534 v. AFFECTI vE PROCESSES
these constructs (Blanke et al., 2020; El -
desouky & English, 2018). These kinds of 
designs also allow researchers to calculate 
variability in emotional experience to assess 
individual differences in emotional stabil -
ity (Carstensen, Pasupathi, Mayr, & Nes -
selroade, 2000). Extending this approach 
to emotion regulation, researchers can iden -
tify which aspects of emotion regulation are 
most stable and least stable across contexts. 
This issue has important implications be -
cause stable aspects of emotion regulation 
might be more resistant to change. Further -
more, these designs can be used to identify 
how aspects of emotion regulation fluctuate 
in response to different types of contextual 
factors (Benson et al., 2019). For example, 
in line with work showing that individuals 
higher in suppression are lower in extraver -
sion (Gross & John, 2003), Catterson et al. 
(2017) found that daily suppression use is 
greater in situations in which people feel less 
extraverted.
Sociocultural  Considerations
Given that emotion and emotion regulation 
are socially and culturally embedded, it is 
important to take into account how these 
individual differences may also depend on 
one’s sociocultural context. This is espe -
cially important, since emotion regulation 
often occurs in the presence of others (Heiy 
& Cheavens, 2014; Gross et al., 2006), and 
social factors are linked to various aspects 
of emotion regulation, such as why we man -
age our emotions (Eldesouky & English, 
2019a) and how we choose to manage them 
(English et al., 2017). Here it is worth not -
ing though that the bulk of the work we 
have reviewed thus far has focused on in-
trinsic emotion regulation,  or attempting to 
control one’s own emotions, but regulation 
efforts can also be used to target someone 
else’s emotions, in which case it is consid -
ered extrinsic emotion regulation  (Zaki & 
Williams, 2013). Although the child devel -
opment literature has consistently examined 
this type of extrinsic regulation, only re -
cently has it been explored in adult samples. 
Just as being with others might impact how 
we regulate our own emotions, there is rea -
son to expect that it might also impact how we regulate others’ emotions. For instance, 
there are differences in the extent to which 
people use capitalization, which involves 
seeking out individuals to share good news, 
as well as how people react to hearing this 
good news (Gable, Reis, Impett, & Asher, 
2004). Future research can begin to further 
investigate individual differences in emotion 
regulation by considering individual differ -
ences in extrinsic regulation strategies. For 
instance, do individuals tend to rely on the 
same strategies to regulate their own as well 
as other’s emotions? Moreover, might there 
be certain individuals who are more likely 
to engage in extrinsic regulation than oth -
ers? For example, agreeableness might be 
more likely to predict extrinsic regulation 
than intrinsic emotion regulation given its 
association with increased concern for oth -
ers’ well-being (Graziano, Habashi, Sheese, 
& Tobin, 2007). Research shows that indi -
viduals higher on agreeableness are at least 
more likely to regulate their own emotions 
for pro-  social reasons (Eldesouky & Eng -
lish, 2019a).
At a broader level of analysis, culture may 
also influence the prevalence of certain emo -
tion regulation traits. Display rules play a 
large role in shaping beliefs about when emo -
tions should be controlled (Ekman & Fries -
en, 1969), and regulated (Tsai et al., 2006). 
For example, collectivistic cultures (e.g., 
East Asian) emphasize emotional restraint 
in order to avoid expressing emotions that 
would not be acceptable to display or dis -
rupt group harmony (Markus & Kitayama, 
1991). In contrast, individualistic cultures 
(e.g., Western) emphasize the importance 
of expressing one’s thoughts and feelings. 
These differences in display rules may hold 
important implications for emotion regula -
tion strategy use, as shown by some past re -
search. For example, suppression tends to be 
used more often by East Asians (English & 
John, 2013; Matsumoto, Yoo, & Nakagawa, 
2008) and Americans who endorse Asian val -
ues (Butler et al., 2007), potentially because 
East Asian cultures emphasize emotional 
restraint. Relatedly, there are differences in 
cultural values regarding social order and 
autonomy (Matsumoto et al., 2008) that can 
also shape people’s motivation for regulating 
their emotional goals (Tsai, Miao, Seppala, 