Edited by: Vera Shuman, University of Lausanne, Switzerland
Reviewed by: Katherine K. Chen, City University of NY, USA; Mary H. Burleson, Arizona State University, USA
*Correspondence: Kateri McRae, Department of Psychology, University of Denver, 2155 S. Race St., Denver, CO 80209, USA e-mail:
This article was submitted to Frontiers in Emotion Science, a specialty of Frontiers in Psychology.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in other forums, provided the original authors and source are credited and subject to any copyright notices concerning any third-party graphics etc.
Previous research has demonstrated that the use of emotion regulation strategies can vary by sociocultural context. In a previous study, we reported changes in the use of two different emotion regulation strategies at an annual alternative cultural event, Burning Man (McRae et al.,
Functionalist approaches emphasize that emotions can promote quick, adaptive responses. However, sometimes our emotions are not appropriate for the environment that we are in, and consequently require active management. Emotion regulation refers to the various ways that individuals can manage, or control their emotional responses. The process by which we influence the type of emotions we have and how we express them is termed emotion regulation (Gross,
Unlike suppression,
There is a fair amount of convergent evidence about the experimental effects and long-term consequences of suppression and reappraisal. However, there is reason to believe that the outcomes of these regulation strategies, particularly suppression, may differ when used to change positive and negative emotion. Suppression appears to operate somewhat differently on positive and negative emotion. Inhibiting the expression of positive emotion results in decreased subjective experience of positive emotion, whereas inhibiting the expression of negative emotion does not have this effect and, paradoxically, results in additional increases in some measures of negative emotion (Gross,
Taking a look at reappraisal, recent work has begun to distinguish between using reappraisal to change the experience of negative emotion or positive emotion (Shiota and Levenson,
Because the use of suppression and reappraisal is generally associated with maladaptive and adaptive outcomes, respectively, it is important to identify the situations in which individuals use suppression and reappraisal less and more frequently. One important contributor to the use of these strategies may be an individual's sociocultural context. Research on cultural differences in emotion regulation has demonstrated that individuals in Eastern cultures tend to use suppression more frequently than those in Western cultures (Matsumoto et al.,
While broad characteristics of cultural variation in emotion regulation patterns may be somewhat informative, it is also important to examine how swift or dramatic
Another study examined changes in emotion regulation brought about by a dramatic, temporary change in sociocultural context for individuals attending the Burning Man event (McRae et al.,
Comparing these two contextual changes in terms of emotion regulation, it is important to note the ways that a transition from typical home life to Burning Man is unlike that from high school to college. Simply stated, both transitions entail removing oneself from the larger society for a time. The primary differences are that college is usually a setting for acquiring stable characteristics that will improve one's opportunities in an extant hierarchical society over an extended duration (typically 4 years), while Burning Man is a short-term setting (the event lasts 1 week) that fosters individual creativity, cultural experimentation, and collective reconstructing of society in alternative forms.
In the previous study, we identified Burning Man as a sociocultural context in which emotion regulation becomes more adaptive (McRae et al.,
The primary purpose of the current study was to test for possible valence asymmetries underlying the changes in self-reported emotion regulation observed in the sociocultural contexts of Burning Man and typically at home, as well as examine individual differences in these changes. In the present study, we wanted to know whether the decreased use of suppression at Burning Man is characterized by decreased suppression of positive emotion, negative emotion, or both. In addition, we wanted to know whether the increased use of reappraisal at Burning Man is characterized by increased reappraisal of positive emotion, negative emotion, or both. We predicted decreased suppression and increased reappraisal at Burning Man, both with differential effects for the regulation of positive and negative emotion. Because the suppression of negative emotion is more prevalent than the suppression of positive emotion in everyday life (Gross and John,
Participants for Studies 1–4 were recruited at the annual Burning Man event during four consecutive years: Study 1 (August 25th–September 1st, 2008; population 49,599), Study 2 (August 31st–September 7th, 2009; population 43,558), Study 3 (August 30th–September 6th, 2010; population 51,525), and Study 4 (August 29th–September 5th, 2011; population capped at 50,000) (Burning Man Organization,
To measure emotion regulation use, we used modified core items from the Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (ERQ; Gross and John,
To assess the degree to which participants used each emotion regulation strategy in the four studies we used a 9-point Likert scale. The lowest score, a 1, was labeled “Not at all like me” and the highest score, a 9, was labeled “Very much like me” with a 5 labeled “Neutral.” Participants were instructed to write in the appropriate response in the two provided columns labeled “Off Playa” and “On Playa.” (“The Playa” is a common term referring to Black Rock City or Burning Man.) In multiple previous studies using the full ERQ (Gross and John,
Participants were individuals who attended the Burning Man event during 2008, 2009, 2010, or 2011 and completed the survey voluntarily. Blank survey forms were left in centralized, well-trafficked locations, and instructions on the top of the page invited participants to fill them out voluntarily. Participants returned the completed survey to marked receptacles in the same locations. In addition to the emotion regulation questions, the survey also included demographic questions (age, gender, place of residence, income, etc.) included for use by the event organizers. After the event, responses from the paper forms were entered into either a spreadsheet (Studies 1–3) or a data entry website (Study 4) by a team of researchers.
Values on individual items were transformed to percent of maximum possible (POMP) scores, which range from 0 to 100 to facilitate comparison with previous results (Cohen et al.,
First, we examined differences in self-reported strategy use in the two contexts for Studies 1–4. We observed a replication of our previous findings (McRae et al.,
By contrast, self-reported reappraisal use was greater at Burning Man compared with typically at home in Study 1,
Suppression | Burning Man | Positive | 38.29 (30.99) | 14.38 (22.23) | 15.88 (24.52) | 16.65 (25.26) |
Negative | 43.73 (30.74) | 49.81 (31.07) | 50.85 (30.68) | |||
Typical Use at Home | Positive | 46.03 (32.80) | 18.86 (24.88) | 23.08 (27.55) | 22.62 (27.44) | |
Negative | 46.23 (30.57) | 49.04 (29.33) | 51.58 (28.89) | |||
Reappraisal | Burning Man | Positive | 70.01 (26.39) | 62.95 (28.43) | 67.15 (30.13) | 81.60 (20.80) |
Negative | 43.73 (30.74) | 67.73 (28.91) | 82.02 (21.18) | |||
Typical Use at Home | Positive | 68.43 (26.50) | 63.69 (27.70) | 65.81 (28.44) | 77.57 (22.72) | |
Negative | 46.23 (30.57) | 65.43 (27.63) | 77.84 (23.10) |
Next, we investigated the role of valence in the previously reported interaction between self-reported strategy and context. Because changes in suppression at Burning Man are more prominent than changes in reappraisal, we began by examining the suppression of positive and negative emotion separately at home and at Burning Man in Study 2. We observed an interaction between context and valence for suppression,
To examine whether the differential regulation of positive and negative emotion was also evident for reappraisal, we asked about the use of suppression and reappraisal to change positive and negative emotion separately for Studies 3 and 4. We observed a three-way interaction between self-reported strategy, context and valence for Study 3,
For reappraisal, we observed an interaction between context and valence in Study 3,
To examine whether the interactions we report between context, self-reported regulation strategy, and valence were moderated by demographic and group variables, we examined separate models that tested for interactions with gender, age, and previous experience at Burning Man.
Consistent with previous results, we consistently observed an interaction between self-reported strategy use and gender in Study 1,
In Studies 1 and 2, this was the only significant effect of gender
Suppression | Burning Man | Women | Positive | 32.92 (29.82) | 10.74 (20.24) | 12.46 (23.09) | 12.58 (23.45) |
Negative | 39.94 (30.91) | 47.24 (31.70) | 49.81 (30.56) | ||||
Men | Positive | 42.74 (31.24) | 17.35 (23.33) | 18.86 (25.34) | 20.31 (26.25) | ||
Negative | 46.82 (30.26) | 52.04 (30.34) | 51.78 (30.76) | ||||
Typical Use at Home | Women | Positive | 39.83 (32.77) | 14.43 (23.00) | 18.34 (26.26) | 17.19 (25.32) | |
Negative | 42.69 (31.33) | 46.12 (29.59) | 50.39 (28.68) | ||||
Men | Positive | 51.16 (31.93) | 22.48 (25.77) | 27.20 (27.98) | 27.50 (28.33) | ||
Negative | 49.13 (29.63) | 51.58 (28.87) | 52.64 (29.04) | ||||
Reappraisal | Burning Man | Women | Positive | 70.83 (25.92) | 65.01 (28.10) | 71.48 (28.39) | 83.97 (18.79) |
Negative | 39.94 (30.91) | 72.01 (27.33) | 84.27 (19.43) | ||||
Men | Positive | 69.32 (26.77) | 61.27 (28.60) | 63.40 (31.08) | 79.46 (22.24) | ||
Negative | 46.82 (30.26) | 64.00 (29.72) | 80.00 (22.44) | ||||
Typical Use at Home | Women | Positive | 69.11 (25.89) | 65.05 (27.29) | 69.33 (27.01) | 79.85 (21.36) | |
Negative | 42.69 (31.33) | 68.63 (26.37) | 80.29 (21.60) | ||||
Men | Positive | 67.88 (26.98) | 62.57 (28.00) | 62.74 (29.21) | 75.51 (23.70) | ||
Negative | 49.13 (29.63) | 62.65 (28.39) | 75.63 (24.15) |
We had access to age in three of the four studies. We did not observe any significant interactions with age in Study 2 (all
For Study 4, these same three-way interactions were qualified by a four-way interaction between self-reported regulation strategy, context, valence, and age,
Suppression | Burning Man | Young | Positive | 14.34 (22.13) | 14.33 (23.13) | 15.17 (24.05) |
Negative | 43.97 (30.56) | 49.90 (30.73) | 51.75 (30.74) | |||
Old | Positive | 14.42 (22.35) | 17.74 (25.98) | 18.21 (26.38) | ||
Negative | 43.51 (30.93) | 49.70 (31.48) | 49.89 (30.59) | |||
Typical Use at Home | Young | Positive | 19.39 (25.19) | 21.92 (26.69) | 22.06 (26.94) | |
Negative | 46.42 (30.55) | 49.31 (29.19) | 52.44 (28.88) | |||
Old | Positive | 18.35 (24.58) | 24.46 (28.48) | 23.21 (27.94) | ||
Negative | 46.07 (30.60) | 48.71 (29.50) | 50.67 (28.88) | |||
Reappraisal | Burning Man | Young | Positive | 63.59 (28.43) | 66.71 (29.99) | 82.10 (20.84) |
Negative | 67.81 (28.63) | 82.13 (21.54) | ||||
Old | Positive | 62.32 (28.44) | 67.68 (30.30) | 81.06 (20.74) | ||
Negative | 67.63 (29.24) | 81.90 (20.79) | ||||
Typical Use at Home | Young | Positive | 64.29 (27.75) | 65.29 (28.09) | 77.08 (23.42) | |
Negative | 64.95 (27.42) | 77.14 (23.99) | ||||
Old | Positive | 63.09 (27.67) | 66.42 (28.85) | 78.08 (21.95) | ||
Negative | 66.01 (27.87) | 78.56 (22.10) |
Because Burning Man is considered a relatively unique environment, we were interested in whether the relationships we previously reported are similar whether this was the participant's first year at the event, or if they had attended previously. In our samples, there were 1389 first-year participants for Study 1 (40%), 930 for Study 2 (37.8%), 1801 for Study 3 (45.1%), and 2709 for Study 4 (43%). We observed an interaction between self-reported strategy and previous experience with Burning Man in Study 2,
In Study 3 alone, we observed a three-way interaction between self-reported strategy, context, and previous experience,
Suppression | First-Year | 43.62 (29.82) | 33.24 (20.39) | 35.61 (20.43) | 36.55 (20.22) |
Previous Attendee | 41.19 (29.48) | 29.31 (19.29) | 33.50 (19.88) | 34.57 (20.21) | |
Reappraisal | First-Year | 70.04 (24.73) | 62.29 (26.86) | 66.40 (23.77) | 79.26 (19.76) |
Previous Attendee | 68.68 (25.09) | 63.95 (26.56) | 66.63 (24.44) | 80.12 (18.75) |
To more fully describe changes in emotion regulation in different sociocultural contexts, we measured the self-reported use of expressive suppression and cognitive reappraisal in an alternative context (Burning Man; an annual week-long art festival) to see how sociocultural context influences the regulation of positive and negative emotion. This was an extension of a previous study that observed an interaction between emotion regulation strategy and sociocultural context (McRae et al.,
Self-reported suppression of both positive and negative emotion decreased among participants who were in an alternative, temporary, rapidly changing, and openly expressive sociocultural context, filled with novel stimuli; however, decreases in the self-reported suppression of positive emotion were much stronger than those for negative emotion. Based on previous results alone (McRae et al.,
One of the benefits of decreased suppression usage in the Burning Man context is the allowance for increased positive emotion, which is likely to have individual, social, and cultural benefits. Individually, increased suppression of positive emotion is associated with decreased
Previous research indicates that reappraisal has different properties when it is used to increase positive and decrease negative emotion (Shiota and Levenson,
Only a couple of studies have looked at changes in emotion regulation by relatively local sociocultural context. One examined a standard transition between high school and college, a common transition between two typical social environments (Srivastava et al.,
The social milieu at Burning Man is one environment that offers people an alternative model for emotion regulation. Everyday life in the US can be serious and subdued, infused with a Protestant work ethic promising that hard work will lead to salvation (Durkheim,
As we have previously postulated, an alternative sociocultural context allows many participants to view their everyday lives from a broader, distanced perspective, which is a key ingredient in reappraisal (McRae et al.,
The consequences for expressing emotion may be unfavorable for everyday life in the US, more so for men than women, and more so for younger people than older individuals. Our examination of demographic variables indicated that contextual effects of self-reported suppression and reappraisal used to regulate positive and negative emotion are slightly different in different groups. Although these interactions were much smaller than those reported for the contextual effects, they hint at how this sociocultural context might influence individuals in different ways. Most prominently, the decreased suppression of positive emotion at Burning Man is strongest in men and younger adults. Previous work has demonstrated that men use suppression more than women in everyday life, and younger individuals use suppression more than older individuals in everyday life (John and Gross,
The present study replicated and extended previous findings with four separate samples of considerable size, but was not without limitations. Although Burning Man provides an excellent opportunity for the study of an alternative sociocultural context, the environment presented several challenges for data collection. First, because our items were on a longer survey, we were restricted by length, and could only add single self-report items to examine the use of each regulation strategy to influence each type of emotion, and strategy use for the typical home context was reported retrospectively. Though previous research indicates that single items can be reliable (Robins et al.,
In addition, it is possible that the responses to the emotion regulation questions reported here were influenced by the presence of other questions that were asked on the questionnaire given each year. However, because the specific questions asked every year were not identical, we are confident that the effects we report are consistent across studies and reflect changes in self-reported emotion regulation as opposed to changes in the surrounding questions. Also, because our sample was one of volunteers (a convenience sample) we cannot ensure that they represent the population of Burning Man. In future years we plan on collecting a representative sample and using weighting techniques to adjust this data to be able to speak for the population as a whole. Finally, participants at Burning Man are exposed to a variety of challenges, including a hostile living environment, extreme weather, sleep deprivation, and dehydration, all of which have the potential to influence their state of mind and ability to fill out questionnaires accurately and conscientiously. In the present study, we excluded participants that did not demonstrate careful reading and responding to a quality control item, but it is possible that not all questions were answered thoughtfully.
For future studies it will be valuable to examine not only self-reported use of emotion regulation strategies but also direct reports of emotion experience. This will capture a broader picture, not of
The present study extends previous research by showing that sociocultural context differentially influences how individuals regulate positive and negative emotion. According to participants' self report of emotion regulation at home and at Burning Man, an alternative sociocultural context that explicitly encourages “radical self-expression” is associated with decreased use of self-reported suppression of positive and negative emotion; but this is most strongly driven by the decreased suppression of positive emotion. By contrast, reappraisal increases comparably for both positive and negative emotion at Burning Man. These findings enhance our understanding of the effects of sociocultural context on the use of emotion regulation strategies that are known to be differentially adaptive. There are likely to be other contexts and occasions where cultural and social norms influence how individuals regulate emotion. These findings have implications for understanding the sociocultural contexts in which suppression, especially the suppression of positive emotion, and its associated maladaptive effects, may be minimized.
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
The authors would like to thank Black Rock City, LLC, especially Ray Allen and Rosalie Barnes, for their support of the Black Rock Census. We would also like to thank James J. Gross, Bethany G. Ciesielski, Erik K. Wing, and all the dedicated volunteers and research assistants who helped with data collection and entry.
1A trend for a context by gender interaction was observed for Study 1,