Emotional Suppression

James Gross and his colleagues were very interested in simulation and the emotional effect it could have on people. According to Michael Gazzaniga, they “thought that since reappraisal isn’t so cognitively taxing, it should have more positive social consequences” (Gazzaniga 186). The experiment they designed was quite simple, but it was their ability to monitor physiological reactions that proved most insightful. Groups of women who did not know each other watched a movie that would normally cause a negative reaction, and then met to discuss the film. A percentage of the women were given instructions for how to behave during their interaction. Some were told to suppress how they felt so that their responses were undetectable, others to reappraise why they felt that way so that it would not bother them, others to interact as they normally would, and all of their partners had no idea (Gazzaniga 186).
The results of this experiment were very distinct. When the woman with whom another participant was interacting was suppressing her emotional response, and only in that condition, the uninstructed woman’s blood pressure would increase noticeably (Gazzaniga 186).
Quite directly inferred by the experimenters was the fact that, “interacting with people who express little positive emotion and who are unresponsive to emotional cues actually increases the cardiovascular activity in their social partners” (Gazzaniga 186). This confirmed what Gross suspected when he hypothesized that having to focus on oneself limited one’s ability to respond to the person with which one interacts. The conscious attention that is being paid to someone not only affects the response of the person he or she is conversing with, but also similarly affects the suppresser’s physiological state. This shows how important simulation is in social interaction, because of the negative results which appear when people provide and/or receive no feedback (Gazzaniga 186).
While there is not much to dispute within the interpretation of the results of this experiment, it would be most interesting to have had the brain activity of the participants monitored during the discussions. The only concrete evidence that is provided comes from the increased cardiovascular activity. Observing the behavior of the brain as it tried to suppress emotion, or as it dealt with an unresponsive partner could provide more insights as to what areas have to do with simulation, perception, self-monitoring, and self-control.
Perhaps the most interesting thing which can be discussed with this information is the ability of people to detect and respond, even subconsciously, when the attention of others is devoted. It only serves to highlight the difficulty in successfully lying, and create a larger gap between truly listening to someone and focusing on what you are going to say next. Especially in situations where one is in emotional need of support, such as Gross’ experiment, it can be especially detrimental to refuse responding to someone.
Also very significant, for a broader outlook, is the effect of emotions and cognitive activity upon the rest of the body. This is almost a slap in the face to the mind-body discussion. If we can consciously manipulate what we reveal about our emotional state to others and manipulation (or perception of it in others) affects important physical systems in our bodies, there is an undeniable connection between emotional interactions and physical well-being. It would be interesting to evaluate children who came from unstable or emotionally depraved living situations on a variety of health standards compared with their peers from more affectionate and emotionally responsive homes.

Gazzaniga, Michael S. Human: The Science Behind What Makes Us Unique. New York: Harper Collins, 2008. pp. 184-186.

Gross, J.J. (2002). Emotion regulation: Affective, cognitive, and social consequences. Psychophysiology 39: 281-91.

Gross, J.J., et al. (2003). The social consequences of expressive suppression. Emotion 3: 48-67.