations of the previous findings and offer new
insights into the mechanisms involved. We tested the hypotheses about the effects of reappraisal and
suppression on RS on a sample of 205 romantic couples by using round-robin design and actor-
partner interdependence modelling (APIM). Although the effects were relatively small, they were
still in line with the assumptions that cognitive reappraisal has positive intra- and interpersonal
effects on RS, that they can be generalized across self- and partner reports to a certain extent, and
that they are somewhat stronger in women. Considering expressive suppression, only women’s self-
reported suppression exerted significant negative intrapersonal effect on RS. Implications of self-
and partner reports of emotion regulation for the understanding of the mechanisms mediating its
effects on RS are discussed.
Keywords: emotion regulation, relationship satisfaction, actor-partner interdependence model
(APIM), partner reports
Introduction
Increased scientific interest in emotion regulation in the last decades resulted in
rich knowledge about the use of various emotion regulation strategies, with two of
them receiving a considerable share of attention. Cognitive reappraisal is a strategy
consisting of cognitive re-structuring that modulates potential emotional response
PSYCHOLOGICAL TOPICS, 30 (2021), 1, 145-159
146
before its occurrence. For example, one may reinterpret hostile behaviour of another
person as the consequence of previous painful experiences, and therefore may feel
less anger towards him/her. Expressive suppression pertains to emotion regulation
efforts directed to change one’s expressive response after the emotional process has
already been activated (Gross, 1998). For example, one may want to give the
impression that a derogatory comment did not cause offense although he or she
actually feels angry. Regulatory efforts in suppression primarily reduce emotion-
expressive behaviour, but appear to have little or no effect on immediate subjective
experience, at least when it comes to negative emotions. However, they seem to
result in increased autonomic responses. On the other hand, reappraisal typically
decreases subjective experience as well as related physiological and behavioural
responses (Gross, 1998).
The understanding of the interplay between emotion regulation strategies
applied by an individual and his/her own and his/her partner’s RS depends on the
information about both intrapersonal and interpersonal effects of emotion regulation
strategies. Numerous studies focusing on intrapersonal consequences and correlates
of reappraisal and suppression revealed a general pattern consisting of mostly
desirable effects of reappraisal and undesirable effects of suppression (John & Gross,
2004), although some of the negative effects of suppression are less evident in
Eastern cultures (Butler et al., 2007). These findings involved both experimentally
induced effects (e.g., reappraisal reduces one’s momentary negative emotions) and
correlates of the habitual use of these strategies (e.g., negative link between trait
suppression and life satisfaction) (Gross & John, 2003). However, social or
interpersonal effects of emotion regulation in general, and reappraisal and
suppression in particular, have been studied to a much lesser extent. Between 2001
and 2010, less than 12% of emotion regulation studies included another individual
(Campos et al., 2011). Paradoxically, Gross and colleagues found that 98% of the
emotion regulation episodes take place in the presence of others (Gross et al., 2006).
It is thus not surprising that the focus of research on emotion regulation is gradually
switching towards its interpersonal domain, primarily in the context of friendship and
family, but also in the wider social context.
Reducing the outward expression of emotions is certainly useful in some
interpersonal situations. However, both (quasi)experimental studies and those based
on trait-like suppression showed many detrimental interpersonal consequences of
this regulation strategy. For example, interaction partners of suppressing individuals
reported a decrease in friendly communication and less willingness to form a
friendship with them. Suppression also resulted in higher blood pressure in
interaction partners of women who suppressed. At the same time, reappraisal did not
show any comparable effects in experimental situations (e.g., Butler et al., 2003),
although the results are different in romantic partners (see below). Trait suppression
correlates negatively with self-reported social outcomes such as social status, social
support, and closeness of relationships with peers, as well as general social
Kardum, I., Gračanin, A., Hudek-Knežević, J., Blažić, B.:
Emotion Regulation and Relationship Satisfaction
147
satisfaction, and positively with victimization during high school. Opposite
correlations of these variables were found with trait reappraisal, although some of
these links may appear because both reappraisal and social outcomes correlate with
positive and negative affect (e.g., Chervonsky & Hunt, 2017, 2018; Gross & John,
2003).
In romantic relationships, self-reported suppression predicted poorer self-
reported relationship quality and RS in cross-sectional (Chervonsky & Hunt, 2017;
Velotti et al., 2016), quasi-experimental (Impett et al., 2012, 2014; Vater & Schroder-
Abe, 2015), and longitudinal diary studies (e.g., Impett et al., 2012, 2014). One of
few studies investigating the effects of one’s habitual emotional regulation on
partners’ RS (Velotti et al., 2016) found that husbands’ but not wives’ habitual use
of suppression predicted another partner’s lower self-reported RS. These results
partly corroborate experimental findings on the effects of manipulated suppression
on negative emotions, physiological distress, and reduced intimacy in both romantic
partners during emotional conversation or relationship conflict interaction (Ben-
Naim et al., 2013; Impett et al., 2012). Similarly, in a diary study, suppression during
making or discussing sacrifices for/with a partner was intrapersonally related with
more negative and less positive emotions, but also with lower RS and higher self-
reported relationship conflict. Self-reported suppression was also related to one’s
partner’s self-reported negative emotions, lower RS, and more relationship conflict.
However, three months later the amount of one’s suppression predicted one’s own
but not partner’s RS (Impett et al., 2012). The latter is in line with findings from a
quasi-experimental study in which suppression resulted in more negative emotions
during making/discussing sacrifices in suppressing individuals, but not in their
partners (Impett et al., 2012, 2014). Similarly, other studies focusing on trait
suppression found no effects of this trait on one’s partner in either men or women
(e.g., Vater & Schroder-Abe, 2015). Altogether, this points to the consistent
intrapersonal effects of suppression on RS and inconsistent and/or small
interpersonal effects on RS.
Self-reported trait reappraisal showed slightly more consistent intrapersonal and
interpersonal effects on RS than the self-reported trait of suppression. It positively
predicted one’s own RS in both genders (e.g., Rusu et al., 2019). Similarly, recent
studies found positive effects of reappraisal on one’s partner’s RS in both genders
(Mazzuca et al., 2018; Rusu et al., 2019). These findings are not surprising, since
experimentally manipulated reappraisal was found to decrease cardiovascular
activity and negative emotions during relationship conflict in both reappraising
individuals and their partners (Ben-Naim et al., 2013).
The experimental findings listed above provide important insights into potential
mechanisms responsible for the links between long-term use of the two emotion
regulation strategies and both actor and partner RS. For example, we could explain
negative link between husbands’ trait suppression and their wives’ RS by the
situational effects of husbands’ suppression on their partners’ negative emotions,
PSYCHOLOGICAL TOPICS, 30 (2021), 1, 145-159
148
which might accumulate over time, resulting in lower RS. However, for a better
understanding of the processes involving trait variables, it is also useful to consider
measures capturing behaviour on longer time scales. In addition to valuable insights
from diary studies by Impett et al. (2012, 2014), it may be also important to consider
the role of partner’s perception of one’s emotion regulation traits. In the interpersonal
domain, one may wonder whether one’s awareness that his/her partner frequently
uses certain ER strategy could possibly contribute to one’s RS. Considering
intrapersonal domain, despite experimental findings pointing to the short-term
effects of the two emotion regulation strategies on the individual who employs them,
findings of the long-term intrapersonal effects of trait suppression or reappraisal on
RS might be a methodological artefact. For example, self-reporting both the use of
suppression and RS increases the common method variance, which might inflate the
correlation between the two. However, similar effect observed by relying on
partner’s report about one’s trait suppression would strongly corroborate the previous
findings. Therefore, in addition to self-reports, our aim was also to measure partner
reported use of the two emotion regulation strategies in order to reassess previously
reported findings on the relationship between suppression, reappraisal, and RS in
both partners.
To our knowledge, no previous studies explored individuals’ evaluation of the
long-term use of suppression or reappraisal by their romantic partners. The only
relevant finding in this context was the one by Impett et al. (2014), who found
marginally significant and very low correlations between self-reported and partner
reported suppression in both the laboratory context and within a limited number of
daily reports (3.27 on average). These partner reports on suppression were also
limited to the situations in which suppressing individuals made sacrifices for their
partners, which preclude generalization to a wider context. Another important
characteristic of the majority of the above-mentioned studies of the interpersonal
effects of reappraisal and suppression is that they did not take into account the non-
independence of dyadic data. There were few exceptions dealing with this problem
(e.g., Vater & Schroder-Abe, 2015; Velotti et al., 2016) that applied the Actor-
Partner Interdependence Modelling (APIM; Kenny et al., 2006). This approach
allows simultaneous examination of intrapersonal effects (actor effects) and
interpersonal effects (partner effects) by controlling for all other effects that may
exist within dyadic data. In our study, the actor effects relate to the question of how
one’s emotion regulation trait predicts one’s own RS, while the partner effects pertain
to the question of how the same trait predicts one’s partner RS.
The Present Study
The main aim of this study was to explore actor and partner effects of self-
reported and partner reported reappraisal and suppression on RS by using APIM. As
a unique feature of our approach, the partner reports allowed us to control for the
effects of the common method variance and to gain additional knowledge about the
Kardum, I., Gračanin, A., Hudek-Knežević, J., Blažić, B.:
Emotion Regulation and Relationship Satisfaction
149
role that one’s perception of partner’s emotion regulation strategies might have for
one’s own RS. Based on previous studies on the experimental effects of the two
emotion regulation strategies and consistent links of the trait-like measures of these
strategies with different social outcomes, including RS, we expected positive actor
and partner effects of reappraisal as well as negative actor and partner effects of
suppression on RS in women and men. Although we assumed the stronger actor
effects when self-reports are taken into account, and stronger partner effects when
partner reports are regarded, we expected that actor and partner effects would not be
the artefacts of the measurement method, i.e. that actor effects would not be obtained
only by self-reports, and partner effects only by partner reports. Namely, to the extent
to which one partner could validly rate the use of these emotion regulation strategies
in the other, we could obtain the actor and partner effects by both data sources.
However, the suppression should be, by definition, difficult to recognize in others, at
least when successfully employed. On the other hand, the possibility to recognize
other’s reappraisal is higher because we may observe it through their verbalized
emotional content. Additionally, women are more expressive in both non-verbal and
verbal/cognitive aspects of emotion (Brody & Hall, 2000). Therefore, we expected
that the links between the self-reported and partner reported emotion regulation
strategies and RS would be stronger for reappraisal, and in women.
One corollary aim was to explore similarity indices for emotion regulation
strategies obtained by using self-reports and partner reports: self-other agreement,
assumed similarity and assortment. As already mentioned, the use of two data
sources allows the control of the effects of common method variance and gives us a
potential insight into the mechanisms by which these strategies relate to one’s own
and partner’s satisfaction. Because reappraisal and suppression are relatively
unobservable processes, their habitual use is more difficult for observers to rate than
many personality traits, even when it comes to romantic partners (Peters & Overall,
2020). However, due to the amount and quality of time romantic partners spend
together, we expect that they are able to recognize these traits in each other, at least
to some extent. Thus, for both emotion regulation dimensions we hypothesized low
to moderate positive correlations between one’s own and partner reports (self-other
agreement). Having in mind that assumed similarity, a tendency for one partner to
perceive the other as having characteristics similar to her/his own, is lower in well-
acquainted couples and higher in the absence of valid trait-related cues such as in
low-visibility traits (Watson et al., 2000), we expected that assumed similarity would
be modest to moderate for both regulation strategies. Finally, previous studies found
that assortment, a tendency for nonrandom coupling of individuals based on their
resemblance on one or more characteristics, is generally low for affective features
such as emotional experience and expression (Watson et al., 2004), as well as
emotion suppression (Velotti et al., 2016). Therefore, we expected low positive
assortment for both emotion regulation strategies.
PSYCHOLOGICAL TOPICS, 30 (2021), 1, 145-159
150
Method
Participants and Procedure
We used a convenience sample of 205 Caucasian heterosexual married (30%)
and cohabiting or dating (70%) urban couples recruited by snowball method.
Research assistants distributed the research announcement to their friends,
colleagues, and other students. The exclusion criteria were the age of less than 18
years and the relationship length less than one year. The participants’ age ranged
from 18 to 56 years (M = 29.40 years, SD = 6.48 for men; M = 27.17 years, SD =
5.06 for women), and their relationship length ranged from 1 to 22 years (M = 5.98,
SD = 4.48). A majority of men (55.6%) and 37.1% of women had high school
education, 72.7% of men and 49.8% of women were employed, and 30% of couples
had at least one child. After providing informed consent, they rated themselves and
their partners on a number of questionnaires by paper-and-pencil method. Research
assistants administered the questionnaires to each member of a couple alone at the
same time at the faculty premises or in their homes. To ensure independent
responding, the partners sat apart from each other.
Measures
Emotion regulation was measured by a Croatian version of Emotion Regulation
Questionnaire (ERQ; Gračanin et al., 2020; Gross & John, 2003), a 10-item measure
of two ER strategies, cognitive reappraisal and expressive suppression. Responses
were given on a 7-point scale (from 1 - strongly disagree to 7 - strongly agree).
Respondents indicated their usual tendency toward reappraisal (six items; e.g., “I
control my emotions by changing the way I think about the situation I’m in”) and
suppression (four items; e.g., “I control my emotions by not expressing them”).
Research on Croatian samples confirmed its original structure and showed that
Croatian version has equivalent predictive validity as ERQs in other languages
(Gračanin et al., 2020).
Relationship satisfaction was measured by The Perceived Relationship Quality
Components Questionnaire (PRQCQ; Fletcher et al., 2000), consisting of six items,
each of them measuring one aspect of the relationship (love, passion, commitment,
trust, satisfaction, and intimacy). Participants rated each item on a seven-point scale
from 1 (not at all) to 7 (extremely). Research using Croatian language version of this
questionnaire showed its satisfactory psychometric properties (Kardum et al., 2018).
Data Analysis
As a framework for analysing dyadic data, we used APIM (Kenny et al., 2006).
It allows simultaneous examination of the effect of one’s own predictor on one’s own
outcome (actor effect), as well as on the outcome of one’s partner (partner effect).
For example, the actor effect for a woman estimates whether her self-reported and
Kardum, I., Gračanin, A., Hudek-Knežević, J., Blažić, B.:
Emotion Regulation and Relationship Satisfaction
151
partner reported emotion regulation strategies predict her own RS. The partner effect
for a woman estimates whether her self-reported and partner reported regulation
strategies predict her partner’s RS. In order to determine the most likely dyadic
patterns that describe dyadic relationships, we also computed the parameter k, which
equals the partner effect divided by the actor effect (Kenny & Ledermann, 2010).
We interpreted those k parameters when absolute standardized values of the actor
effects were greater than .10, and when they were both statistically significant. We
performed these analyses by using the free web application APIM_SEM (Stas et al.,
2018).
Results
Firstly, we computed descriptive statistics for all measures and correlations
between all variables within women and men as well as between them (Table 1).
Men scored higher on self-reported suppression (t = 5.03; p < .001; d = 0.50), partner
reported suppression (t = 4.99; p < .001; d = 0.49), and partner reported reappraisal
(t = 3.58; p < .001; d = 0.35). No gender differences were found for self-reported
reappraisal (t = 1.30; p > .05; d = 0.13), and RS (t = 0.30; p > .05; d = 0.03).
Table 1
Descriptive Statistics for all Measures Used and Correlations Between all Variables
Variable
Women
Men
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Women
1. Reappraisal – SR
2. Reappraisal – PR
.26***
3. Suppression – SR
-.04
-.06
4. Suppression – PR
-.03
.06
.28***
5. Rel. satisfaction
.17*
.21**
-.18*
-.11
Men
6. Reappraisal – SR
.17*
.31***
-.07
-.01
.13
7. Reappraisal – PR
.28***
.06
-.03
-.01
.23***
.34***
8. Suppression – SR
-.17*
-.06
.05
.27***
-.06
-.08
-.07
9. Suppression – PR
-.03
-.04
.20**
.04
-.10
-.13
.06
.31***
10. Rel. satisfaction
.14*
.25***
-.07
-.10
.61***
.20**
.13
-.06
-.10
α
.80
.80
.70
.64
.87
.78
.84
.67
.77
.87
M
30.28
27.93
13.39
13.26
38.30
29.48
30.20
15.68
15.72
38.43
SD
6.24
6.30
4.74
4.50
4.31
6.19
6.53
4.49
5.44
4.16
Note. α – Cronbach’s alpha; M – mean; SD – standard deviation; SR – self-report; PR – partner report;
*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.
We found significant but low positive assortment only for self-reported
reappraisal (.17). In accord with our hypotheses, all assumed similarity correlations
were significant, ranging from .20 to .31. Self-partner agreement correlations were
also significant and ranged from .26 to .34. Assortment and assumed similarity
indices were similar to those usually obtained for personality traits, whereas self-
PSYCHOLOGICAL TOPICS, 30 (2021), 1, 145-159
152
partner agreement fell in the lower range of self-other correlations obtained for
personality traits. Relatively high assortative correlation was obtained for RS (.61).
Women’s RS was significantly positively related to women’s self- and partner
reported reappraisal and men’s partner reported reappraisal, and negatively with
women’s self-reported suppression. Men’s RS was positively related with women
and men’s self-reported reappraisal, and women’s partner reported reappraisal.
Next, we examined whether women and men’s self- and partner reported
emotion regulation predicted RS in women and men. The results obtained by APIM
analyses are presented in Table 2.
Table 2
APIMs for Self- and Partner Reported Reappraisal and Suppression Predicting Relationship
Satisfaction
Predictors
rp
rce
Dist.
test
(χ2)a
Actor
effect
(β)
WW
MM
Partner
effect
(β)
MW
WM
R2
k
95%CI
Dyadic
pattern
LL
UL
Reappraisal
self-report
.17*
.60***
3.19
.15*
.11
.04
0.72
-0.50
1.94
Actor-only
& Couple
.19**
.10
.05
0.56
-0.33
1.45
Actor-only
& Couple
Reappraisal
self-report
.16***
.60***
Indist.
dyad
.17***
.11*
.04
0.65
0.13
1.05
Couple
Reappraisal
partner
report
.06
.58***
15.54*
.19**
.22***
.09
1.10
0.07
2.13
Couple
.12
.25***
.08
2.15
-0.56
4.87
Actor-only
& Couple
Suppression
self-report
.05
.61***
28.85***
-.17*
-.05
.03
0.32
-0.54
1.18
Actor-only
& Couple
-.06
-.06
.01
1.09
-2.50
4.68
CBD
Suppression
partner
report
.04
.61***
32.63***
-.11
-.10
.02
0.75
-0.70
2.21
Actor-only
& Couple
-.10
-.10
.02
1.21
-1.22
3.64
CBD
Note. rp - correlation between women’s and men’s predictor variables; rce - correlation between errors of
women’s and men’s criterion variables; Dist. test – distinguishability test; χ2 – chi square test; W – women; M
– men; β – standardized beta coefficient; R2 – coefficient of determination; k – ratio of the partner effect to the
actor effect; 95% CI – confidence interval for k calculated by Monte Carlo sampling; LL – lower limit of 95%
CI; UL – upper limit of 95% CI; CBD – cannot be determined.
*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.
a. Degrees of freedom for all tests are 6.
Women and men’s self-reported reappraisal exerted significant positive actor
effects on RS, whereas both partner effects were nonsignificant. However, because
Kardum, I., Gračanin, A., Hudek-Knežević, J., Blažić, B.:
Emotion Regulation and Relationship Satisfaction
153
distinguishability test for self-reported reappraisal was nonsignificant, we performed
additional analysis treating dyad members as indistinguishable, and it showed
significant positive actor and partner effects. When analysing partner reported
reappraisal, we obtained women’s positive actor effect and both positive partner
effects on RS. Regarding suppression, only women’s self-reported suppression
exerted significant negative actor effects on RS (Table 2)
1
.
Discussion
The main aim of this study was to examine actor effects and partner effects of
women and men’s self-reported and partner reported cognitive reappraisal and
expressive suppression on their RS. We hypothesized positive actor and partner
effects of reappraisal and negative actor and partner effects of suppression on RS in
women and men when both self-reports and partner reports of emotion regulation
were taken into account. We also expected these relations to be stronger and more
consistent for reappraisal and on the sample of women.
Regarding reappraisal, the results mainly supported our hypotheses. Self-
reported reappraisal exerted significant positive actor effects on the RS in both
women and men, whereas only significant women’s actor effect remained when
partner reported reappraisal was considered. Self-reported reappraisal also exerted
significant positive partner effect on RS when dyads were indistinguishable and both
partner effects were significant when partner reports were taken into account.
Although the effects obtained were relatively small, they are in the typical range for
social psychology research (Richard et al., 2003). Additionally, they were still in line
with the assumptions that reappraisal has positive effects on both partners’ RS, that
these effects can be generalized across self-reports and partner reports to a certain
extent, and that they are somewhat stronger in women. The only plausible dyadic
pattern that could be interpreted was couple pattern (k = 1) obtained when self-
reported reappraisal was analysed and dyad members were treated as if they were
indistinguishable (Table 2). It means that actor effects and partner effects are equal,
i.e. that our RS is equally affected by our own reappraisal as well as by our partner’s
reappraisal. Considering expressive suppression, only women’s self-reported
suppression exerted significant negative actor effect on RS. Therefore, as
hypothesized, the effects of reappraisal were stronger than the effects of suppression.
The observed actor effects and partner effects of reappraisal on RS are in line
with the majority of the earlier studies (Mazzuca et al., 2018; Rusu et al., 2019).
Actor effects of reappraisal on RS are theoretically clearer and studied more often
1
Controlling for sociodemographic (men and women’s age and education) and couple
characteristic (relationship length and marital status) included as within- and between-dyad
covariates, we obtained almost identical results to those presented in Table 2 (analyses
available upon request).
PSYCHOLOGICAL TOPICS, 30 (2021), 1, 145-159
154
than its partner effects (Gross, 1998; Rusu et al., 2019). The evidence supporting
actor effects can be found in studies based on both APIM and other study designs,
including cross-sectional (Chervonsky & Hunt, 2017; Velotti et al., 2016), quasi-
experimental (Impett et al., 2012, 2014; Vater & Schroder-Abe, 2015), and
longitudinal diary studies (e.g., Impett et al., 2012, 2014). Partner effects of
reappraisal on RS were also previously found, although there were few such studies
(Mazzuca et al., 2018; Rusu et al., 2019). In the study by Vater and Schroder-Abe
(2015), in which there were no links between reappraisal and partner’s RS, the
reappraisal was measured as momentary spontaneous situational emotion regulation
during a specific situation, rather than trait. This may point to the complex links
between reappraisal and partner’s RS and may partly explain relatively small partner
effects of reappraisal obtained in our study. There are many potential reasons why
habitual use of reappraisal should exert positive partner effects. For example,
reappraisal systematically leads to interpersonal behaviour appropriately focused on
the partner and/or mutual interaction, which ensures that the partner is perceived as
engaged and full of understanding (Butler et al., 2003), which can be expected to
result in increased RS. However, while previous research provided some initial
support for the relation between trait reappraisal and one’s partner’s RS, our study
was the first that more systematically examined both actor and partner effects of
reappraisal by considering not just self-reported, but also partner reported use of this
emotion regulation strategy. The relative generalizability of these effects across the
two measurement methods corroborates previous findings based on self-reports only.
Finally, the absence of the actor effect of partner reported reappraisal in men suggests
that this actor effect is generally weak and would reach statistical significance only
when common method variance is not controlled for.
While the existence of the actor effect of suppression on RS in women
corroborates the results of previous studies, the absence of such an effect in men
contradicts the earlier findings (Chervonsky & Hunt, 2017; Velotti et al., 2016). A
meta-analysis showed that men’s use of suppression predicted negative social
outcomes, including lower romantic relationship quality, to a smaller extent than in
women (Chervonsky & Hunt, 2017), but the complete absence of such effects in men
in our study is rather unexpected. Next, the absence of the partner effects of
suppression on RS partly contrasts an earlier study that found the partner effect of
men’s but not women’s suppression (Velotti et al., 2016). However, the observed
effect was relatively small, and obtained on newlywed couples only. The only
remaining studies that explored this issue failed to observe any partner effects of
suppression (Mazzuca et al., 2018; Vater & Schroder-Abe, 2015), which corresponds
to our findings.
As stated earlier, suppression is a relatively hidden process, which might
preclude its direct effects on one’s partner. However, a relatively similar level of
correspondence between self-reported and partner reported suppression and
reappraisal in our study suggests that the absence of the partner effects of suppression
Kardum, I., Gračanin, A., Hudek-Knežević, J., Blažić, B.:
Emotion Regulation and Relationship Satisfaction
155
is not due to difficulties of its observability. In other words, our participants were
equally able to recognize the use of suppression and reappraisal in their partners,
whereas only reappraisal predicted their partners’ RS. In previous studies,
detrimental effects of suppression on one’s own RS have been mediated by
individuals’ feelings of inauthenticity (Impett et al., 2012). Consequently, it is hard
to expect that such negative feelings do not influence one’s partner. Indeed, there is
direct evidence showing that feelings of inauthenticity mediated the link between
one’s daily use of suppression and both one’s own and partner’s report of relationship
quality (Impett et al., 2012). However, the use of suppression might also have some
positive effects on romantic relationships, at least for individuals with certain
personality characteristics (Kashdan et al., 2007). Therefore, it might be possible that
some positive effects of suppression often undo its detrimental consequences, which
might partly explain the absence of its partner effects in our study. Following the
relative consistency of findings in the earlier studies (Mazzuca et al., 2018; Vater &
Schroder-Abe, 2015), and since no partner effects of suppression in our study were
found even in the case of partner reports, we feel that there is now sufficient evidence
to conclude that, on average, trait suppression exerts minor or unimportant effects on
romantic partner’s RS in the long run. Nevertheless, future research should ask more
specific questions about moderating effects of individual differences and specific
contexts that may allow us to detect potential effects of suppression on partners’ RS.
Although not the main aim of this study, additional results concerning similarity
indices are also novel to the field of emotion regulation in romantic relationships and
might improve its understanding. Firstly, we found low positive assortment for self-
reported reappraisal (.17), and, as far as we know, this is the first study that has
examined assortment in this emotion regulation strategy. Generally, the degree of
assortment for emotion regulation strategies is low in the current study and it is likely
that they influence mate selection to a small degree. Assumed similarity and self-
partner agreement were low to moderate, similar in women and men and for both
regulation strategies. Significant correlations between self-reports and partner reports
on both regulation strategies supported our hypothesis that people have certain
insights into emotion regulation efforts of their partners. Self-partner agreement
indices were lower than those usually found for personality traits, but similar to those
obtained for affective traits, suggesting their more internal and subjective nature and,
therefore, relatively low visibility (Watson et al., 2000). The self-partner agreement
in suppression corresponds to the one obtained by Impett et al. (2014), who found a
marginally significant link between self-report and partner report on the use of this
emotion regulation strategy across three diary-based measurements. The self-partner
agreement in reappraisal is a novel finding. Generally, the absence of valid trait-
related cues may have also led to the assumed similarity indices comparable in size
to self-other agreement indices. These results imply that it is relatively difficult to
rate other people accurately on both emotion regulation dimensions, even in well-
acquainted people such as long-term romantic couples. It seems that in the context
of long-term romantic relationships people also tend to rate their partners’ emotion
PSYCHOLOGICAL TOPICS, 30 (2021), 1, 145-159
156
regulation strategies by relying on their own. This is in line with a recent study by
Peters and Overall (2020), showing that the perception of situational suppression of
one’s romantic partner depended more on one’s own than partners’ self-reported trait
suppression.
The most important advantage of this study is a relatively large sample of
romantic couples, heterogeneous regarding age and relationship length. Additionally,
along with self-reports we analysed partner reports as well. There is ample evidence
that perceptions of other people are reliable and valid, and provide important and
unique information containing typical behavioural patterns not represented in an
individual’s self-perceptions but evident in social interactions (Vazire, 2010). Our
findings that self-reported and partner reported reappraisal exerted actor as well as
partner effects on RS are not only theoretically but also methodologically important
because they show that the effects of reappraisal on RS are not the artefacts of the
common method variance. However, it should be noted that other-reports also
comprise some disadvantages, such as observer biases (Weller & Watson, 2009),
which are also evident from the assumed similarity indices discussed above.
Several limitations of this study are noteworthy and might be addressed in future
studies. First, a cross-sectional design does not allow causal conclusions about the
direction of relations between emotion regulation and RS. Namely, those more
satisfied with their relationship may be more likely to rely on reappraisal. More
generally, when making a distinction between intrapersonal and interpersonal
aspects and the consequences of emotion regulation strategies, it is important to note
that these two domains are heavily intertwined. Personal consequences of each
regulation strategy, in their turn, can exert the effects on interpersonal outcomes and
vice versa. For example, the use of reappraisal may decrease the likelihood of feeling
and consequently showing negative emotion towards the interaction partner, and this
may, in turn, affect the emotional response of the partner, and also his/her emotion
regulation efforts. Therefore, it may be fruitful for future studies to examine the
potential bidirectional pathways between emotion regulation and RS in different
relationship trajectories using a longitudinal design. Furthermore, we focused only
on two emotion regulation strategies, and future studies should explore how other
emotion regulation strategies operate in the context of romantic relationships. The
outcomes should comprise broader and more diverse indicators of relationship
functioning, such as stability and importance as well as support and conflict in
relationships. For a better understanding of the mechanisms between emotion
regulation and RS, some mediating variables (e.g., coping with stress in a
relationship), and moderating variables (e.g., basic personality traits) should also be
included.
Kardum, I., Gračanin, A., Hudek-Knežević, J., Blažić, B.:
Emotion Regulation and Relationship Satisfaction
157
References
Ben-Naim, S., Hirschberger, G., Ein-Dor, T., & Mikulincer, M. (2013). An experimental
study of emotion regulation during relationship conflict interactions: The moderating
role of attachment orientations. Emotion, 13, 506–519. https://doi.org/10.1037/
a0031473
Brody, L. R., & Hall, J. A. (2000). Gender, emotion, and expression. In M. Lewis & J. M.
Haviland-Jones (Eds.). Handbook of emotion, 2nd edition (pp. 338–349). Guilford.
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, 48–67.
https://doi.org/10.1037/1528-3542.3.1.48
Butler, E. A., Lee, T. L., & Gross, J. J. (2007). Emotion regulation and culture: Are the social
consequences of emotion suppression culture-specific? Emotion, 7, 30–48.
https://doi.org/10.1037/1528-3542.7.1.30
Campos, J. J., Walle, E. A., Dahl, A., & Main, A. (2011). Reconceptualizing emotion
regulation. Emotion Review, 3, 26–35. https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073910380975
Chervonsky, E., & Hunt, C. (2017). Suppression and expression of emotion in social and
interpersonal outcomes: A meta-analysis. Emotion, 17, 669–683. https://doi.org/10.
1037/emo0000270
Chervonsky, E., & Hunt, C. (2018). Emotion suppression and reappraisal associated with
bullying involvement and other social outcomes in young adults. Social Psychology of
Education, 21, 849–873. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-018-9440-3
Fletcher, G. J. O., Simpson, J. A., & Thomas, G. (2000). The measurement of perceived
relationship quality components: A confirmatory factor analytic approach. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 340–354. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0146167200265007
Gračanin, A., Kardum, I., & Gross, J. J. (2020). The Croatian version of the Emotion
Regulation Questionnaire: Psychometric properties and validity. International Journal
of Psychology, 55, 609–617. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12624
Gross, J. J. (1998). Antecedent- and response-focused emotion regulation: Divergent
consequences for experience, expression, and physiology. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 74, 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, 348–362. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.2.348
Gross, J. J., Richards, J. M., & John, O. P. (2006). Emotion regulation in everyday life. In D.
K. Snyder, J. A. Simpson, & J. N. Hughes (Eds.). Emotion regulation in couples and
families (pp. 13–37). American Psychological Association.
PSYCHOLOGICAL TOPICS, 30 (2021), 1, 145-159
158
Impett, E. A., Kogan, A., English, T., John, O., Oveis, C., Gordon, A., & Keltner, D. (2012).
Suppression sours sacrifice: Emotional and relationship costs of suppressing emotions
in romantic relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 707–720.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167212437249
Impett, E. A., Le, B. M., Kogan, A., Oveis, C., & Keltner, D. (2014). When you think your
partner is holding back: The costs of perceived partner suppression during relationship
sacrifice. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 5, 542–549.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550613514455
John, O. P., & Gross, J. J. (2004). Healthy and unhealthy emotion regulation: Personality
processes, individual differences, and life span development. Journal of Personality, 72,
1301–1333. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2004.00298.x
Kardum, I., Hudek-Knezevic, J., Mehic, N., & Pilek, M. (2018). The effects of similarity in
the dark triad traits on the relationship quality in dating couples. Personality and
Individual Differences, 131, 38–44. https://doi:10.1016/j.paid.2018.04.020
Kashdan, T. B., Volkmann, J. R., Breen, W. E., & Han, S. (2007). Social anxiety and romantic
relationships: The costs and benefits of negative emotion expression are context-
dependent. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 21, 475–492. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
janxdis.2006.08.007
Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Cook, W. L. (2006). Dyadic data analysis. Guilford Press.
Kenny, D. A., & Ledermann, T. (2010). Detecting, measuring, and testing dyadic patterns in
the actor-partner interdependence model. Journal of Family Psychology, 24, 359–366.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019651
Mazzuca, S., Kafetsios, K., Livi, S., & Presaghi, F. (2018). Emotion regulation and
satisfaction in long-term marital relationships: The role of emotional contagion. Journal
of Social and Personal Relationships, 36, 2880–2895. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0265407518804452
Peters, B. J., & Overall, N. C. (2020). Perceptions of romantic partners’ emotional suppression
are more biased than accurate. Emotion, 20(8), 1485–1489. https://doi.org/10.1037/
emo0000679
Richard, F. D., Bond, C. F., Jr., & Stokes-Zoota, J. J. (2003). One hundred years of social
psychology quantitatively described. Review of General Psychology, 7, 331–363.
https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.7.4.331
Rusu, P. P., Bodenmann, G., & Kayser, K. (2019). Cognitive emotion regulation and positive
dyadic outcomes in married couples. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 36,
359–376. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407517751664
Stas, L., Kenny, D. A., Mayer, A., & Loeys, T. (2018). Giving dyadic data analysis away: A
user-friendly app for actor-partner interdependence models. Personal Relationships, 25,
103–119. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12230
Kardum, I., Gračanin, A., Hudek-Knežević, J., Blažić, B.:
Emotion Regulation and Relationship Satisfaction
159
Vater, A., & Schroder-Abe, M. (2015). Explaining the link between personality and
relationship satisfaction: Emotion regulation and interpersonal behaviour in conflict
discussions. European Journal of Personality, 29, 201–215. https://doi.org/10.1002/
per.1993
Vazire, S. (2010). Who knows what about a person? The Self-Other Knowledge Asymmetry
(SOKA) model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 281–300.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017908
Velotti, P., Balzarotti, S., Tagliabue, S., English, T., Zavattini, G., & Gross, J. J. (2016).
Emotional suppression in early marriage: Actor, partner, and similarity effects on
marital quality. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 33, 277–302.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407515574466
Watson, D., Hubbard, B., & Wiese, D. (2000). Self-other agreement in personality and
affectivity: The role of acquaintanceship, trait visibility, and assumed similarity. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 546–558. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-
3514.78.3.546
Watson, D., Klohnen, E. C., Casillas, A., Simms, E. N., Haig, J., & Berry, D. S. (2004). Match
makers and deal breakers: Analyses of assortative mating in newlywed couples. Journal
of Personality, 72, 1030–1068. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-3506.2004.00289.x
Weller, J., & Watson, D. (2009). Friend or foe? Differential use of the self-based heuristic as
a function of relationship satisfaction. Journal of Personality, 77, 731–760.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2009.00563.x
Received: December 15, 2020
