Emotional suppression in early marriage

Abstract

Although habitual use of suppression has been consistently linked to adverse consequences for overall social functioning, little is known about the implications of using this emotion regulation strategy in the context of romantic relationships. The current longitudinal study tests whether husbands’ and wives’ habitual use of suppression, as well as couple similarity in the use of this strategy, influence marital quality over the first couple of years of marriage. A total of 229 newlywed couples reported their habitual use of suppression and perceived marital quality at two time points, 5 months and 2 years after marriage. Results showed that husbands’ habitual use of suppression was the most consistent predictor of (lower) marital quality over time. Couples showed significant levels of similarity in suppression at the initial assessment, consistent with positive assortment, and this similarity was a significant predictor of higher marital quality as reported by wives regardless of overall levels of suppression use. These findings suggest that husbands’ use of suppression is more harmful for marital satisfaction than wives’ use and wives are more sensitive to their partners’ use of suppression as well as to couple similarity.

Keywords

Attachment avoidance emotion regulation marital quality similarity suppression

It sometimes seems desirable to restrain ourselves from openly expressing the emotions that arise during interactions with our social partners. We may hide our emotions if we think that expressing them could potentially impair our relationship or hurt our partner’s feelings. For instance, we may conceal negative emotional reactions that could lead our partner to dislike us, hide our worries in order to avoid worrying someone else, or conceal our happiness in front of others who are sad.

In the emotion regulation literature, the attempt to reduce or inhibit ongoing emotional expression has been referred to as emotional suppression (Gross, 1998; Gross & John, 2003). Although concealing outward signs of emotion may serve short-term interpersonal goals (e.g., avoiding conflict and not hurting other’s feelings), research has revealed that habitually using suppression to influence emotional expression in everyday life leads to various adverse social consequences such as less social support, lower social satisfaction, and less closeness to others (English & John, 2013; English, John, Srivastava, & Gross, 2012; Gross & John, 2003; Impett et al., 2012; Srivastava, Tamir, McGonigal, John, & Gross, 2009). Habitual use of suppression may be especially harmful for the development and maintenance of close relationships (English, John, & Gross, 2013). Prior research has in fact found that individual differences in suppression predict less close social connections but are not related to other aspects of social functioning, such as likability and social status (English et al., 2012; Srivastava et al., 2009). Also individuals who tend to habitually use suppression are more likely to report attachment avoidance, which is defined by discomfort with closeness and sharing (Gross & John, 2003).

So far, suppression effects on social functioning have been mainly examined at the individual level, with a number of studies (though largely limited to the context of college students’ friendships) finding that the habitual use of this strategy is generally a negative predictor of self-perceived relationship satisfaction (e.g., Srivastava et al., 2009). Far less research has examined whether, at the dyad level, each partner’s use of suppression is associated with relationship quality as perceived by the other partner. The few existing studies reveal negative effects of suppression for both romantic partners (Impett et al., 2012). Also no studies thus far have assessed whether partners tend to be similar (e.g., Robins, Caspi, & Moffitt, 2000) in the habitual use of emotion regulation strategies such as suppression and whether being similar in suppression may affect relationship quality.

In this article, we study habitual use of emotional suppression and its association with relationship quality from a dyadic perspective. In a sample of newlywed couples, we examine whether husbands’ and wives’ use of suppression influences dyadic adjustment as perceived by both spouses over the first 2 years of marriage. Furthermore, we examine whether spouses tend to be similar in suppression and whether similarity in the use of this strategy is associated with perceived marital quality. We control for attachment avoidance because it has previously been shown to be positivity associated with habitual use of suppression (Gross & John, 2003), and it is also a well-known negative predictor of relationship quality (e.g., Banse, 2004; Mikulincer, Florian, Cowan, & Cowan, 2002).

A process model of emotion regulation: Emotional suppression and its social costs

Emotion regulation has been defined as comprising all the conscious and unconscious strategies individuals use to reduce, maintain, or increase either positive or negative emotions (Gross, 2001). To organize the myriad forms of emotion regulation that people use, the process model of emotion regulation (Gross, 1998, 2001) posits that emotion regulation strategies can be differentiated based on when they have primary impact in the emotion generation process. In this article, we focus on a response-focused strategy—emotional suppression. Suppression occurs late in the emotion process and for this reason, according to the process model, it should be more resource demanding and generally less effective at modulating emotional experience compared to other forms of regulation (for a review see Gross, 2001, 2007).

Consistent with the model predictions, experimental studies have shown that the instructed use of suppression effectively reduces the outward display of emotions but not the subjective experience of negative emotion (Gross, 1998). Suppressing emotions also leads to several adverse side effects, such as increased physiological responding (e.g., Jackson, Malmstadt, Larson, & Davidson, 2000) and impaired memory (Richards, Butler, & Gross, 2003; Richards & Gross, 1999). Notably, in one experimental study of previously unacquainted female dyads (Butler et al., 2003), women instructed to suppress their emotions during the discussion of an upsetting topic showed less responsiveness and their partners reported less feeling of rapport as well as less motivation to form a friendship than partners of women instructed to act naturally.

Complementing experimental work, the implications of the habitual use of emotional suppression in everyday life have also been assessed, conceptualizing suppression as a trait-level individual difference variable (Gross & John, 2003). Similarly to its instructed use, habitual use of suppression has been associated with a poor emotional profile (i.e., greater experience of negative emotion and less experience of positive emotion; Gross & John, 2003). Because it directly targets outward expressive behavior, which is potentially visible to others, several studies have focused on the consequences that habitual use of suppression may have for the individual’s social functioning. Gross and John (2003) found that habitual use of suppression is generally associated with less social support, less closeness to others, and lower social satisfaction. Similarly, in a 5-month prospective study, individual differences in the use of suppression during an important life transition (i.e., transition to college) were shown to predict less closeness, less support, and lower social satisfaction (Srivastava et al., 2009). In a more recent longitudinal study, habitual use of suppression in late middle age was found to predict lower social support 10 years later (English & John, 2013).

Habitual use of suppression in close relationships

Existing evidence suggests that habitual use of suppression may particularly interfere with the development of close relationships. A first line of evidence comes from longitudinal studies showing that individual differences in suppression predict less emotionally close social connections but leave other domains of social functioning such as sociometric evaluations unaffected (e.g., likability and social status; English et al., 2012; Srivastava et al., 2009).

Second, research has found that habitual suppressors tend to express less positive and less negative emotion than they actually experience, and, also, they are reluctant to open up and share their emotional experience with others (Gross & John, 2003). Within close relationship studies, emotional expression and self-disclosure of emotion have been shown to play a key role in the development of intimacy and relationship closeness, with unexpressive partners deemed as disinterested, uncaring and distant (e.g., Laurenceau, Barrett, & Pietromonaco, 1998; Moss & Schwebel, 1993; Pennebaker, 1997; Reis & Shaver, 1988; Tickle-Degnen & Rosenthal, 1992).

Third, because suppression reduces the outer expression but not the inner experience of emotions (Gross, 1998), individuals who habitually suppress their emotions tend to feel less authentic or true to themselves (English & John, 2013; Gross & John, 2003; Impett et al., 2012). Theory and research on close relationships suggest that inauthenticity interferes with reciprocal self-disclosure and self-verification, leading to interpersonal distance and lower relationship satisfaction (e.g., Kernis & Goldman, 2006; Swann, De La Ronde, & Hixon, 1994; Swann & Pelham, 2002).

Finally, habitual suppression has been found to positively and substantially correlate with attachment avoidance (Gross & John, 2003), which is defined by discomfort with closeness and intimacy as well as by preference for self-reliance and emotional distance from others (e.g., Brennan, Clark, & Shaver, 1998; Hazan & Shaver, 1987; Mikulincer, Shaver, & Pereg, 2003). Likewise, adult attachment models (e.g., Hazan & Shaver, 1987)—which represent an influential theoretical framework for understanding affect regulation in the context of close relationships (Shaver & Mikulincer, 2007)—predict important links between attachment working models and the use of emotion regulation strategies, with avoidant individuals relying on the inhibition of emotional expression (i.e., not sharing their emotions and keeping them from showing) as a strategy to regulate negative emotional responses within close relationships more often than non-avoidant individuals (Cassidy, 1994; John & Gross, 2007; Schachner, Shaver, & Mikulincer, 2005; Shaver & Mikulincer, 2007).

Overall, prior research suggests that habitually concealing one’s feelings has adverse social consequences that may especially impair the formation and maintenance of close relationships. However, existing studies have mainly examined the implications of habitual suppression for the individual’s social functioning within the context of college students’ friendships (English et al., 2012; Gross & John, 2003; Srivastava et al., 2009). Despite the negative impact of emotional suppression on relationship closeness, there is thus far minimal work assessing the habitual use of this strategy within other types of close relationships (e.g., romantic couples) as well as its effects on relationship quality from both partners’ perspective.

A dyadic perspective on emotional suppression: Implications for relationship quality

Examining habitual use of suppression and its association with relationship quality from a dyadic perspective opens two main questions. The first concerns the effect that each partner’s use of suppression may have on the relationship quality as perceived by oneself (i.e., actor effect) as well as by the other (i.e., partner effect). The second question is related to how each partner’s use of suppression combines within the couple. Partners may vary in how similar they are to each other (Kenny, Kashy, & Cook, 2006) in terms of their habitual use of suppression and their level of similarity may impact their relationship quality.

Habitual suppression: Actor and partner effects on relationship quality

Existing research suggests that the social costs of habitual suppression may concern not only the regulator but also extend to his or her relationship partners. Along these lines, some studies have found that the individual’s use of suppression predicts lower relationship satisfaction as rated by his or her peers (English et al., 2012; Gross & John, 2003; Srivastava et al., 2009). Likewise, in a recent diary study on romantic couples (Impett et al., 2012), suppression use during daily sacrifice predicted less emotional well-being and lower relationship quality as reported by both the suppressor and his or her romantic partner.

So far, no previous evidence exists about the potential costs of habitual suppression for relationship quality over the course of long-lasting, committed relationships such as marriage. Within marital research, however, some studies have found that spouses’ use of stonewalling lowers marital satisfaction in both spouses, and stonewalling is somewhat similar to suppression as it occurs when one partner withdraws from interaction in order to avoid conflict (Gottman & Levenson, 1999, 2000; Levenson & Gottman, 1985). Also several studies have consistently shown that husbands’ and wives’ attachment avoidance is negatively associated with the quality of their marital relationship (e.g., Banse, 2004; for a review, see Mikulincer et al., 2002). Previous research also suggests that the relation between attachment avoidance and relationship quality may be influenced by gender (Banse, 2004; Feeney, 2002). However, evidence is mixed, with some studies showing negative partner effects of men’s avoidant attachment on satisfaction as reported by their female partners (e.g., Feeney, 2002; Simpson, 1990) and other studies showing a negative effect of wives’ avoidance on husbands’ satisfaction (e.g., Banse, 2004).

Dyadic similarity in suppression

Beyond the influence of partners’ individual levels of a given trait, relationship quality may depend on how similar partners are in that trait (Luo & Klohnen, 2005). At the earliest stages of a relationship, individuals may tend to choose partners who are similar to themselves (positive assortment; Gonzaga, Carter, & Buckwalter, 2010; Humbad, Donnellan, Iacono, McGue, & Burt, 2010; Luo & Klohnen, 2005), as part of the tendency for individuals to create social environments that match and reinforce their dispositions (Buss, 1984; Caspi & Herbener, 1990). Alternatively, partners may converge over time, that is, partners who are not initially similar may become similar to each other as they interact and spend time together (e.g., Anderson, Keltner, & John, 2003).

Indeed a large body of research has found that couples tend to be more similar than would be expected from random pairing in an array of psychological domains, including values, attitudes, and dispositional characteristics such as personality traits (Feng & Baker, 1994; Gonzaga, Campos, & Bradbury, 2007; Gonzaga et al., 2010; Humbad et al., 2010; Luo & Klohnen, 2005; Russell & Wells, 1991; Watson et al., 2004). Similarity has been generally ascribed to positive assortment for almost every domain tested (Caspi, Herbener, & Ozer, 1992; Gonzaga et al., 2007; Humbad et al., 2010; Luo & Klohnen, 2005), supporting the idea that individuals seek relational partners who are similar to themselves (Buss, 1984).

So far, no studies have examined similarity in emotion regulation; however, research assessing similarity in personality traits has found evidence of low but generally positive levels of similarity due to positive assortment (Barelds & Barelds-Dijkstra, 2007; Caspi & Herbener, 1990; Furler, Gomez, & Grob, 2013; Gaunt, 2006; Gonzaga et al., 2007, 2010; Humbad et al., 2010; Luo & Klohnen, 2005; Russell & Wells, 1991; Watson et al., 2004). In other words, people tend to prefer partners with similar personalities, even though this tendency is generally weak. These findings suggest that couples may show only little similarity in suppression to the extent that habitual suppression captures trait-like stable individual differences in emotion regulation (Gross & John, 2003).

Similarity in suppression as a dyad-level predictor of relationship quality

Similarity in personality traits is generally thought to benefit relationship quality in three ways. First, similar others may be more likely to validate one’s self-image and worldviews than dissimilar others (e.g., Anderson et al., 2003; Barelds & Barelds-Dijkstra, 2007), enhancing each other’s understanding, intimacy, and feelings of authenticity (Swann et al., 1994; Swann, Stein-Seroussi, & Giesler, 1992). Second, partners’ similarity should lead to smoother, more harmonious, and coordinated interactions as well as to less conflict in daily life (e.g., Luo & Klohnen, 2005). Third, the discovery of commonalities with one’s partner is thought as reassuring and rewarding (Arránz Becker, 2013). Nonetheless, despite the widespread idea that similarity in personal dispositions is advantageous for relationship quality, the existing body of research examining the similarity–relationship quality link consists of largely inconsistent results, with some studies finding positive associations between personality similarity and relationship satisfaction (e.g., Gaunt, 2006; Luo & Klohnen, 2005) and other studies showing very small associations or no association at all (e.g., Barelds, 2005; Dyrenforth, Kashy, Donnellan, & Lucas, 2010; Furler et al., 2013).

One reason for this inconsistency may lay in the wide array of similarity measures employed across the different studies in this body of literature. To determine couples’ degree of similarity on a given trait, researchers have considered whether partners have similar levels of this attribute or similar response profiles (Gaunt, 2006). Level similarity is usually measured in terms of discrepancy indices (e.g., the absolute value of the difference between the partners’ scores on a given trait); by contrast, profile-based similarity measures capture how similar each husband and wife are in terms of their pattern of responses (Furr, 2010; Furler et al., 2013).

Recent research suggests that level similarity in personality is not a strong predictor of marital quality when controlling for partners’ individual levels (Barelds, 2005; Gattis, Berns, Simpson, & Christensen, 2004; Watson et al., 2004). Concerning profile-based similarity in personality, some studies have found positive associations with relationship satisfaction (e.g., Decuyper, De Bolle, & De Fruyt, 2012; Luo & Klohnen, 2005), but other studies have failed to find significant relations (Glicksohn & Golan, 2001). Recent studies computing both level and profile-based indices in large representative samples suggest that personality similarity accounts for a very small proportion of variance of relationship quality (Dyrenforth et al., 2010; Furler et al., 2013). Overall, the existing literature provides mixed empirical support for the hypothesis that couples with more similar personalities are more satisfied couples.

So what can one expect about the influence of couple similarity in suppression on marital quality? When one considers level similarity, a discrepancy between partners’ levels of suppression (e.g., one partner being high in habitual use of suppression and one partner being low) may lead to more conflict and stressful interactions. Suppression directly interferes with expressive behavior, which social partners commonly use to achieve interpersonal coordination and communicate their intentions and feelings (e.g., Van Kleef, 2009). Suppressors tend to show less responsive behavior (Butler et al., 2003) and less emotional sharing (Gross & John, 2003). Their apparent lack of emotions may be perceived as indifference and distance, leading to less closeness and intimacy (Laurenceau et al., 1998; Reis & Shaver, 1988).

Profile similarity in suppression should also be beneficial for relationship quality. Profile similarity represents the degree to which partners’ profiles of responses (i.e., patterns of highs and lows) are similar to each other. Profile dissimilarities (e.g., one partner reports suppressing negative emotions, while the other primarily reports suppressing positive emotions) may then reflect a lack of fit between partners and—similar to level discrepancies—may lead to less smooth and coordinated interactions.

The present study

The main goal of this study was to merge research on emotion regulation with research on close relationships to examine the potential relationship costs of suppressing emotions in the dyadic context of early marriage. Specifically, the current study adds to the body of research linking intrapersonal traits and relationship quality by examining three types of effects of emotional suppression on marital quality over the first couple years of marriage, namely, actor effects (i.e., do spouses’ levels of suppression influence their own perceptions of marital quality?), partner effects (i.e., do spouses’ levels of suppression influence their partners’ perceptions of marital quality?), and similarity effects (i.e., does having a partner who is similar to oneself in suppression use predict better marital quality?).

Drawing from previous research suggesting that suppression is a particularly unhealthy strategy, carrying emotional and social costs for both the regulator (English et al., 2013; Gross & John, 2003; Srivastava et al., 2009) and his or her partners (Impett et al., 2012), we predicted that each spouse’s individual levels of suppression would be negatively associated with marital quality as perceived by oneself (i.e., actor effect) as well as by the other (i.e., partner effect) over the transition to conjugal life. That is, we expected that being in an intimate relationship with someone who habitually uses suppression would diminish marital quality. Given that prior research examining individual differences in suppression has found that habitual use of this strategy is correlated with attachment avoidance (Gross & John, 2003), we controlled for this association in our sample to ensure that any potential effects of suppression on marital quality were not due to this attachment dimension.

Our second set of hypotheses concerned spouses’ similarity in suppression use. Drawing from previous studies examining couple similarity in personality traits (e.g., Barelds & Barelds-Dijkstra, 2007; Gonzaga et al., 2010; Humbad et al., 2010; Luo & Klohnen, 2005; Watson et al., 2004), we predicted that spouses would show significant but low levels of similarity in suppression—measured by discrepancy scores and profile correlations—and that this similarity would be mainly due to positive assortment. Finally, we sought to determine whether dyadic similarity in suppression (level and profile based) is a predictor of marital quality. We explored two competing hypothesis in this research. On one hand, recent studies suggest that similarity in personality traits does not affect marital quality when controlling for actor and partner effects (i.e., mean levels of traits; Dyrenforth et al., 2010; Furler et al., 2013). On the other hand, we considered the possibility that—controlling for spouses’ individual levels of suppression—couples who are more similar in the use of suppression may report better marital quality than couples who are less similar. Previous literature has suggested that similar others should be better able to understand each other (Anderson et al., 2003; Barelds & Barelds-Dijkstra, 2007). One side effect of the attempt to regulate emotions by inhibiting expression is that the regulator is perceived as less responsive (Butler et al., 2003). Given that couple similarity is thought to lead to self-verification (Anderson et al., 2003)—which is associated with greater predictability in peoples’ behavior (Swann et al., 1992)—similar partners may be less likely to misjudge the lack of expressive behavior as lack of interest and care (Tickle-Degnen & Rosenthal, 1992). Also the feeling of “being understood” by one’s partner may reduce subjective inauthenticity, which has been found to mediate the adverse impact of suppression on relationship quality (English & John, 2013; Gross & John, 2003; Impett et al., 2012).

The current study is unique for three reasons. First, we consider a specific emotion regulation strategy from basic emotion research in the dyadic context of marital relationship, examining the effects of emotional suppression on marital quality from both partners’ perspective. Second, we consider the dyadic fit of spouses in emotion regulation, examining whether the effects of suppression on relationship quality vary depending on couples’ similarity. Finally, by employing a 2-year longitudinal design, the study can shed light on the issues of whether similarity in emotion regulation strategies, such as suppression, is driven by social selection or socialization processes and whether similarity in emotion regulation influences relational outcomes, such as marital quality.

Method

Participants

At Time 1, the sample consisted of 229 newlywed couples who were recruited from premarital courses or when they applied for marital license in the District Office. Less than 10% of the first-time marriage applicants who were approached declined to participate in the research. Spouses were required to meet two inclusion criteria to be eligible for the study, that is, both husband and wife should participate, and they should be first-time marriage applicants. The participants were all Caucasian. Mean age was 32.97 years (SD = 3.55) for husbands and 31.29 (SD = 3.64) for wives. The sample was fairly well educated, that is, 41.2% of husbands and 56.7% of the wives had university education. Spouses had been dating for an average of 5.4 years (SD = 3.31) before they were married.

At Time 2, approximately 20 months later, the sample consisted of 98 couples. Couples who dropped out had moved away (56%), no longer wanted to participate (40%), or had separated (4%). We will come back to attrition in the Result section.

Measures

Emotional suppression

Four items from the Italian version of the Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (ERQ-I; Balzarotti, John, & Gross, 2010) were used to measure habitual use of suppression. Two are general emotion items (e.g., “I keep my emotions to myself.”), while the other 2 items ask about regulating positive (“when I am feeling positive emotions, I am careful not to express them.”) or negative emotion (“when I am feeling negative emotions, I make sure not to express them”). The items were rated on a 7-point-Likert scale from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”. The ERQ-I has demonstrated good internal consistency and 2-month test–retest reliability (.71 for suppression), comparable to that of the original English version of the ERQ (Gross & John, 2003).¹ The α coefficients obtained in this study at Time 1 were .72 for wives and .72 for husbands, and at Time 2, coefficients were .75 for wives and .72 for husbands.

Attachment avoidance

The Experiences in Close Relationships–Revised (ECR-R; Busonera, San Martini, & Zavattini, 2011; Fraley, Waller, & Brennan, 2000) is a 36-item attachment measure, which yields scores on the dimensions of anxiety and avoidance. The 18-item avoidance scale focuses on how participants generally feel in romantic relationships (e.g., “I get uncomfortable when a romantic partner wants to be very close” or “I find it difficult to allow myself to depend on romantic partners”). Respondents used a 7-point scale (ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree) to indicate how they “typically act and feel” in their relationships with their spouse. At Time 1, αs of the avoidance scale were .77 for both husbands and wives, and at Time 2, coefficients were .85 for husbands and .82 for wives.

Marital quality

Marital quality was assessed with the Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS; Spanier, 1976). The DAS consists of 32 items tapping four components of couple functioning, namely, consensus (i.e., partners’ agreement on different issues such as finances, religion, household, etc.), satisfaction (i.e., partners’ perception of happiness or unhappiness in their relationship), cohesion (i.e., time spent in shared activities), and affectional expression (i.e., how affection is expressed). Scores on each subscale are then combined to yield an overall score of dyadic adjustment ranging from 0 to 151. The Italian version of the DAS (Gentili, Contreras, Cassaniti, & D’Arista, 2002) was administered to a sample of 148 couples replicating the four-factor structure of the original scale. In this study, internal consistencies were good (α = .84 for husbands and .81 for wives).

Procedure

Each couple received the first questionnaire packet about 4 months after they got married (interval from marriage to Time 1: M = 4.21, SD = 1.45). Husbands and wives received separate packets, including instructions to complete the questionnaires independently and to answer all the questions with explicit reference to their marriage. They were asked to complete the same questionnaires again approximately 20 months after the baseline assessment (interval from Time 1 to Time 2: M = 19.62, SD = 1.78). The packets were comprised of questionnaires on a variety of aspects of partners functioning (e.g., adjustment, conflict, social support, and mental health), within which the emotion regulation measure was embedded.

Computing dyadic similarity estimates

In light of the range of possible measures of similarity, we employed two types of dyadic similarity estimates that are commonly used in similarity research. In order to assess level similarity in suppression (i.e., partners are similar in how frequently they use this strategy), we computed the sum of the absolute difference between husbands’ and wives’ scores on each item divided by the total number of items (Kenny et al., 2006). Note that this index represents the discrepancy between the spouses’ levels of suppression (i.e., small values indicate high similarity). Absolute difference scores can range from zero, indicating that partners have equal levels of an attribute, to some positive number, indicating that partners have different levels of that characteristic (Luo & Klohnen, 2005). Because no baseline or theoretical value exists for this type of similarity estimate (Kenny et al., 2006), studies assessing level similarity usually compute a correlation between husbands’ and wives’ scores on the same trait. A sizable positive correlation is interpreted as evidence for similarity.

In order to assess profile similarity, we computed Pearson’s correlations between each husband’s and wife’s profile of responses across the items (Kenny & Acitelli, 1994; Kenny et al., 2006; Tagliabue, Lanz, & Barni, 2010). This index estimates the degree of congruence between the shapes of two individuals’ attribute profiles, reflecting which items have relatively high scores and which ones have relatively low scores. For instance, both husband and wife may report to frequently inhibit negative emotions (Item 4) and to rarely inhibit emotions in general (Item 6). Profile-based estimates can range from −1 (indicating opposites or complementarity) to 1 (indicating similarity), and values close to 0 indicate neither similarity nor dissimilarity (Luo & Klohnen, 2005).

An important issue when considering similarity is the distinction between unique similarity, which reflects how similar the partners are to each other due to interdependence within a specific dyad, and stereotype similarity, which is a consequence simply of belonging to a given social group (Dyrenforth et al., 2010; Furr, 2010; Kenny & Acitelli, 1994; Kenny et al., 2006). In other words, husband and wife may in fact result to be similar simply because there is a general stereotypic profile of responses to which most individuals tend to conform. Concerning habitual suppression, there is consistent evidence that men tend to suppress their emotions more frequently than women (Gross & John, 2003). Thus, in order to control for stereotype similarity, we subtracted the mean scores of the items—computed across dyads and separately for husbands and wives—from each individual measure before computing the dyadic indices (Kenny & Acitelli, 1994). This means that for each husband, the typical husband’s profile was removed, as was the typical wife’s profile for each wife. In this way, we obtained an adjusted score (for both level and profile similarity) representing unique similarity only.

Results

Participation and attrition

Means and standard deviations are presented in Table 1. To compare couples who stayed in the study across both time points with those who did not participate at Time 2, t-tests were performed. We focused on demographic variables (age, education, engagement, and relationship length), suppression, avoidance, and marital quality as prognostic variables that might potentially predict attrition. There were no differences among couples who completed all waves of the study compared to those who did not in terms of age (husbands: t(227) = −.58, p > .05; wives: t(227) = −.70, p > .05), education (husbands: t(225) = −1.75, p > .05; wives: t(226) = −1.55, p > .05), years of engagement, t(227) = −.45, p > .05, or relationship length, t(227) = 1.11, p > .05. No differences emerged for avoidance (husbands: t(226) = −.33, p > .05; wives: t(226) = .76, p > .05), suppression (husbands: t(226) = −.23, p > .05; wives: t(226) = −.65, p > .05), or marital quality variables either (husbands: t(223) = 1.38, p > .05; wives: t(223) = −.93, p > .05). Thus, attrition did not seem to be due to differences on these variables.

Table 1.

Means and standard deviations for the variables of the study at Time 1 and Time 2.

	Time 1		Time 2
	M	SD	M	SD	t
Husband
Suppression	2.89	1.30	2.86	1.24	.23
Avoidance	4.28	2.30	5.67	4.50	1.48
Adjustment	123.35	10.89	119.84	13.14	2.75**
Wife
Suppression	2.42	1.30	2.43	1.17	−.12
Avoidance	4.39	2.21	5.33	4.55	1.89
Adjustment	121.23	11.23	116.89	12.36	4.24**
Similarity in suppression
Level discrepancy	1.69	.96	1.60	.79	.36
Profile similarity	.18	.61	.16	.57	1.60

Note. Couples: N = 229 (Time 1); N = 98 (Time 2). Statistical analyses examining profile-based estimates were performed on Fisher’s z values, and values in the table have been transformed back to regular correlations.

**p < .01.

Predicting marital quality: Actor and partner effects

Two-tailed correlations between dyadic adjustment and husbands’ and wives’ individual scores in suppression and avoidance are shown in Table 2.

Table 2.

Two-tailed correlations between similarity estimates and husbands’ and wives’ individual scores in suppression, avoidance, and dyadic adjustment.

		Adjustment Time 1		Adjustment Time 2
	Time	Husband	Wife	Husband	Wife
Husband
Suppression	1	−.28**	−.17*	−.24*	−.21*
Suppression	2			−.35**	−.41**
Avoidance	1	−.41**	−.25**	−.23*	−.01
Avoidance	2			−.22*	−.31**
Wife
Suppression	1	−.06	−.18**	−.11	−.04
Suppression	2			−.14	−.24*
Avoidance	1	−.27**	−.53**	−.20*	−.37**
Avoidance	2			−.42**	−.55**
Similarity
Level	1	−.06	−.15*	−.14	−.10
Level	2			−.17	−.21*
Profile	1	.11	.21**	.14	.21*
Profile	2			.03	.14

*p < .05; **p < .01.

At Time 1, the hypothesized link between suppression and marital quality was assessed using AMOS 19 (Arbuckle, 2010) to implement a path analysis based on the actor–partner interdependence model (APIM; Kenny et al., 2006). The APIM allowed us to investigate the simultaneous effects of both partners’ habitual use of suppression on marital quality as rated by both spouses.² Because at the initial assessment habitual suppression was positively associated with attachment avoidance, r = .42; p < .001 for husbands; r = .27; p < .001 for wives, two models were tested. First, we tested habitual suppression as a predictor of marital quality; second, husbands’ and wives’ avoidance scores were added to the analysis in order to control for the effects of this attachment dimension.

The results of the path analyses are displayed in Figures 1 and 2.³ When examining husbands’ and wives’ suppression as predictors of marital quality (Figure 1), our results suggest that husbands’ marital quality was negatively influenced by their habitual use of this emotion regulation strategy only; by contrast, marital quality as perceived by wives was predicted by own and partner’s levels in suppression. When adding spouses’ levels of avoidance to the path model (Figure 2), the standardized regression weight for own habitual use of suppression was smaller for husbands and no longer significant for wives. Overall, husbands’ marital quality was predicted by own suppression and avoidance levels, as well as by their wives’ avoidance, and wives’ marital quality was predicted by own avoidance and partner’s habitual use of suppression.

Figure 1.

Path analysis with habitual suppression predicting marital quality at Time 1: significant regression weights. *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001. Boldface values indicate the coefficients of the model including discrepancy as measure of level similarity. Fit indices: χ²(3) = 2.14, p > .05, χ²/df = .72, CFI = 1.00, RMSEA = .00 [.00, .081] when including level similarity; χ²(3) = 1.22, p > .05, χ²/df = .41, CFI = 1.00, RMSEA = .00 [.00, .078] when including profile similarity.

Figure 2.

Path analysis with habitual suppression and attachment avoidance predicting marital quality at Time 1: significant regression weights. *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001. Boldface values indicate the coefficients of the model including discrepancy as measure of level similarity. Fit indices: χ²(8) = 10.32, p > .05, χ²/df = 1.29, CFI = .99, RMSEA = .036 [.00, .090] when including level similarity; χ²(9) = 11.98, p > .05, χ²/df = 1.33, CFI = .99, RMSEA = .038 [.00, .089] when including profile similarity.

To examine the link between habitual suppression and marital quality at Time 2, we first performed hierarchical regression analyses (at Time 2, the lower number of couples did not allow us to conduct path analyses) including husband’s and wives’ suppression scores at Time 2 as predictors in the first step, while avoidance scores at Time 2 as well as dyadic adjustment at Time 1 were entered in the next step. Second, in order to control for the level of the constructs at the previous time point, we conducted crossed-lagged panel analysis using AMOS 19 (Arbuckle, 2010). Due to the lower number of couples at Time 2, we limited cross-lagged panel analysis to the variables that were significant predictors in the regression analyses. For the same reason, husbands’ and wives’ marital adjustment were considered separately.

The results of hierarchical regression are reported in Table 3. Husbands’ marital adjustment was positively predicted by adjustment at Time 1 and negatively predicted by their habitual use of suppression as well as by their wives’ avoidance. Similarly, wives’ adjustment was positively associated with adjustment at Time 1 and negatively related to their own avoidance as well as to their spouses’ suppression use.

Table 3.

Hierarchical regression analyses: standardized β coefficients predicting husbands’ and wives’ adjustment at Time 2.

Predictor	Similarity estimate
	Discrepancy			Profile similarity
	ΔR ²	β	t	ΔR ²	β	t
Husbands’ adjustment
Step 1
Similarity in suppression	.12*	−.05	−.42	.12*	−.02	−.16
Husband’s suppression		−.31	−2.71*		−.33	−3.00**
Wife’s suppression		−.04	−.36		−.05	−.45
Step 2
Similarity in suppression	.39***	−.04	−.71	.38***	−.09	−.73
Husband’s suppression		−.22	−2.01*		−.21	−2.07*
Wife’s suppression		−.03	−.34		−.03	−.35
Husband’s avoidance		.09	.89		.07	.69
Wife’s avoidance		−.23	−2.17*		−.23	−2.24*
Husband’s adjustment Time 1		.44	4.62***		.42	4.45***
Similarity at Time 1		−.12	−1.28		.11	.85
Wives’ adjustment
Step 1
Similarity in suppression	.17**	−.07	−.65	.18**	.11	1.09
Husband’s suppression		−.35	−3.18**		−.37	−3.48**
Wife’s suppression		−.08	−.65		−.09	−.80
Step 2
Similarity in suppression	.48***	−.01	−.06	.49***	.07	.69
Husband’s suppression		−.20	−2.07*		−.20	−2.00*
Wife’s suppression		.01	.09		.01	.15
Husband’s avoidance		.03	.31		.02	−.19
Wife’s avoidance		−.23	−2.20*		−.24	−2.32*
Wife’s adjustment Time 1		.47	4.25***		.43	3.98***
Similarity at Time 1		.02	.17		.01	.07

Note. The predictors included in the model correspond to Time 2 measures, with the exception of adjustment at Time 1 and similarity at Time 1.

*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

Figure 3 displays the results of cross-lagged panel analyses. Consistent with the results of the APIM and hierarchical regressions, husbands’ suppression and wives’ avoidance were negatively associated with both spouses’ marital adjustment at each time point. Also both husbands’ suppression and wives’ avoidance showed moderate temporal stability. When looking at cross-lagged associations, no significant effects emerged of either suppression or avoidance at Time 1 on subsequent spouses’ marital quality, whereas the reversed effect of marital quality at Time 1 on husbands’ suppression and wives’ avoidance levels in the following wave was significant for wives.

Figure 3.

Cross-lagged relationships between husbands’ suppression, wives’ avoidance, and marital quality. †p < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001. Boldface values indicate the coefficients of the model for husbands’ marital quality; fit indices: χ²(4) = 4.15, p > .05, χ²/df = 1.03, CFI = .99, RMSEA = .013 [.00, .10]; italics indicates the coefficients of the model for wives’ marital quality; fit indices: χ²(4) = 5.50, p > .05, χ²/df = 1.38, CFI = .99, RMSEA = .041 [.00, .11]. Dotted arrows indicate nonsignificance.

Dyadic similarity in suppression and its effects on marital quality

Concerning level similarity, the association between husband’s and wives’ suppression scores was .21 (p < .001) at Time 1 and .29 (p < .001) at Time 2, thus suggesting weak similarity. When examining stability of level similarity over time, paired sample t-test comparing discrepancy estimates in the two waves yielded no significant effect; however, the correlation between discrepancy estimates at Time 1 and Time 2 was weak (r = .18; p = .10). Overall, these results indicate that level similarity is somewhat unstable over time, with some couples showing lower discrepancy at Time 2 and some couples showing increasing discrepancy. Variability seemed to be due to changes in wives’ use of suppression since correlations between suppression scores at Time 1 and 2 were stronger for husbands (r = .50; p < .001) than for wives (r = .37; p < .001).

When we consider profile-based similarity (Table 1), we see that (1) means are positive in direction, indicating that on average spouses are more similar than dissimilar; (2) similarity correlations are small in magnitude (<.20); and (3) the standard deviations are substantial, suggesting that there is considerable variability in couple similarity, with some couples being very similar and others dissimilar. Similarity estimates were significantly above chance (i.e., different from 0) at Time 1, t(222) = 5.42, p < .001, and Time 2, t(86) = 2.87, p < .01. Paired sample t-test comparing the profile estimates in the two waves yielded no significant effect. Also profile indices at Time 1 and Time 2 were significantly associated (r = .63; p < .001). These results provide some support for the existence of profile similarity in spouses’ use of suppression. Husbands and wives were more similar in suppression than chance at Time 1, and profile similarity remained significant 2 years after marriage, and it was relatively stable over time.

Neither level nor profile-based similarity in suppression at Time 1 were significantly related to any measure of relationship length, namely, how long spouses had been dating before marrying (r = .03, p > .05 for level similarity; r = −.04, p > .05 for profile similarity) and how long they had been married before the initial assessment (r = −.01, p > .05 for level similarity; r = .03, p > .05 for profile similarity). These findings suggest that spouses’ initial similarity is due to positive assortment rather than to convergence during either premarital engagement or the first months of marriage.

In order to examine its effects on marital quality, similarity in suppression was included in the APIM (Time 1) and in the regression models (Time 2) as a predictor of husbands’ and wives’ dyadic adjustment, running separate analyses for each type of similarity estimate (i.e., level and profile-based). At Time 1, similarity in suppression (both level and profile) was a predictor of wives’ adjustment (Figure 2), and at Time 2, similarity was not a significant predictor of marital quality (see Table 3).

Finally, at Time 1 we tested whether the relationship between similarity in suppression and wives’ marital adjustment is dependent on spouses’ levels of suppression (i.e., is similarity in suppression beneficial if both spouses are either low or high in the use of this strategy?). We performed moderation analysis using the PROCESS macro for SPSS (Model 3, for a discussion see Hayes, 2013), which estimates the conditional effect of a predictor on a dependent variable at various values of two moderators. In our regression model, wives’ adjustment was entered as the dependent variable, similarity as the predictor, and husbands’ and wives’ scores on suppression as moderators. Spouses’ avoidance scores were entered as covariates. The conditional effect of similarity was estimated for the 10th, 25th, 50th, 75th, and 90th percentiles of the distribution of the moderators. Two analyses were conducted for level and profile similarity respectively.

Table 4 shows the conditional effects of similarity in suppression on wives’ adjustment for combinations of husbands’ and wives’ suppression scores corresponding to the 10th and 25th percentiles (low levels) as well as to the 75th and 90th percentiles (high levels). Our results show that similarity is a significant predictor of wives’ marital adjustment if spouses’ levels of suppression are either low or high.

Table 4.

Moderated regression analyses: conditional effect of level and profile similarity on wives’ adjustment at Time 1 as a function of husbands’ and wives’ suppression scores.

Wives’ suppression	Husbands’ suppression	Effect	SE	t	95% Confidence intervals
Wives’ suppression	Husbands’ suppression	Effect	SE	t	LL	UL
Level similarity
Low suppression
1.00	1.00	−31.09	13.33	−2.33*	−57.38	−4.80
1.00	1.75	−23.36	11.37	−2.07*	−45.58	−1.13
1.25	1.00	−28.59	12.69	−2.25*	−53.61	−3.58
1.25	1.75	−21.99	10.70	−2.06*	−43.09	−.89
High suppression
3.25	3.75	−17.69	7.24	−2.44*	−31.97	−3.41
3.25	4.50	−20.17	9.08	−2−22*	−38.07	−2−26
4.25	3.75	−24.34	9.93	−2.45*	−43.92	−4.76
4.25	4.50	−31.35	13.10	−2.39*	−57.17	−5.52
Profile similarity
Low suppression
1.00	1.00	3.69	1.34	2.76**	1.05	6.33
1.00	1.75	2.65	1.01	2.62**	.65	4.65
1.25	1.00	3.35	1.21	2.68**	.86	5.64
1.25	1.75	2.39	.91	2.63**	.60	4.18
High suppression
3.25	3.75	1.94	.81	1.87*	.35	3.54
3.25	4.50	2.56	1.10	2.32*	.38	4.73
4.25	3.75	2.87	1.01	2.83**	.88	4.86
4.25	4.50	4.22	1.32	3.20**	1.62	6.81

Note. Bootstrapping (5,000 samples) moderation analysis. LL = lower limit; UL = upper limit. Values for wives’ and husbands’ suppression are the 10th–25th (low suppression) and the 75th–90th (high suppression) percentiles. Combinations between high and low values of the moderators have been omitted. Statistical analyses were performed on mean-centered scores.

*p < .05; **p < .01.

Discussion

The main purpose of this study was to apply a longitudinal and dyadic perspective to the study of an individual emotion regulation strategy within the context of early marriage. This longitudinal investigation extends previous research on adult emotion regulation and close relationships, offering some initial insight about suppression within the dyadic context of marriage and its consequences for marital quality in newlywed couples. We provide some indication of the promise of using emotion regulation assessment in marital couples, which may reveal itself as a useful instrument in predicting relational success.

Predicting marital quality: Actor and partner effects

In this study, we sought to determine whether, in a sample of newlywed couples, marital quality is predicted by spouses’ individual levels of suppression (actor and partner effects) as well as by spouses’ similarity in the use of this strategy. Past research has shown that suppression, when used chronically, can be a risk factor for the formation and maintenance of close relationships (English et al., 2012). Because of the previous documented link between habitual suppression and attachment avoidance (Gross & John, 2003), we also considered husbands’ and wives’ avoidance scores in our analyses in order to test whether any potential effects of suppression on marital quality were actually due to this attachment dimension.

When examining the influence of individuals’ levels of suppression on marital quality, our results revealed that—consistent with emotion regulation research—spouses’ habitual use of suppression was negatively associated with perceived marital quality. At Time 1, consistent with our hypothesis, wives’ marital quality was negatively influenced by both one’s own and partner’s use of suppression; however, marital quality as reported by husbands was affected by one’s own suppression use only. Previous research suggests that, compared to husbands, wives are more sensitive to their partner’s feelings and behaviors, with their levels of marital satisfaction being tied to relational variables such as relationship talk (e.g., Acitelli, 1992). This may explain why, in our results, partner’s use of suppression was harmful for wives’, but not husbands’, perception of relationship quality. This result is also consistent with the well-known demand–withdraw pattern, in which husbands’ inhibition of emotional behavior and withdrawal from conflict is likely to escalate wives’ negative affect (Christensen & Heavey, 1990; Gottman & Levenson, 2000).

When taking into account attachment avoidance, husbands’ suppression still predicted less marital quality as perceived by both spouses, but these effects were smaller in size; wives’ suppression no longer predicted their own self-reported marital quality. The negative influence of husbands’ habitual suppression—and wives’ avoidance—on relationship quality was consistent over time, as these traits remained significant negative predictors of marital quality as perceived by both spouses 2 years after marriage (Time 2).

Overall, these results indicate that both suppression and attachment avoidance are unique predictors of marital quality. At Time 1, the effects for attachment avoidance were somewhat stronger than those of suppression, consistent with previous studies showing that attachment dimensions predict relationship quality better than personality traits, such as neuroticism (Noftle & Shaver, 2006; Shaver & Brennan, 1992). Researchers have argued that, compared to personality traits, attachment dimensions are more specifically concerned with feelings and behaviors that arise in the context of close relationships. In this study, we assessed how much newlyweds use suppression to control emotions within their marriage in general. Husbands and wives may thus have reported to conceal to their spouse a range of emotions, arising not only in their marriage but also in other contexts (e.g., frustrations at work). Future work is thus needed to delineate the effects of using suppression to manage emotions that arise in response to relational events (e.g., conflict interactions), testing whether habitual suppression of emotions that arise within close relationships is a stronger predictor of relationship quality.

Finally, when controlling for the temporal stability of the constructs in crossed-lagged panel analysis, husbands’ suppression and wives’ avoidance were consistently associated with lower marital adjustment within each wave. When examining cross-lagged effects, we found that neither suppression nor avoidance at Time 1 predicted change in marital quality over transition to marriage; by contrast, the lower wives’ marital adjustment a few months after marriage, the higher the levels of husbands’ suppression as well as of wives’ avoidance 2 years later. The finding that husbands tend to increase their use of emotional suppression as a consequence of their wives’ dissatisfaction seems to reflect a process similar to the demand–withdraw pattern, in which wife’s complaints lead her husband to withdraw (Christensen & Heavey, 1990; Gottman & Levenson, 2000). Previous research has also documented that—despite attachment styles have a stable component—positive or negative relationship interactions may lead to shifts in attachment over time, especially when attachment style is measured with respect to such relationships (e.g., Dinero, Conger, Shaver, Widaman, & Larsen-Rife, 2008; Hudson, Fraley, Brumbaugh, & Vicary, 2014). This may explain why wives tended to report more avoidance 2 years after marriage (i.e., discomfort with closeness with their husbands) when in unsatisfying relationships.

Dyadic similarity in suppression and its effects on marital quality

To our knowledge, this is the first study to examine whether spouses are similar in their habitual emotion regulation patterns at the beginning of marital life and whether they become increasingly similar over the course of marriage. Consistent with our hypotheses, we found significant (though low) levels of similarity in suppression among the couples at 5 months as well as 2 years after marriage. Husbands’ and wives’ scores were significantly associated at both time points (level similarity), although the association was small, and profile similarity estimates were also small in size but significantly above chance. At Time 1, level and profile similarity were not related to any measure of relationship length, thus pointing to positive assortment rather than to convergence.

When examining stability of dyadic similarity in suppression over the first couple years of marriage, profile similarity tended to remain stable; by contrast, the correlation between discrepancy estimates at Time 1 and Time 2 was not significant, suggesting that the discrepancy between spouses’ levels of suppression changes over time. However, we did not find evidence of convergence, as some couples showed lower discrepancy at Time 2 and some couples showed increasing discrepancy. The lack of stability of couples’ level similarity seemed to depend on wives’ individual levels of suppression, which tended to be less stable over time than husbands’ levels. Marital research has shown that women are more caring, relationship oriented, and concerned with relationship maintenance than husbands (Acitelli, Douvan, & Veroff, 1993). The overall lower stability of wives’ suppression may thus support this idea and indicate that they try to modify their emotion regulation strategies more than husbands. This finding is also consistent with previous evidence showing changes in emotion regulation in the context of transitions to new, long-term interpersonal contexts, when individuals renegotiate significant relationships (Srivastava et al., 2009).

Overall, our results about similarity in suppression are consistent with previous studies about similarity in personality in two ways. First, we found evidence of positive assortment rather than convergence in suppression use over time. This suggests that selection processes are more important than spousal socialization processes for understanding couples’ similarity in suppression. That is, individuals tend to select partners who are relatively similar in their use of suppression but partners do not seem to align more with each other in their habitual use of this strategy over time. Similarly, there is little evidence of convergence as an explanation of similarity in personality (e.g., Humbad et al., 2010).

Second, similarity levels in suppression use, although significant, were low. Past research has found that couples tend to show strong similarity in attitude-related domains but only low similarity in personality (Gattis et al., 2004; Luo & Klohnen, 2005; Watson et al., 2004). Several explanations have been offered to account for this finding. First, characteristics such as attitudes, values, and interests are much more noticeable and salient than personality traits at the beginning of a relationship (e.g., Luo & Klohnen, 2005). Second, similarity in personality traits—especially if these characteristics are disliked—is not necessarily as attractive and rewarding as similarity in attitudes and values (Klohnen & Luo, 2003). Finally, partners may decide to stay together even though they are well aware of their differences (Luo & Klohnen, 2005). Although suppression targets overt expression (Gross, 1998; Gross & John, 2003), and therefore it should be salient and visible early on in the relationship, the relatively low levels of similarity in suppression we found suggest that the habitual use of this strategy is likely to influence mate selection to a small degree. Because of the visibility of suppression, dissimilar partners are likely to be aware of this difference but they may decide to marry each other anyway on the basis of other motives. Future research is needed to better understand these processes. It may be especially fruitful to compare suppression to other emotion regulation strategies, such as cognitive reappraisal, which do not target outer behavior and may thus be less visible than suppression.

When examining the influence of similarity in suppression on marital quality, our results suggest that at Time 1, similarity in suppression (both level and profile) is positively associated with wives’ but not with husbands’ marital quality. The evidence for the (small) positive association between similarity in suppression and relationship quality is consistent with previous empirical work examining couple similarity in personality traits (Dyrenforth et al., 2010; Gaunt, 2006; Luo & Klohnen, 2005). In our study, this association was limited to wives, and previous research has interpreted this result as supporting the general idea in marital research that women tend to be more sensitive to and affected by the internal dynamics of the relationship than men (Decuyper et al., 2012; Luo & Klohnen, 2005). Notably, our findings show that being similar in suppression is beneficial for wives’ marital adjustment, regardless of whether suppression levels of the spouses are low or high. Drawing from self-verification theory (Swann et al., 1992), similar partners may be less likely to misjudge a lack of emotional expression as lack of interest and care, and, also, the feeling of being understood by one’s partner may dampen subjective inauthenticity, which is generally linked to emotional suppression (Gross & John, 2003). Future studies are needed to examine these hypotheses.

At Time 2, however, couple similarity in suppression was no longer associated with marital quality. One possible explanation is the reduction in the statistical power of the analyses to detect this effect, given the number of couples who dropped out. Similarity effects are generally smaller than actor and partner effects (Dyrenforth et al., 2010) and therefore harder to detect. Alternatively, similarity may become less important for marital satisfaction over the course of marriage. For instance, Shiota and Levenson (2007) found that similarity in personality and relationship satisfaction were negatively associated in middle-aged couples. As the authors argued, at this age, spouses are faced with a number of shared responsibilities, so that complementary (rather than similar) couples may be better able to divide tasks and may be likely to have more diversified skills to accomplish those tasks.

In conclusion, this study shows that chronic use of emotional suppression is detrimental for marital quality as reported by husbands and wives over transition to marriage. Also we find that gender makes a difference in how suppression influences marital quality, that is, husbands’ satisfaction is lowered by their own use of suppression, while wives are more sensitive to their partners’ use of this strategy as well as to couple similarity.

Limitations and future directions

Several limitations of this study are noteworthy and might be addressed by future studies. One limitation was the high percentage of attrition, which reduced the statistical power of the analyses that included Time 2 data. Notably, in support of the generalizability of these results, no differences were found between the couples who remained in the study and the couples who dropped out in terms of demographic, emotion regulation, or marital quality.

Second, we only considered newlywed couples, so it is unclear whether our results generalize to later periods of the marital life. Newlyweds are likely to idealize each other and typically report the highest levels of marital satisfaction, which tends to decline later in marriage (Hall & Adams, 2011).

Third, we focused on one emotion regulation strategy only. Future work is needed to understand how other emotion regulation strategies (e.g., cognitive reappraisal) operate in the context of marriage. It may also be fruitful for future studies to examine the potential bidirectional pathways between emotion regulation and relationship quality (e.g., less satisfied couples may be more likely to rely on emotional suppression than more satisfied couples).

Finally, we considered actual similarity in suppression between the two spouses instead of perceived similarity, which may better account for marital adjustment than actual similarity (Acitelli et al., 1993). Future studies should address this issue, testing whether the two spouses perceive themselves as similar in their ways of suppression emotions and whether this perceived similarity predicts relational success.

Footnotes

Authors’ note

P.V. and S.B. contributed equally to this work.

Notes

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Acitelli

L. K.

(1992). Gender differences in relationship awareness and marital satisfaction among young married couples. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 102–110.

Acitelli

L. K.

Douvan

Veroff

(1993). Perceptions of conflict in the first year of marriage: How important are similarity and understanding? Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10, 5–19.

Anderson

Keltner

John

O. P.

(2003). Emotional convergence between people over time. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 1054–1068.

Arbuckle

J. L.

(2010). AMOS 19.0. Meadville, PA: Amos Development Corporation.

Arránz Becker

(2013). Effects of similarity of life goals, values, and personality on relationship satisfaction and stability: Findings from a two-wave panel study. Personal Relationships, 20, 443–461.

Banse

(2004). Attachment style and marital satisfaction: Evidence for dyadic configuration effects. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 21, 273–282.

Balzarotti

John

O. P.

Gross

J. J.

(2010).An Italian adaptation of the Emotion Regulation Questionnaire. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 26, 61–67.

Barelds

D. P. H.

(2005). Self and partner personality in intimate relationships. European Journal of Personality, 19, 501–518.

Barelds

D. P. H.

Barelds-Dijkstra

(2007). Love at first sight or friends first? Ties among partner personality trait similarity, relationship onset, relationship quality, and love. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 24, 479–496.

10.

Brennan

K. A.

Clark

C. L.

Shaver

P. R.

(1998). Self-report measurement of adult attachment: An integrative overview. In Simpson

J. A.

Rholes

W. S.

(Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 46–76). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

11.

Busonera

San Martini

Zavattini

G. C.

(2011). Experiences in Close Relationships-Revised (ECR-R): Struttura fattoriale e proprietà psicometriche di una versione italiana [Factorial structure and psychometric properties of an Italian adaptation], XIII AIP National Congress of Clinic and Dynamic Psychology, Catania, September 16–18, pp. 305–310.

12.

Buss

D. M.

(1984). Marital assortment for personality dispositions: Assessment with three different data sources. Behavior Genetics, 14, 111–123.

13.

Butler

E. A.

Egloff

Wilhelm

F. W.

Smith

N. C.

Erickson

E. A.

Gross

J. J.

(2003). The social consequences of expressive suppression. Emotion, 3, 48–67.

14.

Caspi

Herbener

E. S.

(1990). Continuity and change: Assortative marriage and the consistency of personality in adulthood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 250–258.

15.

Caspi

Herbener

E. S.

Ozer

D. J.

(1992). Shared experiences and the similarity of personalities: A longitudinal study of married couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 281–291.

16.

Cassidy

(1994). Emotion regulation: Influences of attachment relationships. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 59, 228–249.

17.

Christensen

Heavey

C. L.

(1990). Gender and social structure in the demand/withdraw pattern of marital conflict. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 73–82.

18.

Decuyper

De Bolle

De Fruyt

(2012). Personality similarity, perceptual accuracy, and relationship satisfaction in dating and married couples. Personal Relationships, 19, 128–145.

19.

Dinero

R. E.

Conger

R. D.

Shaver

P. R.

Widaman

K. F.

Larsen-Rife

(2008). Influence of family of origin and adult romantic partners on romantic attachment security. Journal of Family Psychology, 22, 622–632.

20.

Dyrenforth

P. S.

Kashy

D. A.

Donnellan

M. B.

Lucas

R. E.

(2010). Predicting relationship and life satisfaction from personality in nationally representative samples from three countries: The relative importance of actor, partner, and similarity effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 690–702.

21.

English

John

O. P.

(2013). Understanding the social effects of emotion regulation: The mediating role of authenticity for individual differences in suppression. Emotion, 13, 314–329.

22.

English

John

O. P.

Gross

J. J.

(2013). Emotion regulation in close relationships. In Simpson

J. A.

Campbell

(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of close relationships (pp. 500–513). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

23.

English

John

O. P.

Srivastava

Gross

J. J.

(2012). Emotion regulation and peer-rated social functioning: A 4-year longitudinal study. Journal of Research in Personality, 46, 780–784.

24.

Feeney

J. A.

(2002). Attachment, marital interaction, and relationship satisfaction: A diary study. Personal Relationships, 9, 39–55.

25.

Feeney

J. A.

(1999). Adult attachment, emotional control, and marital satisfaction. Personal Relationships, 6, 169–185.

26.

Feng

Baker

(1994). Spouse similarity in attitudes, personality, and psychological well-being. Behavior Genetics, 24, 357–364.

27.

Fraley

R. C.

Waller

N. G.

Brennan

K. A.

(2000). An item response theory analysis of self-report measures of adult attachment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 350–365.

28.

Furler

Gomez

Grob

(2013). A differential approach to personality similarity and life satisfaction in couples. Journal of Research in Personality, 47, 369–375.

29.

Furr

R. M.

(2010). The double-entry intraclass correlation as an index of profile similarity: Meaning, limitations, and alternatives. Journal of Personality Assessment, 92, 1–15.

30.

Gattis

K. S.

Berns

Simpson

L. E.

Christensen

(2004). Birds of a feather or strange birds? Ties among personality dimensions, similarity, and marital quality. Journal of Family Psychology, 18, 564–574.

31.

Gaunt

(2006). Couple similarity and marital satisfaction: Are similar spouses happier? Journal of Personality, 74, 1401–1420.

32.

Gentili

Contreras

Cassaniti

D’Arista

(2002). La Dyadic adjustment scale. Una misura dell’adattamento di coppia. Minerva Psichiatrica, 43, 107–116.

33.

Glicksohn

Golan

(2001). Personality, cognitive style and assortative mating. Personality and Individual Differences, 30, 1199–1209.

34.

Gonzaga

G. C.

Campos

Bradbury

(2007). Similarity, convergence, and relationship satisfaction in dating and married couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 34–48.

35.

Gonzaga

G. C.

Carter

Buckwalter

J. G.

(2010). Assortative mating, convergence, and satisfaction in married couples. Personal Relationships, 17, 634–644.

36.

Gottman

J. M.

Levenson

R. W.

(1999). How stable is marital interaction over time? Family Process, 38, 159–165.

37.

Gottman

J. M.

Levenson

R. W.

(2000). The timing of divorce: Predicting when a couple will divorce over a 14-year period. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 737–745.

38.

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.

39.

Gross

J. J.

(2001). Emotion regulation in adulthood: Timing is everything. Current Directions In Psychological Science, 10, 214–219.

40.

Gross

J. J.

(Ed.) (2007). Handbook of emotion regulation. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

41.

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.

42.

Hall

S. S.

Adams

R. A.

(2011). Newlyweds’ unexpected adjustments to marriage. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 39, 375–387.

43.

Hayes

A. F.

(2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

44.

Hazan

Shaver

P. R.

(1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 511–524.

45.

Bentler

P. M.

(1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.

46.

Hudson

N. W.

Fraley

R. C.

Brumbaugh

C. C.

Vicary

A. M.

(2014). Coregulation in romantic partners’ attachment styles: A longitudinal investigation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40, 845–857.

47.

Humbad

M. N.

Donnellan

M. B.

Iacono

W. G.

McGue

Burt

S. A.

(2010). Is spousal similarity for personality a matter of convergence or selection? Personality and Individual Differences, 49, 827–830.

48.

Impett

E. A.

Kogan

English

John

O. P.

Oveis

Gordon

A. M.

Keltner

.(2012). Suppression sours sacrifice: Affective and relational costs of suppressing emotions in romantic relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 707–720.

49.

Kenny

D. A.

Acitelli

L. K.

(1994). Measuring similarity in couples. Journal of Family Psychology, 8, 417–431.

50.

Kenny

D. A.

Kashy

D. A.

Cook

W. L.

(2006). Dyadic data analysis. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

51.

Kernis

M. H.

Goldman

B. M.

(2006). A multicomponent conceptualization of authenticity: Theory and research. In Zanna

M. P.

(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 38, pp. 284–357). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

52.

Klohnen

E. C.

Luo

(2003). Interpersonal attraction and personality: What is attractive-self similarity, ideal similarity, complementarity, or attachment security? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 709–722.

53.

Jackson

D. C.

Malmstadt

J. R.

Larson

C. L.

Davidson

R. J

.(2000). Suppression and enhancement of emotional responses to unpleasant pictures. Psychophysiology, 37, 515–522.

54.

John

O. P.

Gross

J. J.

(2007). Individual differences in emotion regulation strategies: Links to global trait, dynamic, and social cognitive constructs. In Gross

J. J.

(Ed.), Handbook of emotion regulation (pp. 351–372). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

55.

Laurenceau

Barrett

L. F.

Pietromonaco

P. R.

(1998). Intimacy as a process: The importance of self-disclosure and responsiveness in interpersonal exchanges. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1238–1251.

56.

Levenson

R. W.

Gottman

J. M.

(1985). Physiological and affective predictors of change in relationship satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 85–94.

57.

Luo

Klohnen

E. C.

(2005).Assortative mating and marital quality: A couple-centered approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 304–326.

58.

Mikulincer

Shaver

P. R.

Pereg

(2003). Attachment theory and affect regulation: The dynamics, development, and cognitive consequences of attachment-related strategies. Motivation and Emotion, 27, 77–102.

59.

Mikulincer

Florian

Cowan

P. A.

Cowan

C. P.

(2002). Attachment security in couple relationships—A systemic model and its implications for family dynamics. Family Process, 41, 405–434.

60.

Moss

B. F.

Schwebel

A. I.

(1993). Marriage and romantic relationships: Defining intimacy in romantic relationships. Family Relations, 42, 31–37.

61.

Noftle

E. E.

Shaver

P. R.

(2006). Attachment dimensions and the Big Five personality traits: Associations and comparative ability to predict relationship quality. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 179–208.

62.

Pennebaker

J. W.

(1997). Opening up: The healing power of expressing emotions. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

63.

Reis

H. T.

Shaver

(1988). Intimacy as an interpersonal process. In Duck

S. W.

(Ed.), Handbook of personal relationships (pp. 367–389). New York, NY: John Wiley.

64.

Richards

J. M.

Butler

E. A.

Gross

J. J.

(2003). Emotion regulation in romantic relationships: The cognitive consequences of concealing feelings. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 20, 599–620.

65.

Richards

J. M.

Gross

J. J.

(1999). Composure at any cost? The cognitive consequences of emotion suppression. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 1033–1044.

66.

Robins

R. W.

Caspi

Moffitt

T. E.

(2000). Two personalities, one relationship: Both partners’ personality traits shape the quality of their relationship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 251–259.

67.

Russell

R. J.

Wells

P. A.

(1991). Personality similarity and quality of marriage. Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 407–412.

68.

Schachner

D. A.

Shaver

P. R.

Mikulincer

(2005). Patterns of nonverbal behavior and sensitivity in the context of attachment relationships. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 29, 141–169.

69.

Shaver

P. R.

Brennan

K. A.

(1992). Attachment style and the big Five personality traits: Their connection with romantic relationship outcomes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 536–545.

70.

Shaver

P. R.

Mikulincer

(2007). Adult attachment strategies and the regulation of emotion. In Gross

J. J.

(Ed.), Handbook of emotion regulation (pp. 446–465). New York, NY: Guildford Press.

71.

Shiota

M. N.

Levenson

R. W.

(2007). Birds of a feather don’t always fly farthest: Similarity in Big Five personality predicts more negative marital satisfaction trajectories in long-term marriages. Psychology and Aging, 22, 666–675.

72.

Simpson

J. A.

(1990). Influence of attachment styles on romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 971–980.

73.

Spanier

G. B.

(1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for assessing the quality of marriage and similar dyads. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 38, 15–28.

74.

Srivastava

Tamir

McGonigal

K. M.

John

O. P.

Gross

J. J.

(2009). The social costs of emotional suppression: A prospective study of the transition to college. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 883–897.

75.

Swann

W. B.

Jr Pelham

B. W.

(2002). The truth about illusions: Authenticity and positivity in social relationships. In Snyder

C. R.

Lopez

S. J.

(Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 366–381). New York, NY: Oxford.

76.

Swann

W. B.

Jr De La Ronde

Hixon

J. G.

(1994). Authenticity and positivity strivings in marriage and courtship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 857–869.

77.

Swann

W. B.

Jr Stein-Seroussi

Giesler

R. B.

(1992). Why people self-verify. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 392–401.

78.

Tagliabue

Lanz

Barni

(2010). Dyadic perception of relationship quality: How to consider the stereotype effect. Paper presented at 2010 International Association for Relationship Research (IARR) Conference, Herzliya, Israel, 22–27 July.

79.

Tickle-Degnen

Rosenthal

(1992). Nonverbal aspects of therapeutic rapport. In Feldman

R. S.

(Ed.), Applications of nonverbal behavioral theories and research (pp. 143–164). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

80.

Van Kleef

G. A.

(2009). How emotions regulate social life: The Emotions as Social Information (EASI) model. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18, 184–188.

81.

Watson

Klohnen

E. C.

Casillas

Simms

E. N.

Haig

Berry

D. S.

(2004). Match makers and deal breakers: Analyses of assortative mating in newlywed couples. Journal of Personality, 72, 1029–1068.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB