How to Regulate Your Emotions — What Psychology Shows
Last reviewed by the Men Women Psychology editorial team.
The evidence
What the research actually shows
James Gross's process model of emotion regulation (1998) maps the points at which we can influence an emotion, from choosing situations to changing how we think about them to managing how we express them. A central finding is that strategies applied earlier — especially reappraisal, reinterpreting a situation before the emotion fully builds — tend to be more effective than trying to clamp down on a feeling after it has arrived.
Gross and Oliver John (2003) compared two common strategies. People who habitually used cognitive reappraisal reported more positive emotion, better relationships, and higher well-being. People who relied on expressive suppression — hiding outward signs of feeling — tended to experience more negative emotion, less social closeness, and, in lab studies, suppression did little to reduce the inner experience while increasing physiological strain. The emotion did not disappear; it went underground.
Naming emotions appears to help as well. Putting feelings into words — sometimes called affect labeling — has been associated with reduced emotional reactivity. The broad picture from this research is that regulation works best when we engage with an emotion and reframe it, rather than simply forcing it down or pretending it is not there.
The mechanism
Why this happens
Suppression is effortful and arrives late. By the time you are hiding a feeling, the emotional response has already been generated, so you are spending energy on the display while the internal experience continues. That is why studies find suppression can raise physiological arousal even as the face stays neutral — the body is doing double work.
Reappraisal intervenes earlier in the chain. Because emotions are shaped by how we interpret events, changing the interpretation can change the emotion at its source. Reframing a tense conversation as a misunderstanding rather than an attack, for example, can lower the anger before it fully forms, which is why reappraisal tends to be both more effective and less costly.
Naming a feeling may help by engaging reflective parts of the mind and creating a small amount of distance from the raw experience. Labeling 'I'm feeling anxious' rather than being swept along by anxiety shifts you from inside the emotion to observing it, which often reduces its grip.
In practice
What this looks like in real life
Someone who gets cut off in traffic and silently fumes while keeping a calm face is suppressing — the anger is still there, often lingering. Someone who tells themselves the other driver may be rushing to an emergency is reappraising, and frequently feels the anger ease.
A person bracing for a hard conversation might suppress all visible nervousness and end up more tense and less present. Pausing to name it — 'I'm nervous because this matters to me' — and reframing the talk as a chance to be understood tends to steady them more than a poker face does.
Over weeks, someone who routinely bottles up frustration at work may notice it leaking out as irritability at home or showing up as tension headaches — a recognizable sign of the hidden costs research links to chronic suppression.
Myth vs. evidence
What most people get wrong about this
A widespread misconception is that staying calm means hiding what you feel. Research suggests that habitually suppressing expression does not erase the emotion and can strain both the body and relationships. Genuine regulation is closer to working with the feeling — understanding and reframing it — than to silencing it.
Another error is treating venting as the opposite of suppression and assuming it always helps. Unloading raw emotion can sometimes intensify it, especially when it slides into rumination. The more reliably useful skill tends to be reappraisal: changing how you see the situation, not just how loudly you react to it.
Why it matters
What this means for relationships
Because suppression tends to reduce closeness, partners who routinely hide their feelings can come across as distant or hard to read, even when they care deeply. Sharing feelings in a regulated way — naming them and reframing rather than either exploding or stonewalling — generally supports more connection.
Reappraisal is also useful in conflict. Choosing a more generous interpretation of a partner's behavior before reacting can defuse escalation. This is not about ignoring real problems; it is about not letting an automatic worst-case reading drive the response.
Where it varies
The nuance
There are average differences in how the sexes are socialized to express and manage emotion, but Janet Hyde's gender similarities hypothesis (2005) suggests the underlying machinery of emotion regulation is largely shared, with heavy overlap between men and women. The same strategies — reappraisal, labeling, choosing situations — apply across the board.
No single strategy is best in every moment. Brief suppression has its place — staying composed in a crisis or a formal setting can be adaptive. The concern is with chronic, default suppression. Flexibility, matching the strategy to the situation, tends to matter more than rigidly favoring any one approach, and individual differences are large.
Questions people ask about this
What is the difference between reappraisal and suppression?
Reappraisal means changing how you interpret a situation so the emotion shifts at its source. Suppression means hiding the outward expression after the feeling has already formed. Research suggests reappraisal tends to lower distress with few costs, while habitual suppression often leaves the feeling intact and carries hidden strain.
Is it bad to hide your emotions?
Occasional, brief suppression can be adaptive, like staying composed in a crisis. The concern is with chronic, default suppression, which research links to more negative emotion, physiological strain, and less closeness. Working with feelings through reframing and naming tends to be healthier than routinely hiding them.
Does naming a feeling really help?
Research on affect labeling suggests that putting an emotion into words can reduce its intensity. Naming 'I feel anxious' rather than being swept along by anxiety seems to create a small amount of reflective distance. It is a simple practice, though usually a complement to other strategies rather than a complete solution.
Is venting a good way to regulate emotions?
Sometimes, but not always. Expressing feelings can help, yet venting that turns into repetitive rumination can intensify the emotion rather than ease it. Research tends to favor reappraisal — reinterpreting the situation — over simply discharging raw emotion. How you process matters more than just letting it out.
Do men and women regulate emotions differently?
There are average differences in how the sexes are socialized to express feelings, but the underlying regulation processes overlap substantially. Janet Hyde's research suggests the sexes are more alike than different on most psychological measures, and reappraisal, labeling, and similar tools work across genders.
Can emotion regulation actually be learned?
Yes. Research frames emotion regulation as a set of trainable skills rather than a fixed trait. Reappraisal in particular can be practiced and strengthened over time. Improvement tends to be gradual, and for persistent difficulties, approaches like cognitive behavioral therapy can teach these skills more systematically.
Research sources
These references point to the published research and established frameworks behind this page. They are provided for further reading; see our research methodology for how sources are selected.
- Gross, J. J. (1998). The emerging field of emotion regulation: An integrative review. Review of General Psychology, 2(3), 271–299.
- Gross, J. J., & John, O. P. (2003). Individual differences in two emotion regulation processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(2), 348–362.
- Kring, A. M., & Gordon, A. H. (1998). Sex differences in emotion: Expression, experience, and physiology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(3), 686–703.
- Hyde, J. S. (2005). The gender similarities hypothesis. American Psychologist, 60(6), 581–592.