Ve Lotti

7/26/2019 Ve Lotti

1/26

Article

Emotional suppression inearly marriage: Actor,partner, and similarityeffects on marital quality

Patrizia Velotti1

, Stefania Balzarotti2

, Semira Tagliabue2

,Tammy English3, Giulio C. Zavattini4, and James J. Gross3

Abstract

Although habitual use of suppression has been consistently linked to adverse conse-quences for overall social functioning, little is known about the implications of using thisemotion regulation strategy in the context of romantic relationships. The current long-

itudinal study tests whether husbands and wives habitual use of suppression, as well ascouple similarity in the use of this strategy, influence marital quality over the first couple ofyears of marriage. A total of 229 newlywed couples reported their habitual use of sup-pression and perceived marital quality at two time points, 5 months and 2 years aftermarriage. Results showed that husbands habitual use of suppression was the most con-sistent predictor of (lower) marital quality over time. Couples showed significant levels ofsimilarity in suppression at the initial assessment, consistent with positive assortment, andthis similarity was a significant predictor of higher marital quality as reported by wivesregardless of overall levels of suppression use. These findings suggest that husbands use ofsuppression is more harmful for marital satisfaction than wives use and wives are moresensitive to their partners use of suppression as well as to couple similarity.

Keywords

Attachment avoidance, emotion regulation, marital quality, similarity, suppression

1 University of Genoa, Italy2 Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Italy3

Stanford University, USA4 University of Rome, Italy

Corresponding author:

Patrizia Velotti, Department of Educational Sciences, University of Genoa, Corso Podesta 2, 16128 Genoa, Italy.

Email: [email protected]

Journal of Social and

Personal Relationships

126 The Author(s) 2015

Reprints and permissions:sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0265407515574466spr.sagepub.com

J S P R
http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.navhttp://spr.sagepub.com/http://spr.sagepub.com/http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

7/26/2019 Ve Lotti

2/26

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 partners feelings. For instance, we may conceal negative emotionalreactions 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 others feelings),

research has revealed that habitually using suppression to influence emotional

expression in everyday life leads to various adverse social consequences such as lesssocial 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 sup-

pression 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 habi-

tually use suppression are more likely to report attachment avoidance, which isdefined 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 partners 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. Further-

more, 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 positivityassociated 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).

2 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships

7/26/2019 Ve Lotti

3/26

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 theinstructed 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 sup-

press their emotions during the discussion of an upsetting topic showed less respon-

siveness 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 individuals 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 pro-

spective 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 ofcloserelationships. A first line of evidence comes from long-

itudinal studies showing that individual differences in suppression predict less emo-

tionally close social connections but leave other domains of social functioning such as

Velotti et al. 3

7/26/2019 Ve Lotti

4/26

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 openup 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 inauthen-

ticity interferes with reciprocal self-disclosure and self-verification, leading to inter-

personal 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 affectregulation 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 ones feelings has adverse

social consequences that may especially impair the formation and maintenance of closerelationships. However, existing studies have mainly examined the implications of

habitual suppression for the individuals 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 forrelationship 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


7/26/2019 Ve Lotti

5/26

partners 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 partners use of suppression combines within the couple. Partners

may vary in howsimilarthey are to each other (Kenny, Kashy, & Cook, 2006) in termsof their habitual use of suppression and their level of similarity may impact their rela-

tionship 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 individuals use of suppression predicts lower rela-tionship 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

ofstonewallinglowers marital satisfaction in both spouses, and stonewalling is some-

what 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 mens 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 onhusbands 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 ten-dency for individuals to create social environments that match and reinforce their dis-

positions (Buss, 1984; Caspi & Herbener, 1990). Alternatively, partners mayconverge

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).

Velotti et al. 5

7/26/2019 Ve Lotti

6/26

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 threeways. First, similar others may be more likely to validate ones self-image and world-

views than dissimilar others (e.g., Anderson et al., 2003; Barelds & Barelds-Dijkstra,

2007), enhancing each others understanding, intimacy, and feelings of authenticity

(Swann et al., 1994; Swann, Stein-Seroussi, & Giesler, 1992). Second, partners simi-

larity 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 com-

monalities with ones partner is thought as reassuring and rewarding (Arranz Becker,

2013). Nonetheless, despite the widespread idea that similarity in personal dispositions is

advantageous for relationship quality, the existing body of research examining thesimilarityrelationship 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 similarityis 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).


7/26/2019 Ve Lotti

7/26

Recent research suggests that level similarity in personality is not a strong pre-

dictor of marital quality when controlling for partners individual levels (Barelds,

2005; Gattis, Berns, Simpson, & Christensen, 2004; Watson et al., 2004). Con-

cerning profile-based similarity in personality, some studies have found positiveassociations 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 simi-

larity 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 person-

alities 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 part-

ners levels of suppression (e.g., one partner being high in habitual use of sup-

pression 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 dis-

tance, 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 dis-

similarities (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 andsimilar to level discrepanciesmay 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 emo-

tions 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 sup-

pression influence their partners perceptions of marital quality?), andsimilarity 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

Velotti et al. 7

7/26/2019 Ve Lotti

8/26

et al., 2013; Gross & John, 2003; Srivastava et al., 2009) and his or her partners (Impett

et al., 2012), we predicted that each spouses 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, weexpected that being in an intimate relationship with someone who habitually uses sup-

pression 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 suppressionmeasured by discrepancy scores and

profile correlationsand that this similarity would be mainly due to positive assort-

ment. 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 thatcontrolling for spouses individual

levels of suppressioncouples who are more similar in the use of suppression mayreport 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 mis-

judge the lack of expressive behavior as lack of interest and care (Tickle-Degnen &

Rosenthal, 1992). Also the feeling of being understood by ones partner may reducesubjective 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.


7/26/2019 Ve Lotti

9/26

Method

Participants

At Time 1, the sample consisted of 229 newlywed couples who were recruited frompremarital 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 feelingpositiveemotions, I am careful not to express them.) or negative emotion (when I am

feelingnegativeemotions, 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 testretest reliability (.71 for

suppression), comparable to that of the original English version of the ERQ (Gross &

John, 2003).1 Thea 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 RelationshipsRevised (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 disagreetostrongly agree) to

indicate how they typically act and feel in their relationships with their spouse. At

Time 1,as 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

Velotti et al. 9

7/26/2019 Ve Lotti

10/26

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. TheItalian version of the DAS (Gentili, Contreras, Cassaniti, & DArista, 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 (a .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 reg-

ulation measure was embedded.

Computing dyadic similarity estimatesIn 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 Pearsons correlations between

each husbands and wifes 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. Forinstance, 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).


7/26/2019 Ve Lotti

11/26

An important issue when considering similarity is the distinction between unique

similarity, which reflects how similar the partners are to each other due to inter-

dependence within a specific dyad, andstereotype 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 itemscomputed 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 husbands profile was removed, as

was the typical wifes 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

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

HusbandSuppression 2.89 1.30 2.86 1.24 .23Avoidance 4.28 2.30 5.67 4.50 1.48Adjustment 123.35 10.89 119.84 13.14 2.75**

WifeSuppression 2.42 1.30 2.43 1.17 .12Avoidance 4.39 2.21 5.33 4.55 1.89Adjustment 121.23 11.23 116.89 12.36 4.24**

Similarity in suppression

Level discrepancy 1.69 .96 1.60 .79 .36Profile similarity .18 .61 .16 .57 1.60

Note.Couples:N 229 (Time 1);N 98 (Time 2). Statistical analyses examining profile-based estimates wereperformed on Fishers z values, and values in the table have been transformed back to regular correlations.**p< .01.

Velotti et al. 11

7/26/2019 Ve Lotti

12/26

(husbands: t(225) 1.75, p > .05; wives: t(226) 1.55, p > .05), years ofengagement,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.

Predicting marital quality: Actor and partner effects

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

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

actorpartner 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 avoidancescores 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

Table 2. Two-tailed correlations between similarity estimates and husbands and wives individualscores in suppression, avoidance, and dyadic adjustment.

Adjustment Time 1 Adjustment Time 2

Time Husband Wife Husband Wife

HusbandSuppression 1 .28** .17* .24* .21*

2 .35** .41**Avoidance 1 .41** .25** .23* .01

2 .22* .31**Wife

Suppression 1 .06 .18** .11 .042 .14 .24*

Avoidance 1 .27** .53** .20* .37**2 .42** .55**

SimilarityLevel 1 .06 .15* .14 .10

2 .17 .21*Profile 1 .11 .21** .14 .21*

2 .03 .14

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


7/26/2019 Ve Lotti

13/26

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 partners levels in suppression. When adding spouses levels

of avoidance to the path model (Figure 2), the standardized regression weight for ownhabitual 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 partners habitual use of suppression.

Husbands Suppression

Wifes Suppression

Similarity in Suppression

Husbands

Marital Quality

Wifes

Marital Quality

.29***(.29***)

.57**

(.58**)

.15*

(.31***)

.02

(.29**)

.21**

(.21**)

R2= .08 (.08)***

R2= .09 (.07)***

.15*(.17**)

.16**

(.16**)

.08

(.15**)

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 themodel including discrepancy as measure of level similarity. Fit indices:w2(3) 2.14,p> .05, w2/df.72, CFI 1.00, RMSEA .00 [.00, .081] when including level similarity;w2(3) 1.22,p> .05, w2/df .41, CFI 1.00, RMSEA .00 [.00, .078] when including profile similarity.

Husbands Suppression

Wifes Suppression

Husbands Avoidance

Wifes Avoidance

Husbands Marital Quality

Wifes Marital Quality

.14*

(.14*)

.12*

(.11*)

.28*** (.28***)

.21** (.21**)

.50*** (.49***)

.16**

(.12*)

.51***

(.52***).01

(.30***)

.13*

(.27**) .36***

(.37***)

.25**

(.25***)

.16*

(.16*)

.26*** (.26***)

R2= .20 (.20)***

R2= .28 (.29)***

Similarity in Suppression

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 valuesindicate the coefficients of the model including discrepancy as measure of level similarity. Fitindices:w2(8) 10.32,p > .05,w2/df 1.29, CFI .99, RMSEA .036 [.00, .090] when includinglevel similarity;w2(9) 11.98,p > .05, w2/df 1.33, CFI .99, RMSEA .038 [.00, .089] whenincluding profile similarity.

Velotti et al. 13

7/26/2019 Ve Lotti

14/26

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 husbands and wives suppression

scores at Time 2 as predictors in the first step, while avoidance scores at Time 2 as wellas 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.

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 tem-

poral 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.

Dyadic similarity in suppression and its effects on marital quality

Concerning level similarity, the association between husbands 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; how-

ever, 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 unstableover 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 (

7/26/2019 Ve Lotti

15/26

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 profilesimilarity) 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.

Table 3. Hierarchical regression analyses: standardized b coefficients predicting husbands andwives adjustment at Time 2.

Predictor

Similarity estimate

Discrepancy Profile similarity

DR2 b t DR2 b t

Husbands adjustmentStep 1

Similarity in suppression .12* .05 .42 .12* .02 .16Husbands suppression .31 2.71* .33 3.00**Wifes suppression .04 .36 .05 .45

Step 2

Similarity in suppression .39*** .04 .71 .38*** .09 .73Husbands suppression .22 2.01* .21 2.07*Wifes suppression .03 .34 .03 .35Husbands avoidance .09 .89 .07 .69

Wifes avoidance .23 2.17* .23 2.24*Husbands adjustment Time 1 .44 4.62*** .42 4.45***Similarity at Time 1 .12 1.28 .11 .85

Wives adjustmentStep 1

Similarity in suppression .17** .07 .65 .18** .11 1.09Husbands suppression .35 3.18** .37 3.48**

Wifes suppression .08 .65 .09 .80Step 2

Similarity in suppression .48*** .01 .06 .49*** .07 .69Husbands suppression .20 2.07* .20 2.00*Wifes suppression .01 .09 .01 .15Husbands avoidance .03 .31 .02 .19Wifes avoidance .23 2.20* .24 2.32*Wifes 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 adjustmentat Time 1 and similarity at Time 1.*p< .05; **p< .01; ***p < .001.

Velotti et al. 15

7/26/2019 Ve Lotti

16/26

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 typeof similarity estimate (i.e., level and profile-based). At Time 1, similarity in sup-

pression (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 sup-

pression 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 conditionaleffect 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 corre-sponding 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 pre-

dictor of wives marital adjustment if spouses levels of suppression are either low

or high.

Marital Quality

Time 1

Husbands

Suppression Time 1

Wifes Avoidance

Time 1

Marital Quality

Time 2

Husbands

Suppression Time 2

Wifes Avoidance

Time 2

.44*** (.43***)

.38*** (.28**).32***

(.17*)

.17

(.21*)

.53*** (.55***)

.23*

(.21)

.23*

(.29**)

.11

(.08)

.35***

(.37***)

.27***

(.53***)

.18

(.30**)

R2= .35*** (.38***)

.07

(.08)

.12

(.12)

Figure 3.Cross-lagged relationships between husbands suppression, wives avoidance, andmarital quality. yp< .10; *p< .05; **p< .01; ***p< .001. Boldface values indicate the coefficients ofthe model for husbands marital quality; fit indices: w2(4) 4.15,p > .05,w2/df 1.03, CFI .99,RMSEA .013 [.00, .10]; italics indicates the coefficients of the model for wives marital quality; fitindices:w2(4) 5.50,p >.05,w2/df 1.38, CFI .99, RMSEA .041 [.00, .11]. Dotted arrowsindicate nonsignificance.


7/26/2019 Ve Lotti

17/26

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.

Table 4.Moderated regression analyses: conditional effect of level and profile similarity on wivesadjustment at Time 1 as a function of husbands and wives suppression scores.

Wives suppression Husbands suppression Effect SE t

95% Confidence

intervals

LL UL

Level similarity

Low suppression1.00 1.00 31.09 13.33 2.33* 57.38 4.801.00 1.75 23.36 11.37 2.07* 45.58 1.131.25 1.00 28.59 12.69 2.25* 53.61 3.581.25 1.75 21.99 10.70 2.06* 43.09 .89

High suppression3.25 3.75 17.69 7.24 2.44* 31.97 3.413.25 4.50 20.17 9.08 222* 38.07 2264.25 3.75 24.34 9.93 2.45* 43.92 4.764.25 4.50 31.35 13.10 2.39* 57.17 5.52

Profile similarity

Low suppression1.00 1.00 3.69 1.34 2.76** 1.05 6.331.00 1.75 2.65 1.01 2.62** .65 4.65

1.25 1.00 3.35 1.21 2.68** .86 5.641.25 1.75 2.39 .91 2.63** .60 4.18

High suppression3.25 3.75 1.94 .81 1.87* .35 3.543.25 4.50 2.56 1.10 2.32* .38 4.734.25 3.75 2.87 1.01 2.83** .88 4.864.25 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 wivesand husbands suppression are the 10th25th (low suppression) and the 75th90th (high suppression) percen-tiles. Combinations between high and low values of the moderators have been omitted. Statistical analyses

were performed on mean-centered scores.*p< .05; **p< .01.

Velotti et al. 17

7/26/2019 Ve Lotti

18/26

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 hasshown 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 thatconsistent with emotion regulation researchspou-

ses habitual use of suppression was negatively associated with perceived maritalquality. At Time 1, consistent with our hypothesis, wives marital quality was negatively

influenced by both ones own and partners use of suppression; however, marital quality

as reported by husbands was affected by ones own suppression use only. Previous

research suggests that, compared to husbands, wives are more sensitive to their partners

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, partners use of suppression was harmful for wives, but not husbands, per-

ception of relationship quality. This result is also consistent with the well-known

demandwithdraw pattern, in which husbands inhibition of emotional behavior andwithdrawal 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 neg-

ative influence of husbands habitual suppressionand wives avoidanceon relation-

ship 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 areunique 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 marriagein 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.


7/26/2019 Ve Lotti

19/26

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 maritalquality 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 demandwithdraw pattern, in which wifes complaints lead her

husband to withdraw (Christensen & Heavey, 1990; Gottman & Levenson, 2000).

Previous research has also documented thatdespite attachment styles have a stable

componentpositive or negative relationship interactions may lead to shifts in attach-

ment 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 ourhypotheses, 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 correlationbetween 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 rela-

tionship maintenance than husbands (Acitelli, Douvan, & Veroff, 1993). The overall

lower stability of wives suppression may thus support this idea and indicate that they tryto 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).

Velotti et al. 19

7/26/2019 Ve Lotti

20/26

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 under-standing 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 traitsespecially if these characteristics are

dislikedis 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, dissimilarpartners 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 relationshipquality is consistent with previous empirical work examining couple similarity in per-

sonality 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 sup-

pression 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 emotionalexpression as lack of interest and care, and, also, the feeling of being understood by ones

partner may dampen subjective inauthenticity, which is generally linked to emotional

suppression (Gross & John, 2003). Future studies are needed to examine these

hypotheses.


7/26/2019 Ve Lotti

21/26

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) andtherefore 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 ofthese 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) operatein 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.

Authors Note

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

Velotti et al. 21

7/26/2019 Ve Lotti

22/26

Notes

1. The Italian version of the Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (ERQ-I: Balzarotti et al., 2010)

was validated on a sample of university students. In our sample of adult married individuals,

confirmatory factor analyses at the baseline measurement substantially replicated the two-factor independence model found by previous validation studies (Gross & John, 2003). Good-

ness of fit indices for the ERQ-I were w2(227) 70.90,df 35,p< .001, CFI .915, RMSEA

.068, RMSEA CI [.045, .090] for husbands, andw2(228) 77.81,df 35,p< .001, CFI

.874, RMSEA .074, RMSEA CI [.051, .095] for wives.

2. The following fit indices were considered:w2,w2/df, the root mean square error of approxima-

tion (RMSEA), and the comparative fit index (CFI). An acceptable ratio forw2/dfvalue should

be less than 3.0. An RMSEA between 0 and .05 indicates a good fit and one between .05 and .08

an acceptable fit. A CFI between .97 and 1.00 indicates a good fit and one between .95 and .97

indicates an acceptable fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999).3. The initial model included actor and partner effects for both husband and wife as parameters to

be estimated; here, we report the results concerning the final (best fit) model where nonsigni-

ficant effects were removed.

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or

not-for-profit sectors.

References

Acitelli, L. K. (1992). Gender differences in relationship awareness and marital satisfaction among

young married couples. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,18, 102110.

Acitelli, L. K., Douvan, E., & Veroff, J. (1993). Perceptions of conflict in the first year of marriage:

How important are similarity and understanding? Journal of Social and Personal Relation-

ships, 10, 519.

Anderson, C., Keltner, D., & John, O. P. (2003). Emotional convergence between people over

time.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 10541068.

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

Arranz Becker,O. (2013).Effectsof similarityof lifegoals, values,and personalityon relationshipsatis-faction and stability: Findings from a two-wave panel study.Personal Relationships,20, 443461.

Banse, R. (2004). Attachment style and marital satisfaction: Evidence for dyadic configuration

effects.Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,21, 273282.

Balzarotti, S., John, O. P., & Gross, J. J. (2010).An Italian adaptation of the Emotion Regulation

Questionnaire.European Journal of Psychological Assessment,26, 6167.

Barelds, D. P. H. (2005). Self and partner personality in intimate relationships. European Journal

of Personality,19, 501518.

Barelds, D. P. H., & Barelds-Dijkstra, P. (2007). Love at first sight or friends first? Ties among

partner personality trait similarity, relationship onset, relationship quality, and love. Journalof Social and Personal Relationships, 24, 479496.

Brennan, K. A., Clark, C. L., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Self-report measurement of adult attachment:

An integrative overview. In J. A. Simpson & W. S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and close

relationships(pp. 4676). New York, NY: Guilford Press.


7/26/2019 Ve Lotti

23/26

Busonera, A., San Martini, P., & Zavattini, G. C. (2011). Experiences in Close

Relationships-Revised (ECR-R): Struttura fattoriale e proprieta 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 1618, pp. 305310.Buss, D. M. (1984). Marital assortment for personality dispositions: Assessment with three differ-

ent data sources. Behavior Genetics,14, 111123.

Butler, E. A., Egloff, B., Wilhelm, F. W., Smith, N. C., Erickson, E. A., & Gross, J. J. (2003). The

social consequences of expressive suppression. Emotion, 3, 4867.

Caspi, A., & Herbener, E. S. (1990). Continuity and change: Assortative marriage and the consis-

tency of personality in adulthood.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,58, 250258.

Caspi, A., Herbener, E. S., & Ozer, D. J. (1992). Shared experiences and the similarity of person-

alities: A longitudinal study of married couples.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

62, 281291.

Cassidy, J. (1994). Emotion regulation: Influences of attachment relationships.Monographs of the

Society for Research in Child Development,59, 228249.

Christensen, A., & Heavey, C. L. (1990). Gender and social structure in the demand/withdraw pat-

tern of marital conflict. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,59, 7382.

Decuyper, M., De Bolle, M., & De Fruyt, F. (2012). Personality similarity, perceptual accuracy,

and relationship satisfaction in dating and married couples. Personal Relationships, 19,

128145.

Dinero, R. E., Conger, R. D., Shaver, P. R., Widaman, K. F., & Larsen-Rife, D. (2008). Influence

of family of origin and adult romantic partners on romantic attachment security. Journal of

Family Psychology, 22, 622632.

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, 690702.

English, T., & John, O. P. (2013). Understanding the social effects of emotion regulation: The

mediating role of authenticity for individual differences in suppression.Emotion,13, 314329.

English, T., John, O. P., & Gross, J. J. (2013). Emotion regulation in close relationships. In J. A.

Simpson & L. Campbell (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of close relationships (pp. 500513).

New York, NY: Oxford University Press.English, T., John, O. P., Srivastava, S., & Gross, J. J. (2012). Emotion regulation and peer-rated

social functioning: A 4-year longitudinal study.Journal of Research in Personality,46, 780784.

Feeney, J. A. (2002). Attachment, marital interaction, and relationship satisfaction: A diary study.

Personal Relationships,9, 3955.

Feeney, J. A. (1999). Adult attachment, emotional control, and marital satisfaction. Personal Rela-

tionships,6, 169185.

Feng, D., & Baker, L. (1994). Spouse similarity in attitudes, personality, and psychological

well-being.Behavior Genetics, 24, 357364.

Fraley, R. C., Waller, N. G., & Brennan, K. A. (2000). An item response theory analysis ofself-report measures of adult attachment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78,

350365.

Furler, K., Gomez, V., & Grob, A. (2013). A differential approach to personality similarity and life

satisfaction in couples. Journal of Research in Personality, 47, 369375.

Velotti et al. 23

7/26/2019 Ve Lotti

24/26

Furr, R. M. (2010). The double-entry intraclass correlation as an index of profile similarity: Mean-

ing, limitations, and alternatives. Journal of Personality Assessment,92, 115.

Gattis, K. S., Berns, S., Simpson, L. E., & Christensen, A. (2004). Birds of a feather or strange

birds? Ties among personality dimensions, similarity, and marital quality.Journal of FamilyPsychology,18, 564574.

Gaunt, R. (2006). Couple similarity and marital satisfaction: Are similar spouses happier?Journal

of Personality,74, 14011420.

Gentili, P., Contreras, L., Cassaniti, M., & DArista, F. (2002). La Dyadic adjustment scale. Una

misura delladattamento di coppia. Minerva Psichiatrica,43, 107116.

Glicksohn, J., & Golan, H. (2001). Personality, cognitive style and assortative mating.Personality

and Individual Differences, 30, 11991209.

Gonzaga, G. C., Campos, B., & Bradbury, T. (2007). Similarity, convergence, and relationship satis-

faction in dating and married couples.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,93, 3448.

Gonzaga, G. C., Carter, S., & Buckwalter, J. G. (2010). Assortative mating, convergence, and

satisfaction in married couples. Personal Relationships, 17, 634644.

Gottman, J. M., & Levenson, R. W. (1999). How stable is marital interaction over time? Family

Process,38, 159165.

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, 737745.

Gross, J. J. (1998). Antecedent- and response-focused emotion regulation: Divergent conse-

quences for experience, expression, and physiology. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-

chology, 74, 224237.

Gross, J. J. (2001). Emotion regulation in adulthood: Timing is everything.Current Directions In

Psychological Science,10, 214219.

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

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 Psy-

chology, 85, 348362.

Hall, S. S., & Adams, R. A. (2011). Newlyweds unexpected adjustments to marriage.Family and

Consumer Sciences Research Journal,39, 375387.

Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis.

New York, NY: The Guilford Press.Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. R. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Jour-

nal of Personality and Social Psychology,52, 511524.

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:

Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling,6, 155.

Hudson, N. W., Fraley, R. C., Brumbaugh, C. C., & Vicary, A. M. (2014). Coregulation in roman-

tic partners attachment styles: A longitudinal investigation.Personality and Social Psychology

Bulletin,40, 845857.

Humbad, M. N., Donnellan, M. B., Iacono, W. G., McGue, M., & Burt, S. A. (2010). Is spousal

similarity for personality a matter of convergence or selection? Personality and Individual Dif-ferences,49, 827830.

Impett, E. A., Kogan, A., English, T., John, O. P., Oveis, C., Gordon, A. M., & Keltner, D.(2012).

Suppression sours sacrifice: Affective and relational costs of suppressing emotions in romantic

relationships.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,38, 707720.


7/26/2019 Ve Lotti

25/26

Kenny, D. A., & Acitelli, L. K. (1994). Measuring similarity in couples. Journal of Family Psy-

chology, 8, 417431.

Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Cook, W. L. (2006). Dyadic data analysis. New York, NY: Guil-

ford Press.Kernis, M. H., & Goldman, B. M. (2006). A multicomponent conceptualization of authenticity:

Theory and research. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.),Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol.

38, pp. 284357). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Klohnen, E. C., & Luo, S. (2003). Interpersonal attraction and personality: What is attractive-self

similarity, ideal similarity, complementarity, or attachment security? Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology,85, 709722.

Jackson, D. C., Malmstadt, J. R., Larson, C. L., & Davidson, R. J.(2000). Suppression and

enhancement of emotional responses to unpleasant pictures.Psychophysiology, 37, 515522.

John, O. P., & Gross, J. J. (2007). Individual differences in emotion regulation strategies: Links to

global trait, dynamic, and social cognitive constructs. In J. J. Gross (Ed.),Handbook of emotion

regulation(pp. 351372). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Laurenceau, J., Barrett, L. F., & Pietromonaco, P. R. (1998). Intimacy as a process: The impor-

tance of self-disclosure and responsiveness in interpersonal exchanges. Journal of Personality


Levenson, R. W., & Gottman, J. M. (1985). Physiological and affective predictors of change in

relationship satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 8594.

Luo, S., & Klohnen, E. C. (2005).Assortative mating and marital quality: A couple-centered

approach.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 304326.

Mikulincer, M., Shaver, P. R., & Pereg, D. (2003). Attachment theory and affect regulation: The

dynamics, development, and cognitive consequences of attachment-related strategies.Motiva-

tion and Emotion,27, 77102.

Mikulincer, M., Florian, V., Cowan, P. A., & Cowan, C. P. (2002). Attachment security in couple

relationshipsA systemic model and its implications for family dynamics.Family Process, 41,

405434.

Moss, B. F., & Schwebel, A. I. (1993). Marriage and romantic relationships: Defining intimacy in

romantic relationships. Family Relations, 42, 3137.

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 inPersonality,40, 179208.

Pennebaker, J. W. (1997).Opening up: The healing power of expressing emotions. New York, NY:

Guilford Press.

Reis, H. T., & Shaver, P. (1988). Intimacy as an interpersonal process. In S. W. Duck (Ed.), Hand-

book of personal relationships (pp. 367389). New York, NY: John Wiley.

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 Relation-

ships, 20, 599620.

Richards, J. M., & Gross, J. J. (1999). Composure at any cost? The cognitive consequences of emo-tion suppression. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,25, 10331044.

Robins, R. W., Caspi, A., & Moffitt, T. E. (2000). Two personalities, one relationship: Both part-

ners personality traits shape the quality of their relationship.Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology,79, 251259.

Velotti et al. 25

7/26/2019 Ve Lotti

26/26

Russell, R. J., & Wells, P. A. (1991). Personality similarity and quality of marriage. Personality

and Individual Differences, 12, 407412.

Schachner, D. A., Shaver, P. R., & Mikulincer, M. (2005). Patterns of nonverbal behavior and sen-

sitivity in the context of attachment relationships.Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 29, 141169.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, 536545.

Shaver, P. R., & Mikulincer, M. (2007). Adult attachment strategies and the regulation of emotion.

In J. J. Gross (Ed.),Handbook of emotion regulation(pp. 446465). New York, NY: Guildford

Press.

Shiota, M. N., & Levenson, R. W. (2007). Birds of a feather dont always fly farthest: Similarity in

Big Five personality predicts more negative marital satisfaction trajectories in long-term mar-

riages.Psychology and Aging, 22, 666675.

Simpson, J. A. (1990). Influence of attachment styles on romantic relationships. Journal of Per-

sonality and Social Psychology, 59, 971980.

Spanier, G. B. (1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for assessing the quality of mar-

riage and similar dyads. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 38, 1528.

Srivastava, S., Tamir, M., 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


Swann, W. B., Jr., & Pelham, B. W. (2002). The truth about illusions: Authenticity and positivity

in social relationships. In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.),Handbook of positive psychology

(pp. 366381). New York, NY: Oxford.

Swann, W. B., Jr., De La Ronde, C., & Hixon, J. G. (1994). Authenticity and positivity strivings in

marriage and courtship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 857869.

Swann, W. B., Jr., Stein-Seroussi, A., & Giesler, R. B. (1992). Why people self-verify. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology,62, 392401.

Tagliabue, S., Lanz, M., & Barni, D. (2010). Dyadic perception of relationship quality: How to

consider the stereotype effect. Paper presented at 2010 International Association for Relation-

ship Research (IARR) Conference, Herzliya, Israel, 2227 July.

Tickle-Degnen, L., & Rosenthal, R. (1992). Nonverbal aspects of therapeutic rapport. In R. S.

Feldman (Ed.), Applications of nonverbal behavioral theories and research (pp. 143164).Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Van Kleef, G. A. (2009). How emotions regulate social life: The Emotions as Social Information

(EASI) model.Current Directions in Psychological Science,18, 184188.

Watson, D., Klohnen, E. C., Casillas, A., Simms, E. N., Haig, J., & Berry, D. S. (2004). Match

makers and deal breakers: Analyses of assortative mating in newlywed couples.Journal of Per-

sonality, 72, 10291068.


Date post:	13-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	minodora
View:	215 times
Download:	0 times

Ve Lotti

Documents