peer-reviewed psychology journal article
This assignment provides you with an opportunity to analyze a real-world, peer-reviewed psychology journal article. You should find an article containing research that examines motivation, emotion, and social psychology.
Begin by visiting the CSU Online Library to locate and choose a journal article in which motivation and emotion are viewed under the lens of social psychology. The article must be peer-reviewed and should be no older than 7 years.
A good place to start your search is the PsycARTICLES database or the Academic Search Complete database. You can access these databases from the Databases box on the library homepage.
For assistance in locating your article, you may find the following tutorial How to Find Journal Articles helpful. Additionally, you may find this How to Search in PsycARTICLES document useful.
Once you have chosen your article, you will write an article critique that addresses the following elements.
· Explain the research methodology that was used in the study.
· Discuss social factors that influence people or groups to conform to the actions of others.
· Indicate how behaviors and motivation are impacted by the presence of others.
· Indicate the structures of the brain that are involved in emotion and motivation.
· Examine the article’s generalizability to various areas of psychology.
In addition, your article critique should clearly identify the article’s premise and present an insightful and thorough analysis with strong arguments and evidence. You should present your own informed and substantiated opinion on the article’s content. You must use at least one source in addition to your chosen article to support your analysis and opinion.
Your article critique must be a minimum of three pages in length, not including the title and reference pages. All sources used must be properly cited. Your article critique, including all references, must be formatted in APA style.
Context Shapes Social Judgments of Positive Emotion Suppression and Expression
Elise K. Kalokerinos KU Leuven
Katharine H. Greenaway and James P. Casey The University of Queensland
It is generally considered socially undesirable to suppress the expression of positive emotion. However, previous research has not considered the role that social context plays in governing appropriate emotion regulation. We investigated a context in which it may be more appropriate to suppress than express positive emotion, hypothesizing that positive emotion expressions would be considered inappropriate when the valence of the expressed emotion (i.e., positive) did not match the valence of the context (i.e., negative). Six experiments (N � 1,621) supported this hypothesis: when there was a positive emotion- context mismatch, participants rated targets who suppressed positive emotion as more appropriate, and evaluated them more positively than targets who expressed positive emotion. This effect occurred even when participants were explicitly made aware that suppressing targets were experiencing mismatched emotion for the context (e.g., feeling positive in a negative context), suggesting that appropriate emotional expression is key to these effects. These studies are among the first to provide empirical evidence that social costs to suppression are not inevitable, but instead are dependent on context. Expressive suppression can be a socially useful emotion regulation strategy in situations that call for it.
Keywords: context, emotion expression, emotion regulation, expressive suppression, positive emotion
Your smile is a messenger of goodwill. Your smile brightens the lives of all who see it. . . . As I leave for my office, I greet the elevator operator in the apartment house with a ‘Good morning’ and a smile, I greet the doorman with a smile. I smile at the cashier in the subway booth when I ask for change. As I stand on the floor of the Stock Exchange, I smile at people who until recently never saw me smile.
—Carnegie (1936)
In his seminal book How to Win Friends and Influence People, Dale Carnegie (1936) offers a recipe for success: Smile. Carnegie recommends applying this rule indiscriminately, and he is not alone in this view—lay intuition holds that expressing positive
emotion is a socially acceptable way to endear one’s self to other people. Yet, we also know that positive emotion expressions are not appropriate in every situation. Sometimes people laugh while experiencing trauma, smile at disgusting pictures, and giggle dur- ing solemn funeral services. To an outside observer, these positive emotion expressions may appear inappropriate, unwarranted, and just plain wrong. To maintain a positive impression such situa- tions, it may be better for people to suppress the expression of inappropriate positive emotions. However, as an emotion regula- tion strategy, expressive suppression has received as much con- demnation as smiling has received praise. The existing literature portrays expressive suppression as a maladaptive strategy with personal and social costs—a strategy to be avoided. We challenge this assumption, exploring the key role that context plays in shap- ing the social consequences of suppressing and expressing positive emotion.
The Costs of Expressive Suppression
Emotions serve useful personal and social functions, but can also have dysfunctional and destructive effects (Frijda, 1986; Par- rott, 2001). Thus, to reap the rewards of emotions while controlling the costs, it is necessary to be able to successfully regulate emo- tional experience and expression (Gross, 2002). In the process model of emotion regulation, James Gross (1998b, 2015) outlined strategies that can be used to regulate emotional reactions prior to emotion generation (i.e., antecedent-focused strategies) and after an emotional response has fully onset (i.e., response-focused strat- egies). Of the response-focused strategies, expressive suppres- sion—a strategy that involves inhibiting the outward expression of emotional states—has attracted the most widespread research at- tention (Gross & Levenson, 1993; Webb, Miles, & Sheeran, 2012).
This article was published Online First August 25, 2016. Elise K. Kalokerinos, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences,
KU Leuven; Katharine H. Greenaway and James P. Casey, School of Psychology, The University of Queensland.
Elise K. Kalokerinos and Katharine H. Greenaway shared first author- ship.
Elise K. Kalokerinos is supported by a Marie Skłodowska-Curie indi- vidual fellowship (704298) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme. Katharine H. Greenaway is supported by an Australian Research Council Discovery Early Career Researcher Award (DE160100761) and by an award from the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research: Social Interactions, Identity, and Well-being Program. We thank Karly Head, Cassandra Brady, Kate Watson, and Nicholas Williams for their assistance with data collection, and Loraine Chui, Robert Faraone, Sienna Hinton-Pryde, Greg Lewin, and Matawan Srisawad for their assistance with video coding.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Elise K. Kalokerinos, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, KU Leuven, Tiensestraat 102, Leuven 3000, Belgium. E-mail: elise .kalokerinos@kuleuven.be
T hi
s do
cu m
en t
is co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an Ps
yc ho
lo gi
ca l
A ss
oc ia
tio n
or on
e of
its al
lie d
pu bl
is he
rs .
T hi
s ar
tic le
is in
te nd
ed so
le ly
fo r
th e
pe rs
on al
us e
of th
e in
di vi
du al
us er
an d
is no
t to
be di
ss em
in at
ed br
oa dl
y.
Emotion © 2016 American Psychological Association 2017, Vol. 17, No. 1, 169–186 1528-3542/17/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/emo0000222
169
mailto:elise.kalokerinos@kuleuven.be
mailto:elise.kalokerinos@kuleuven.be
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/emo0000222
Although suppression successfully prevents a person’s feelings from showing, it leaves emotional experience mostly unchanged (Gross & Levenson, 1993; Kalokerinos, Greenaway, & Denson, 2015).
The consensus in the literature is that expressive suppression is generally dysfunctional: chronic suppressors experience and ex- press less positive emotion and more negative emotion, and report reduced well-being (Gross & John, 2003; Nezlek & Kuppens, 2008). Excessive use of suppression is also a hallmark of certain mental health disorders, including anxiety and depression (Aldao, Nolen-Hoeksema, & Schweizer, 2010). In experimental studies, suppression leads to poorer memory for the suppressed event, increased negative emotion, and maladaptive profiles of physio- logical functioning (Gross & Levenson, 1993; Richards, 2004; Richards & Gross, 2000).
In addition to these personal costs, suppression also has negative social consequences. Chronic use of suppression has been linked with lower levels of social support, less interpersonal closeness, and lower relationship satisfaction (English & John, 2013; Gross & John, 2003; Srivastava, Tamir, McGonigal, John, & Gross, 2009). In the lab, dyads with one partner instructed to suppress demon- strate poorer communication, reduced rapport, and impaired rela- tionship formation (Butler et al., 2003). However, more recently, some research has suggested that suppression of negative emotion does not always actively harm social relations—for example, among people who prioritize social harmony through an interde- pendent cultural worldview, suppression is not associated with social costs (Butler, Lee, & Gross, 2007) and can sometimes even improve relationship outcomes (Le & Impett, 2013). However, there has been no direct test of whether suppression of positive emotion will always have negative social effects. In sum, with few exceptions, the current literature appears to conclude that when it comes to emotion regulation, expressive suppression is a poor choice.
The Benefits of Positive Emotion Expression
Just as expressive suppression has costs, emotion expression can have benefits. Emotion…
