Content uploaded by Lisa Emery
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Lisa Emery
Content may be subject to copyright.
Emery, L., & Hess, T.M. (2011). Cognitive consequences of expressive regulation in older adults. Psychology and
Aging. 26(2): 388-396. (Jun 2011) Published by the American Psychological Association (ISSN: 1939-1498). DOI:
10.1037/a0020041
Cognitive consequences of expressive regulation in
older adults
Lisa Emery and Thomas M. Hess
ABSTRACT
Previous research has suggested that older and young adults are equally able to regulate their
outward expressions of emotion and that the regulation of emotional expression in younger
adults results in decreased memory for the emotional stimulus. In the current study, we
examined whether older adults show this same memory effect. Older and young adults viewed
positive and negative emotional pictures under instructions to view the pictures naturally,
enhance their facial expressions, or suppress their facial expressions. Older and young adults
showed equivalent outward regulation of expression, but suppressing their emotional
expressions led to reduced memory for emotional stimuli only in the young adults. The results
suggest that older and young adults are achieving control of their expressions through different
mechanisms or strategies.
The ability to control one's outward expressions of emotion has been a topic of interest across
both the general psychological literature and among those studying developmental processes in
adulthood. Being able to flexibly enhance and suppress one's expressions as warranted by the
situation has been linked to better social adjustment (Bonanno, Papa, Lalande, Westphal, &
Coifman, 2004). Studies suggest that when younger adults effectively regulate their outward
emotional expressions, they show minimal changes in actual emotional feelings but show
increased physiological arousal and cognitive costs in the form of decreased memory for the
arousing stimuli (Richards, 2004). In the aging literature, research to date has shown that older
and younger adults show similar emotional and physiological responses to expressive
regulation (Kunzmann, Kupperbusch, & Levenson, 2005). No study, however, has examined the
cognitive consequences of expression regulation in older adults. Current research on the
broader construct of emotion regulation suggests that older adults may approach emotional
situations differently than younger adults and may find other types of emotion regulation less
cognitively costly (Scheibe & Blanchard-Fields, 2009). In the current study, therefore, we
examine potential age differences in the impact of expression control on memory for emotional
material.
EXPRESSIVE REGULATION AND ITS COGNITIVE CONSEQUENCES
The majority of research on the consequences of expression regulation has focused on the
strategy of expressive suppression or preventing an outwardly visible reaction in response to an
emotional event or stimulus. A smaller body of work has examined expressive enhancement or
exaggerating a naturally occurring emotional expression. Both expressive suppression and
enhancement have been described as response focused strategies of emotion regulation
(Demaree, Robinson, Pu, & Allen, 2006; Gross & Thompson, 2007), in which the attempt to
control the expression is through direct control of the facial muscles. These expressive
regulation strategies may be contrasted with antecedent focused emotion regulation strategies
such as situation selection (e.g., choosing to avoid a potentially unpleasant situation in the first
place) or cognitive reappraisal of a situation (e.g., deciding that you will think about the
unpleasant situation in a way that is not upsetting), which are directed at controlling the initiation
or appraisal of an emotional response (Gross & Thompson, 2007). Although antecedent
regulation strategies such as reappraisal may also reduce the expression of emotion (e.g.,
Phillips, Henry, Hosie, & Milne, 2008; Richards & Gross, 2000), they influence the facial
expression indirectly, through control of thoughts, rather than directly, through the control of
muscles.
In research using college students, both expressive suppression and expressive enhancement
have been found to have minimal to negative consequences for affective feelings. Suppression
and exaggeration of expression in response to negative stimuli generally do not change
subjective reports of affect (e.g., Bonanno et al., 2004; Demaree, Schmeichel, Robinson, &
Everhart, 2004; Gross & Levenson, 1993; Richards & Gross, 2000). In contrast, the suppression
of response to positive stimuli results in reports of decreased positive affect (Gross & Levenson,
1997), although exaggeration in response to positive stimuli does not appear to impact affect
(Demaree et al., 2004). The ineffectiveness of expressive regulation on changing internal
feelings suggests that this type of regulation is not aimed at reducing feelings but is aimed at
either hiding or communicating the emotional response from/to others.
In contrast to reported feelings, both expressive suppression and enhancement have been
found to increase physiological arousal. Laboratory participants who are instructed to suppress
or exaggerate their facial expressions in response to positive or negative stimuli tend to show
increases in measures of sympathetic nervous system activation compared to participants in
unregulated control conditions (Demaree et al., 2004; Gross & Levenson, 1997).
The cognitive consequences of expressive regulation have been studied primarily using
subsequent memory for the emotional material. In college students, the act of controlling one's
facial expressions has been shown to lead to reduced memory for the emotional event. Several
experimental studies have shown that when participants are instructed to suppress their
expressions in response to either positive or negative stimuli, they later show impaired memory
for those stimuli (Bonanno et al., 2004; Dillon, Ritchey, Johnson, & LaBar, 2007; Richards &
Gross, 2000). Similarly, although there is less research on the impact of enhancement on
memory, at least one study has shown that enhancement of facial expressions also results in
reduced memory performance (Bonanno et al., 2004).
This reduced memory in response to the control of facial expressions has generally been
regarded as an indication of attention to the emotional stimulus. That is, it is assumed that the
goal of regulating facial expression causes a diversion of attention from the processing of the
stimuli to the control of behavior (Richards, 2004), and this reduction in stimulus processing thus
reduces memory for the stimuli (Dillon et al., 2007). This effect of expressive regulation on
memory can be contrasted with the effect of other strategies aimed at regulation of emotion. For
example, thinking about the stimulus in a way that either increases or decreases emotional
feelings has been shown to increase memory for the stimulus (Dillon et al., 2007). Thus, both
types of regulation have a different impact on memory through the same mechanism: either
attention is drawn away from the stimulus (e.g., expressive suppression) or toward the stimulus
(e.g., cognitive reappraisal). This effect of attention is thought to be overlaid on the general and
automatic effect of arousal on memory (Dillon et al., 2007). That is, emotional (arousing) stimuli
are better remembered than are nonarousing stimuli (e.g., Phelps, 2006), regardless of whether
or which regulation strategy is employed. Regulation will instead determine how much better the
arousing stimuli are remembered. Cognitive reappraisal, which encourages elaborative
processing, results in greater recall of emotional material than no regulation, but expressive
regulation, which diverts attention from the stimulus, results in worse recall than no regulation.
AGING AND EXPRESSIVE REGULATION
To our knowledge, three published studies have examined age differences in the ability to
suppress and enhance facial expressions of emotion (Kunzmann et al., 2005; Magai,
Consedine, Krivoshekova, Kudadjie-Gyamfi, & McPherson, 2006; Phillips et al., 2008), though
as in the young adult literature most of the emphasis has been on suppression rather than
exaggeration, and on between-subjects rather than on within-subjects experiments. In these
studies, researchers found that older and younger adults are equally able to suppress and
enhance their facial expressions when asked to do so. Age equivalencies in the regulation of
emotional expression can be contrasted with age differences in emotion regulation strategies
that are focused on avoiding the initiation of emotion itself or changing the appraisal of an
emotional situation. For example, older adults are more likely to report that they avoid
emotionally charged confrontations when such confrontations may be destructive (e.g., Birditt &
Fingerman, 2005), may be more likely to use selective attention deployment to avoid looking at
emotionally negative information (Mather & Knight, 2005), and may both report using
reappraisal more than younger adults (John & Gross, 2004; but see Beaudreau, MacKay, &
Storandt, 2009; Emery & Hess, 2008) and be more effective at using reappraisal when asked to
do so (Phillips et al., 2008). Thus, older and younger adults appear to differ in their use of
regulation strategies to control their inward feelings of emotion, but they appear equally able to
regulate their outward expressions of emotion when asked to do so. There are, however, some
limitations to the previous expressive regulation studies that limit interpretation of this finding
and serve as the inspiration for the current research.
The first limitation of the previous research and the primary focus of the current study is that
none of the studies to date have examined the cognitive consequences of expressive regulation
in older adults. As described in the previous section, expression regulation in younger adults
appears to have the cognitive consequence of reduced memory for the emotional stimuli, an
effect that has previously been linked to the redirection of attention from processing the stimulus
to controlling behavior. Examining subsequent stimulus memory after expressive regulation may
provide evidence regarding whether the age groups differ in the strategy by which they choose
to control their expressivity. For example, Magai et al. (2006) suggested that older adults rather
than relying on muscle control to reduce their expressivity may instead choose to regulate their
expression by controlling the emotional experience itself. If this is the case, older adults may
show a reduced cognitive cost of expressive regulation than do younger adults.
In addition, in each of the previous three studies there have been baseline age differences in
self-reported affect and observer ratings of emotional expressiveness. Two of the studies
(Kunzmann et al., 2005; Phillips et al., 2008) have asked older adults to either suppress and/or
enhance their facial expressions in response to emotional films. Both of these studies found age
differences during the no-regulation conditions (higher self-rated affect and more
expressiveness for the young in Kunzmann et al., 2005; higher self-rated affect and more
expressiveness for the old in Phillips et al., 2008), despite finding age equivalence in affect and
expression during the regulation conditions. The difference in direction for the two studies is
likely the result of the type of materials used (disgust-evoking videos vs. social injustice videos,
respectively). In the third study (Magai et al., 2006), participants were asked to recall and
describe autobiographical events that made them either sad or angry; half of the participants
were asked to suppress their facial responses while telling their stories. Younger adults showed
more expressiveness than did older adults for several emotions during both the no-regulation
and the suppression conditions. In addition, older adults both reported a greater intensity of
emotion and used more emotional words during the no-regulation condition than during the
suppress condition. Only one study (Kunzmann et al., 2005) examined physiological responding
and found that older and younger adults showed similar reactivity to both suppress and enhance
instructions. Although the direction of the age difference varies among the studies, these
underlying baseline differences imply that regulation may have been more difficult for one age
group than the other in these studies (Kunzmann et al., 2005; Phillips et al., 2008).
The final limitation of the previous studies is that all three studies have examined expressive
regulation using only negatively valenced material. This is an important limitation for two related
reasons. First, several studies have suggested that older and younger adults may have different
reactions to and memory for positive and negative stimuli (e.g., Charles, Mather, & Carstensen,
2003; Mather & Knight, 2005). Specifically, older adults may show a positivity effect in which
they may show a bias toward processing positive stimuli and/or away from processing negative
stimuli (e.g., Mather & Carstensen, 2005). It is possible, therefore, that age differences in
expressive regulation may emerge in response to positive stimuli. Second, although older adults
appear to have no difficulty enhancing their reactions to a negatively valenced film (Kunzmann
et al., 2005), at least one recent study has shown that older adults may have difficulty
enhancing their facial reactions to positive material (Henry, Rendell, Scicluna, Jackson, &
Phillips, 2009). Henry et al.(2009) found that older adults' facial expressions in response to an
amusing film were not significantly different in a no-control condition compared to an exaggerate
condition. However, Henry et al. did not have a young adult comparison group to determine
whether there were significant age differences in this effect (the older adults were a control
group for a group of patients with probable Alzheimer's disease).
THE CURRENT STUDY
We designed the current study to address the limitations outlined above. Our primary goal was
to examine the cognitive costs of expressive suppression and enhancement in older and
younger adults. To do this, we adopted the expressive flexibility paradigm used by Bonanno et
al. (2004). In this within-subjects paradigm, participants are shown blocks of positive and
negative pictures from the International Affective Picture System (IAPS; Lang, Bradley, &
Cuthbert, 2001) under three different instructions: Suppression, Enhancement, or “Natural”
viewing instructions. Each participant's expressivity and affect during the two regulation
conditions can then be compared with their own expressivity under the natural nonregulation
condition to examine the consequences of expressive regulation. Later, participants were given
a surprise recall test for the pictures presented; we could then compare recall of pictures that
came from each condition to determine whether expressive regulation impacted memory
differently in older and younger adults. This paradigm allowed us to address the remaining
limitations of previous studies that were outlined above: We chose materials that resulted in age
equivalence in the natural condition and used material that was both positively and negatively
valenced.
METHOD
Participants
Older adult participants (n = 57; age = 60–81) were recruited from the Raleigh, North Carolina,
metro area using newspaper advertisements and received $20 for participation. Younger adults
(n = 51; age = 18–37) were recruited from introductory psychology classes at North Carolina
State University and received course credit for participation. During the course of the study,
participants were screened for possible memory problems using the Short Blessed Orientation–
Memory–Concentration Test (Katzman et al., 1983) and for possible depression using the short
version of the Geriatric Depression Scale (Sheikh & Yesavage, 1986). Following conventional
suggestions (Lezak, Howieson, & Loring, 2004), participants who scored above 6 on the Short
Blessed Orientation–Memory–Concentration Test or above 9 on the Geriatric Depression Scale
were excluded from analysis. This resulted in the exclusion of three younger and four older
participants, with 48 younger adults (27 women) and 53 older adults (27 women) comprising the
final study sample.
Participant characteristics for each age group are presented in Table 1 Our sample showed
typical age differences in education, physical and mental health (SF-36 Health Survey; Ware,
1993), vocabulary (Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale—Third Edition [WAIS-III] Vocabulary
subtest; Psychological Corporation, 1997), processing speed (WAIS-III Digit-Symbol
Substitution), and abstract reasoning (WAIS-III Matrix Reasoning) as well as commonly found
age differences in positive and negative affect (Positive and Negative Affect Schedule; Watson,
Clark, & Tellegen, 1988). Although the older adults had lower working memory capacity
(Operation Span scores; Turner & Engle, 1989), the age difference failed to reach significance,
t(96) = 1.82, p = .07. Finally, our participants did not show age differences in reported use of the
emotion regulation strategies of reappraisal and suppression (Emotion Regulation
Questionnaire; Gross & John, 2003).
Apparatus
All computer-administered portions of the experiment were run on a desktop microcomputer
using E-Prime software (Version 1.1; Psychology Software Tools, Sharpsburg, PA). Video
recording of participants was done using a Sony Handycam camcorder (Model DCR-SR40)
mounted on a tripod behind the computer monitor.
Materials
Negative and positive pictures were chosen from the IAPS (Lang et al., 2001). The IAPS
valence ratings for the pictures used were significantly different across valence categories, t(34)
= 26.54, p < .001, with positive pictures (M = 7.28, SD = 0.44) rated more highly than negative
pictures (M = 2.97, SD = 0.53). IAPS arousal ratings did not differ across negative and positive
pictures, t(34) = 0.09, p = .93 (positive pictures: M = 6.04, SD = 0.54; negative pictures: M =
6.03, SD = 0.38).
After viewing blocks of pictures, participants rated how “happy or unhappy” they felt and how
“excited or calm” that they felt using Self-Assessment Manikins (SAMs; Bradley & Lang, 1994)
on a 5-point scale. The five “happy to unhappy” SAMs were arranged with the “happiest” SAM
on the left (score of 1) and the “unhappiest” SAM on the right (score of 5). The five “excited or
calm” SAMs were arranged with the “excited” SAM on the left (score of 1) and the “calm” SAM
on the right (score of 5).
Procedure
After filling out some background questionnaires, participants completed the Positive and
Negative Affect Schedule, with the instruction to indicate to what extent they felt that way today.
Participants were then given the instructions for the emotion regulation task. Participants were
told that they would be viewing pictures on the computer screen and at different times would be
asked either to view the pictures naturally or would be asked to control their facial expressions
in certain ways. They were told that before each group of pictures they would be given one of
three instructions telling them what to do. Participants were then given the following directions
for each instruction:
Natural means that you should watch the next group of pictures as if you encountered them in
your daily life, for example, as if you were watching them on television.
Suppress means that while you are watching the pictures, you should do your best to not show
any emotional expression on your face. In other words, if someone were watching your face,
they should not be able to tell what you are feeling.
Enhance means that while you are watching the pictures, you should do your best to
exaggerate the facial expression of the emotion the picture evokes. In other words, if someone
were watching your face, [he or she] should have no difficulty telling what you are feeling.
Participants were then told that after each group of pictures, they would be asked to rate both
how “happy or unhappy” and how “excited or calm” they felt, using the SAMs described above.
After the instructions were complete, participants were given three practice blocks to be sure
they understood the instructions. During the practice blocks, we used smiley faces as stimuli
rather than IAPS pictures to avoid later memory contamination.
During the emotion regulation task, participants saw six blocks (3 instructions [neutral,
suppress, enhance] × 2 valences [positive, negative]) of 6 pictures each. The order of the blocks
was randomly determined for each participant. For each level of valence, the pictures within
each block were also randomly determined for each participant. Each block started with a 3-s
instruction, and then the six pictures were presented one after the other for 5 s each. After each
block, participants made their happy–unhappy and then excited–calm ratings at their own pace
using a five-button response box. The experimenter was present in the room but out of the line
of sight of the participant during this task.
Following the emotion regulation task, participants completed the Short Blessed Orientation–
Memory–Concentration Test, Operation Span, and WAIS-III Digit-Symbol Substitution Test.
Participants were then given a surprise recall test in which they were asked to recall all of the
pictures that they could remember from the emotion regulation task (excluding the practice
smiley faces) by writing down a description of each picture in as much detail as possible.
Finally, participants completed the vocabulary and matrix reasoning tasks.
Data Coding
Emotional expressivity
Trained undergraduate raters coded each of the six video segments for each participant; two
raters coded each segment. The raters were blind to the instructions that the participants were
given and the pictures they were viewing. The coding procedure was adapted from that used by
Kunzmann et al. (2005). Because the stimuli in this study were not chosen to evoke single
specific emotions, the raters coded the participants' expressivity during each segment using
three scales: Pleasant Expressivity (e.g., expressions of happiness), Unpleasant Expressivity
(e.g., expressions of anger, sadness, disgust, or fear) and Overall Expressivity (emotional
expressivity regardless of valence, including surprise). For each scale, raters coded both the
intensity and frequency of a participant's facial expressions on a scale from 0 (no sign of
emotional expression) to 4 (more than one high intensity sign of emotional expression); raters
assigned one code from each scale to each of a participant's six video segments. To ensure
that participants understood what constituted a pleasant or unpleasant expression and what
expressions of low, medium, and high intensity were, we had the raters study examples of
expressions of different emotions and intensities from Ekman and Friesen's (1975)Unmasking
the Face: A Guide to Recognizing Emotions From Facial Clues. Raters were carefully instructed
to rate a participant's expressivity based on the specific criteria discussed in training, and not to
code the participant's expressivity in one segment relative to his or her expressivity in another
segment. Interrater reliability was good overall (average weighted κ = .81). The coder ratings
were averaged for analysis.
Picture recall
Coding of the recall responses was done using the exact procedure in Emery and Hess's (2008)
study. Briefly, two undergraduate coders (blind to the age of the participant) independently tried
to match each response to one of the pictures presented over the course of the experiment.
Because the order of the pictures varied randomly across participants, coders did not know
which picture was presented in which condition. If the response did not match any pictures, the
coders marked a “no match.” If the two coders disagreed on any response, a third
undergraduate coder also attempted to match the response to a picture. Any responses for
which all three raters disagreed were coded as “disagreements.”
After the coding procedure was complete, the responses that had been successfully matched to
a picture were then matched back to the condition in which they had been presented. Because
neither “no match” nor “disagreement” responses could be matched back to a condition, these
responses had to be discarded from analysis. [1]
RESULTS
Each dependent variable was analyzed with a 2 × 2 × 3 (Age Group [old vs. young] × Valence
[negative vs. positive] × Instruction [enhance vs. natural vs. suppress]) analysis of variance
(ANOVA), with the significance level set to p = .05. For all analyses, any ANOVA result with a p
value between .05 and .10 is reported as a trend.
Emotional Expressivity Ratings
Because of a recording problem, video data from five participants were lost. As may be seen in
Figure 1, unpleasant and pleasant expressivity showed essentially the same results: The
ANOVA for each measure showed main effects of instruction (unpleasantness: F[2, 188] =
106.04, p < .05, η2p = .53; pleasantness: F[2, 184] = 108.07, p < .05, η2p = .54), valence
(unpleasantness: F[1, 94] = 103.09, p < .05, η2p = .52; pleasantness: F[1, 94] = 87.59, p < .05,
η2p = .48), and an Instruction × Valence interaction (unpleasantness: F[2, 188] = 30.57, p < .05,
η2p = .24; pleasantness: F[2, 188] = 42.05, p < .05, η2p = .31). No other effects were significant
in either ANOVA (ps > .10).
Figure 1. Average unpleasant (top) and pleasant (bottom) expressivity shown by younger and
older adults across conditions. Error bars are standard errors.
Overall, participants showed more unpleasant expressivity for negative than positive pictures,
and showed the appropriate modulation of unpleasant expressivity in the enhance and suppress
conditions, relative to the neutral conditions. Participants showed significant differences in
unpleasant expressivity across instructions for both positive and negative pictures; however, the
Instruction × Valence interaction indicates that the difference in unpleasant expressivity for
negative and positive pictures increased across instructions, such that there was no effect of
valence under suppress instructions and the largest effect of valence was in the enhance
instructions. This same pattern was found for pleasant expressivity, with the exception that
participants showed more pleasant expressivity during the positive than negative pictures, as
expected. This overall pattern of results is reflected in the coders' ratings of overall expressivity,
which showed only main effects of instruction, F(2, 188) = 166.02, p < .05, η2p = .64, and
valence, F(1, 94) = 8.25, p < .05, η2p = .08. The valence effect indicates that participants were
slightly more expressive for negative than positive pictures.
Of particular importance is the lack of age effects in the expressivity measures; across the three
expressivity measures, all main effects and interactions involving age showed very small and
nonsignificant effect sizes (η2p < .03; in all but two cases η2p < .01). Older and younger adults
showed equal overall expressivity in the natural condition, t(94) = .54, p = .59, and showed
equal moderation of expressivity across instructions and across valence, F(2, 188) = 0.09, p =
.91. Thus, older and young adults' outward behavior was equivalent in all aspects. [2]
Affect and Arousal
Self-rated unhappiness
Mean scores for participants' unhappiness ratings are presented in the top portion of Table 2
The ANOVA detected significant main effects of instruction, F(2, 198) = 5.95, p < .05, η2p = .06,
and valence, F(1, 99) = 169.93, p < .05, η2p = .63, an Instruction × Valence interaction, F(2, 198)
= 3.99, p < .05, η2p = .04, and an Instruction × Valence × Age Group interaction, F(2, 198) =
3.65, p < .05, η2p = .04. No other effects were significant (ps > .10).
Means and Standard Deviations for Unpleasantness Ratings
As expected, participants were significantly more unhappy following negative pictures than
following positive pictures. The main effect of instruction indicated that participants were
significantly more unhappy in the suppress condition than in the natural condition, F(1, 99) =
10.28, p < .05, η2p = .09, but there was no difference in unhappiness between the enhance and
natural conditions, F(1, 99) = 0.53, p = .47, η2p = .01. The Instruction × Valence interaction,
however, indicated that this effect of instruction was only significant for positive pictures, F(2,
198) = 10.14, p < .05, η2p = .09, not negative pictures, F(2, 198) = 0.16, p = .85, η2p = .00.
Finally, the three-way interaction indicated that the effect of instruction on positive pictures was
only significant in the younger adults, F(2, 94) = 13.48, p < .05, η2p = .22, not the older adults,
F(2, 104) = 1.32, p = .27, η2p = .02. In summary, suppression caused younger adults to feel less
happy after positive pictures than they did under natural conditions, but instruction had no other
significant effects on affect. This effect in younger adults (suppression has no effect on negative
feelings but results in a decrease in positive feelings) is similar to that found in previous studies
with younger adults (e.g., Gross & Levenson, 1997). Suppression seemed to have no effect,
however, on older adults' ratings of affect.
Self-rated calmness
The only significant effect for calmness was a main effect of instruction, F(2, 198) = 6.62, p <
.05, η2p = .06. Follow-up contrasts indicated that participants reported being slightly less calm
during the enhance condition (M = 3.24, SD = 0.96) than during the natural condition (M = 3.44,
SD = 0.91), F(1, 99) = 5.43, p < .05, η2p = .05, and less calm in the natural condition than in the
suppress condition (M = 3.53, SD = 0.87), F(1, 99) = 8.18, p < .05, η2p = .08. There was a
nonsignificant trend toward a main effect of valence, F(1, 99) = 2.97, p = .09, η2p = .03, with
higher mean calmness ratings during the positive (M = 3.48, SD = 0.93) than the negative (M =
3.33, SD = 0.85) conditions. No other effects were significant (ps > .10).
Picture Recall
Picture recall
Figure 2 reports the proportion of pictures from each instructional condition that were recalled by
participants. [3] The ANOVA revealed significant main effects of age group, F(1, 99) = 8.33, p <
.05, η2p = .08, and valence, F(1, 99) = 47.18, p < .05, η2p = .32, with younger adults (M = 0.30,
SD = 0.11) recalling a greater proportion of the pictures than older adults, (M = 0.24, SD =
0.11), and participants recalling a greater proportion of the negative pictures (M = 0.32, SD =
0.15) than the positive pictures (M = 0.22, SD = 0.13). In addition, there was an Age Group ×
Instruction interaction, F(2, 198) = 3.45, p < .05, η2p = .03, and a trend toward an Instruction ×
Valence interaction, F(2, 198) = 2.66, p = .07, η2p = .03. No other effects were significant (ps <
.10). Of particular importance, neither the Valence × Age Group interaction, F(1, 99) = 1.61, p =
.21, η2p = .02, nor the Valence × Age Group × Instruction interaction, F(2, 198) = 0.76, p = .46,
η2p = .01, approached significance, suggesting that the age groups did not differ in the ratio of
positive to negative material recalled across the three conditions.
Figure 2. Average proportion of pictures recalled by younger and older adults across conditions.
Error bars are standard errors.
To determine the nature of the Age Group × Instruction interaction, we conducted Age ×
Instruction contrasts comparing the enhance and suppress conditions to the natural condition.
The Enhance × Natural contrast indicated that there were no significant effects of enhancement
on memory in either age group (ps > .10), although the pattern of memory in younger adults
was similar to that found by Bonanno et al. (2004), with reduced memory in the enhance
condition. The increased variability of memory performance in the enhance condition may have
made the effect more difficult to detect. [4] The Suppress × Natural contrast, however, did show
a significant Age Group × Instruction interaction, F(1, 99) = 5.35, p < .05, η2p = .05. Consistent
with previous research, suppression in the younger adults led to significantly poorer memory for
the pictures relative to the natural condition, F(1, 47) = 4.24, p < .05, η2p = .08. In contrast, there
was no significant difference between the natural and suppress conditions for the older adults;
in fact there was a nonsignificant trend toward suppression causing improved memory in older
adults, F(1, 52) = 2.90, p = .09, η2p = .05. As may be seen in Figure 2, the net result of the
suppression condition was to eliminate age differences in memory, F(1, 99) = 0.20, p = .67, η2p
= .002.
Figure 2 also indicates that the trend toward an Instruction × Valence interaction is likely due to
the instructions primarily impacting memory for negative, not positive, material. Separate Age ×
Instruction ANOVAs conducted within each valence yielded no significant effects for positive
pictures (all ps > .10) but a significant Age × Instruction interaction for the negative pictures, F(2,
198) = 3.10, p < .05, η2p = .03. We return to this point in the Discussion.
DISCUSSION
The primary goal of this study was to examine the cognitive costs of expressive regulation in
older and younger adults. Although there were no age differences in outward expression and
few age differences in the affective consequences of expressive regulation, there were
significant age differences in how expressive suppression influenced subsequent memory.
Older and younger adults showed identical effects of expressive regulation on outward
expressions of emotion and on self-reported arousal, and for the most part similar effects on
self-reported affect. Older and younger adults did show different effects of expressive regulation
on memory: Younger adults showed reduced picture recall after suppression (as in previous
research), but older adults did not.
Unlike previous studies of age differences in expressive regulation, in the current study older
and younger adults were equivalent on both outward expressivity and subjective measures of
affect and arousal during the natural viewing conditions. This implies that the age-related
findings during the expressive regulation conditions were not due to baseline age differences in
these measures. [5] It should be noted that both the affect ratings and the expressivity ratings
were on the lower end of the scales in the current study, which may be one reason for the lack
of age differences in the natural condition. This may limit the findings of the current study to
situations of low emotional arousal, and future research should be directed at extending the
current memory findings with more evocative stimuli (e.g., films).
Finally, we found that the valence of the stimuli had little effect on age differences in the
consequences of expressive regulation. The only significant age difference arose in the affective
responses to suppression of reactions to positive pictures. Unlike Henry et al. (2009), we did not
find that older adults had difficulty enhancing their facial responses to positive stimuli, though
this difference may be due to the lower level of baseline responding in the current study, as
described above. We also did not find any significant Age × Valence interactions in the memory
data. As noted above, however, the memory results are driven primarily by the impact of
expressive regulation on memory for negative pictures. If suppression slightly reduces memory
for negative pictures in younger adults but slightly increases memory for negative pictures in
older adults, this could be seen as a reduction in the age-related positivity effect. That is, there
is a net decrease in the proportion of positive information remembered in older adults under
suppression instructions. Future research with larger sample sizes and/or different stimuli would
be needed to determine whether this effect is reliable.
Expressive Regulation and Age Differences in Memory
The primary unique finding of this study is the differential impact of expressive suppression on
memory in older and younger adults, despite age equivalence in the outward effectiveness of
the regulation. This finding suggests that younger and older adults are using different strategies
to regulate their expressivity. The strategy used in younger adults results in adequate
expressive suppression at the cost of memory. The strategy used in older adults is equally
effective at controlling expressivity but at no cost (and a possible benefit) to memory. Given the
previously reviewed research on both expressive and emotion regulation, we believe the most
parsimonious explanation of this finding is an extension of that presented by Dillon et al. (2007)
that “the effects of emotion regulation on memory reflect strategic influences on stimulus
elaboration” (p. 355).
As discussed in the introduction, previous research has suggested that older adults are more
likely than younger adults to report using reappraisal strategies and are more effective at using
these strategies when asked to do so. Moreover, research with younger adults has shown that
although people report using a variety of strategies when given expressive regulation
instructions, younger adults report using muscle control more than cognitive reappraisal
(Demaree et al., 2006). It is possible that the older adults were more likely to use indirect
strategies like reappraisal to control their facial expressions, whereas younger adults were more
likely to rely on direct control of their facial muscles. This possibility would have yielded the
pattern we saw with respect to expressive suppression: identical outward appearances but
reduced recall in younger adults and increased recall in older adults. Future research that
examines strategy selection would provide additional support for this interpretation.
There are a few caveats, however, to this explanation. First, the older adults in the current study
did not report greater use of reappraisal in their daily lives than did younger adults, though this
does not necessarily preclude their using it more in a laboratory situation. Second, the use of
reappraisal has previously been linked to changes in self-reported affect; if older adults were
reappraising during the suppression condition, we might have expected a change in their mood.
Given these two caveats, some caution is warranted in this interpretation.
One potential alternative explanation for the effect of expressive regulation on memory is
through the impact of arousal on memory consolidation, rather than through attention to
stimulus processing. As reviewed in the introduction, expressive regulation has been shown to
cause increased physiological arousal, and increased physiological arousal has been shown to
be at least partially responsible for the increase in memory for emotional compared to neutral
material, through the action of the amygdala on memory consolidation processes in the
hippocampus (e.g., Cahill & McGaugh, 1998; Phelps, 2006). If older adults were showing
greater physiological arousal in response to suppression instructions, this may have increased
their memory relative to the natural condition. We note, however, that previous studies have
shown that younger and older adults do not differ in their physiological reactions to suppression
instructions (Kunzmann et al., 2005). In the current study, we also did not find any age
differences in self-reported arousal. Additional research that looks specifically at the
consolidation process, for example, by varying the delay between encoding and recall, could
help clarify the results.
A second alternative explanation is that age differences in experienced affect during
suppression may have an influence on the memory results. That is, if older adults were having a
less intense subjective reaction to the stimuli under suppression instructions, it may be easier
for them to suppress their facial reactions than it is for younger adults and would perhaps lead
to less of a decrease in memory. Although this argument has been raised in previous research,
we do not think that is the case here. As described above, both self-reported affect and
observer-rated emotional expressivity were equivalent in the natural condition, suggesting that
the initial and unregulated response to the pictures was similar for older and younger adults. In
addition, the only age difference in self-reported affect occurred for suppression to positive
pictures, but the memory effect was stronger for negative pictures. If affect does have an
influence on the results, we believe it is through the same basic strategy difference proposed
above: If older adults are reappraising, they may indeed be having a less intense emotional
reaction to the stimuli during the suppression condition than are younger adults.
The discussion thus far has been focused on the effects of expressive suppression, as that was
where the age differences in memory were found. It should be noted that we were unable to
replicate the previous finding that enhancement resulted in decreased memory in younger
adults, although this effect may have been obscured by significant variability in memory
performance in the enhance condition. This increased variability could indicate that a greater
range of strategies was used in the enhance condition. Although enhancement may require
effort, which could decrease memory, it also may require more attention to the emotional
aspects of a stimulus, which may increase memory. These two processes could cancel each
other out, resulting in no net increase or decrease in memory as was found in the current study.
CONCLUSION
In summary, unlike younger adults, older adults can successfully enhance and suppress their
facial expressions at little to no cognitive costs. Although the exact mechanism behind this
effect, whether related to stimulus processing at encoding, arousal influences on consolidation,
or the impact of suppression on affect, cannot be determined by the current research, this
finding strongly suggests that older and younger adults are achieving expressive suppression
through different strategies. Future research should be directed at replicating the current effect
and determining the mechanism responsible for the decreased cost of suppression in older
adults.
FOOTNOTES
1. Young adults produced an average of 11.23 total responses (SD = 6.93); of these, an
average of 0.04 (SD = 0 .20) responses were coded as “disagreements,” and an average of
0.27 (SD = 0.61) responses were coded as “no matches.” Older adults produced an average of
9.68 total responses (SD = 4.32); of these an average of 0.23 (SD = 0.75) responses were
coded as “disagreements,” and an average of 0.81 (SD = 0.90) responses were coded as “no
matches.” Therefore, a greater percentage of responses was discarded from the older adults
(10.7%) than from the young adults (2.7%), t(99) = 4.55, p < .001; this age difference in
discarded responses is not unusual for this type of data (e.g., Charles et al., 2003; Emery &
Hess, 2008).
2. Given recent evidence that working memory capacity can influence the ability to control facial
expressions of emotion (Schmeichel et al., 2008), we performed an additional Age Group ×
Instruction analysis on Overall Expressivity scores, using (centered) Operation Span scores as
a covariate. This analysis showed main effects of Operation Span, F(1, 89) = 9.43, p < .05, η2p =
.10, and instruction, F(2, 178) = 180.89, p < .05, η2p = .67, and an Instruction × Operation Span
interaction, F(2, 174) = 15.93, p < .05, η2p = .15. Consistent with Schmeichel et al. (2008),
participants with higher working memory capacity (regardless of age) showed greater
modulation of expression across instructions.
3.These recall rates are similar to those found in other studies using recall of IAPS pictures
(e.g., Charles et al., 2003; Dillon et al., 2007).
4. Mauchly's test of sphericity suggested that there was a significant difference in the amount of
variance across the six conditions, as evidenced by a significant chi-square value for the
Instruction × Valence effect, χ2(2, N = 101) = 7.35, p = .03. Applying a Greenhouse–Geisser
correction to the results does not change any of the significance tests reported here.
5. We acknowledge that the measures of affect and arousal were taken at a block level after all
pictures in a condition had been presented and not at a picture-by-picture level. This leaves
open the possibility that there were age differences in the reaction to individual pictures that are
not captured by these single, somewhat retrospective ratings. Given, however, that the objective
ratings of expressivity were not significantly different between older and younger adults, we do
not think this is the case.
REFERENCES
Beaudreau, S. A., MacKay, A., & Storandt, M. (2009). Older adults' responses to emotional
stimuli: A cautionary note. Journal of Experimental Aging Research, 35, 235–249.
Birditt, K. S., & Fingerman, K. L. (2005). Do we get better at picking our battles? Age group
differences in descriptions of behavioral reactions to interpersonal tensions. Journals of
Gerontology, Series B: Psychological and Social Sciences, 60, P121–P128.
Bonanno, G. A., Papa, A., Lalande, K., Westphal, M., & Coifman, K. (2004). The importance of
being flexible: The ability to both enhance and suppress emotional expression predicts long-
term adjustment. Psychological Science, 15, 482–487.
Bradley, M. M., & Lang, P. J. (1994). Measuring emotion: The self-assessment manikin and the
semantic differential. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 25, 49–59.
doi:10.1016/0005-7916(94)90063-9
Cahill, L., & McGaugh, J. L. (1998). Mechanisms of emotional arousal and lasting declarative
memory. Trends in Neurosciences, 21, 294–299. doi:10.1016/S0166-2236(97)01214-9
Charles, S. T., Mather, M., & Carstensen, L. L. (2003). Aging and emotional memory: The
forgettable nature of negative images for older adults. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
General, 132, 310–324. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.132.2.310
Demaree, H. A., Robinson, J. L., Pu, J., & Allen, J. J. B. (2006). Strategies actually employed
during response-focused emotion regulation research: Affective and physiological
consequences. Cognition & Emotion, 20, 1248–1260. doi:10.1080/02699930500405303
Demaree, H. A., Schmeichel, B. J., Robinson, J. L., & Everhart, D. E. (2004). Behavioural,
affective, and physiological effects of negative and positive emotional exaggeration. Cognition &
Emotion, 18, 1079–1097. doi:10.1080/02699930441000085
Dillon, D. G., Ritchey, M., Johnson, B. D., & LaBar, K. S. (2007). Dissociable effects of
conscious emotion regulation strategies on explicit and implicit memory. Emotion, 7, 354–365.
doi:10.1037/1528-3542.7.2.354
Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1975). Unmasking the face: A guide to recognizing emotions from
facial clues. Oxford, England: Prentice Hall.
Emery, L., & Hess, T. M. (2008). Viewing instructions impact emotional memory differently in
older and younger adults. Psychology and Aging, 23, 2–12. doi:10.1037/0882-7974.23.1.2
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. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.85.2.348
Gross, J. J., & Levenson, R. W. (1993). Emotional suppression: Physiology, self-report, and
expressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 970–986.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.64.6.970
Gross, J. J., & Levenson, R. W. (1997). Hiding feelings: The acute effects of inhibiting negative
and positive emotion. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 106, 95–103. doi:10.1037/0021-
843X.106.1.95
Gross, J., & Thompson, R. (2007). Emotion regulation: Conceptual foundations. In J. J.Gross,
Handbook of emotion regulation (pp. 3–24). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Henry, J. D., Rendell, P. G., Scicluna, A., Jackson, M., & Phillips, L. H. (2009). Emotion
experience, expression, and regulation in Alzheimer's disease. Psychology and Aging, 24, 252–
257. doi:10.1037/a0014001
John, O. P., & Gross, J. J. (2004). Health and unhealthy emotion regulation: Personality
processes, individual differences, and life span development. Journal of Personality, 72, 1301–
1333. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2004.00298.x
Katzman, R., Brown, T., Fuld, P., Peck, A., Schecter, R., & Shimmel, H. (1983). Validation of a
short orientation–memory–concentration test of cognitive impairment. American Journal of
Psychiatry, 140, 734–739.
Kunzmann, U., Kupperbusch, C. S., & Levenson, R. W. (2005). Behavioral inhibition and
amplification during emotional arousal: A comparison of two age groups. Psychology and Aging,
20, 144–158. doi:10.1037/0882-7974.20.1.144
Lang, P. J., Bradley, M. M., & Cuthbert, B. N. (2001). International affective picture system
(IAPS): Affective ratings of pictures and instruction manual. Gainesville, FL: University of
Florida.
Lezak, M. D., Howieson, D. B., & Loring, D. W. (2004). Neuropsychological assessment (4th
ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Magai, C., Consedine, N. S., Krivoshekova, Y. S., Kudadjie-Gyamfi, E., & McPherson, R.,
(2006). Emotion experience and expression across the adult life span: Insights from a
multimodal assessment study. Psychology and Aging, 21, 303–317. doi:10.1037/0882-
7974.21.2.303
Mather, M., & Carstensen, L. L. (2005). Aging and motivated cognition: The positivity effect in
attention and memory. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9, 496–502.
doi:10.1016/j.tics.2005.08.005
Mather, M., & Knight, M., (2005). Goal-directed memory: The role of cognitive control in older
adults' emotional memory. Psychology and Aging, 20, 554–570. doi:10.1037/0882-
7974.20.4.554
Phelps, E. A. (2006). Emotion and cognition: Insights from studies of the human amygdala.
Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 27–53. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070234
Phillips, L. H., Henry, J. D., Hosie, J. A., & Milne, A. B. (2008). Effective regulation of the
experience and expression of negative affect in old age. Journals of Gerontology, Series B:
Psychological Sciences, 63, P138–P145.
Psychological Corporation. (1997). WAIS-III administration and scoring manual. San Antonio,
TX: Harcourt Brace.
Richards, J. M. (2004). The cognitive consequences of concealing feelings. Current Directions
in Psychological Science, 13, 131–134. doi:10.1111/j.0963-7214.2004.00291.x
Richards, J. M., & Gross, J. J. (2000). Emotion regulation and memory: The cognitive costs of
keeping one's cool. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 410–424.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.79.3.410
Scheibe, S., & Blanchard-Fields, F., (2009). Effects of regulating emotions on cognitive
performance: What is costly for younger adults is not so costly for older adults. Psychology and
Aging, 24, 217–223. doi:10.1037/a0013807
Schmeichel, B. J., Volokhov, R. N., & Demaree, H. A. (2008). Working memory capacity and the
self-regulation of emotional expression and experience. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 95, 1526–1540. doi:10.1037/a0013345
Sheikh, J. I., & Yesavage, J. A. (1986). Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS): Recent evidence and
development of a shorter version. In T. L.Brink (Ed.), Clinical gerontology: A guide to
assessment and intervention (pp. 165–173). New York, NY: Hawthorne Press.
Turner, M., & Engle, R., (1989). Is working memory capacity task dependent?Journal of Memory
and Language, 28, 127–154. doi:10.1016/0749-596X(89)90040-5
Ware, J. E., Jr. (1993). SF-36 Health Survey. Boston, MA: The Health Institute, New England
Medical Center.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of
positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
54, 1063–1070. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063
A preview of this full-text is provided by American Psychological Association.
Content available from Psychology and Aging
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
