View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

The Effects of Suppression of Positive and Negative Emotions on Loneliness in Turkish University-Attending Emerging Adults: Does Gender Make a Difference?

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: The Effects of Suppression of Positive and Negative Emotions on Loneliness in Turkish University-Attending Emerging Adults: Does Gender Make a Difference?
Language: English
Authors: Ali Karababa (ORCID 0000-0003-0458-3437)
Source: British Journal of Guidance & Counselling. 2025 53(6):892-905.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 14
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Emotional Response, Psychological Patterns, College Students, Gender Differences, Positive Attitudes, Negative Attitudes, Social Influences, Cultural Influences, Foreign Countries, Affective Measures
Geographic Terms: Turkey
Assessment and Survey Identifiers: UCLA Loneliness Scale
DOI: 10.1080/03069885.2024.2384721
ISSN: 0306-9885
1469-3534
Abstract: This study aimed to examine the predictive effect of suppression of positive and negative emotions on loneliness and whether gender moderated the relationship between them in the Turkish population. The sample consisted of 408 (286 females and 122 males) university-attending emerging adults aged 18-25 (M = 20.98, SD = 1.61). The participants completed the measures of suppression sub-dimension of emotion regulation and loneliness, as well as a demographic survey. The results demonstrated that suppression of positive and negative emotions positively predicted loneliness regardless of gender. The findings also indicated that although males compared to females reported significantly greater suppression of positive and negative emotions, there was no significant difference between females and males on loneliness. In conclusion, in the socio-cultural context, hiding emotions in males reduced the socially punishing aspects of suppression but could not provide social gains. Lastly, the findings were discussed in the literature context.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2026
Accession Number: EJ1503989
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwGy6HnTgvoN4iZZekzF38LoAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDMISA71RUWa6m40zHwIBEICBmvJi6j7wjkUUb5kb-eREly1tm_OAMlB_tfzd4TC985ggKfGWJHdk3oMt1g2xFYuKONrmsL31KmtbzP0VzX-M8ooIE81RECWajKSF80Ci1T2UGHe_rQS6zTMg8ojglacgJgjKnr89nMZsmfLho-aH7YcoiVYmrG_a05N22iWFU60W1rvPZzUm8NbtZPR30lkZGTsYhwGQuMSZDEo=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0193251352;bjg01dec.25;2026Apr28.02:39;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0193251352-1">The effects of suppression of positive and negative emotions on loneliness in Turkish University-attending emerging adults: does gender make a difference? </title> <p>This study aimed to examine the predictive effect of suppression of positive and negative emotions on loneliness and whether gender moderated the relationship between them in the Turkish population. The sample consisted of 408 (286 females and 122 males) university-attending emerging adults aged 18–25 (M = 20.98, SD = 1.61). The participants completed the measures of suppression sub-dimension of emotion regulation and loneliness, as well as a demographic survey. The results demonstrated that suppression of positive and negative emotions positively predicted loneliness regardless of gender. The findings also indicated that although males compared to females reported significantly greater suppression of positive and negative emotions, there was no significant difference between females and males on loneliness. In conclusion, in the socio-cultural context, hiding emotions in males reduced the socially punishing aspects of suppression but could not provide social gains. Lastly, the findings were discussed in the literature context.</p> <p>Keywords: Emotion regulation; suppression; loneliness; gender; university-attending emerging adults</p> <hd id="AN0193251352-2">Introduction</hd> <p>The human being as a social entity grows through and toward relationships across the lifespan. Meaningful social connections are critical in healthy development. The evidence pool provides a compelling case that quality social contact increases the odds of survival with high mental and physical health. Conversely, a lack of social connection is a risk factor for holistically realising human health (Holt-Lunstad et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref1">30</reflink>]). Maybe, the most concrete indicator of this risk is loneliness, which is also now considered a public health issue (Holt-Lunstad, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref2">29</reflink>]).</p> <p>Loneliness is the pain of feeling alone asserted to arise from a discrepancy between the actual relationship network and the expected or desired relationship network (Peplau & Perlman, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref3">52</reflink>]; The Cognitive Discrepancy Model) or the lack of a needed satisfying relationship (Weiss, [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref4">66</reflink>]; The Unfulfilled Social Needs Model). Given its predictive effect, it is plausible that loneliness, which is a subjective and distressing experience, seems to be an increasing concern. Evidence has demonstrated that loneliness is a risk factor for both psychological and physical maladaptive outcomes, including depression, generalised anxiety, suicidal ideation, poor subjective well-being, and coronary heart disease (Beutel et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref5">7</reflink>]; Cacioppo et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref6">12</reflink>]; McClelland et al., [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref7">46</reflink>]; Park et al., [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref8">51</reflink>]; Valtorta et al., [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref9">63</reflink>]). Researchers have focused on loneliness and investigated its myriad predictors for about fifty years (Holt-Lunstad, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref10">29</reflink>]; Mahon et al., [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref11">42</reflink>]; Peplau & Perlman, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref12">52</reflink>]; Weiss, [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref13">66</reflink>]). One of these is emotion regulation. In this process, because emotion regulation is a relatively young study field (Gross, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref14">22</reflink>]; Gross & John, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref15">23</reflink>]), the two bodies of research, i.e. suppression and loneliness, rarely intersect. Therefore, this conclusion prevents us from developing a more comprehensive understanding of the relationship between suppression and loneliness. Thus, we hope that the aim of this study will be promising to advance the relevant literature.</p> <hd id="AN0193251352-3">Suppression and loneliness</hd> <p>In widely cited Thompson's ([<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref16">62</reflink>], pp. 27–28) definition, "emotion regulation is described as the extrinsic and intrinsic processes responsible for monitoring, evaluating, and modifying emotional reactions, especially their intensive and temporal features, to accomplish one's goals". People use a wide range of cognitive and behavioural strategies to alter the trajectory of an unfolding emotional response (i.e. seeking social support and rumination). One of these is suppression a behavioural strategy described as the conscious inhibition of one's own emotionally expressive behaviour while emotionally aroused (Gross, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref17">22</reflink>]). In the process model developed by Gross ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref18">22</reflink>]), suppression, identified as a response-focused and dysfunctional strategy, aims to modify the behavioural component of an already activated emotional response. For example, just as a person attempts to conceal facial expressions of anger.</p> <p>A growing body of evidence demonstrated that suppression is consistently related to poor mental and physical functioning and psychopathology (Hu et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref19">32</reflink>]; Miu et al., [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref20">47</reflink>]; Prefit et al., [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref21">54</reflink>]). Despite less evidence, the literature has also indicated that people who use suppression are at risk for loneliness (Karababa, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref22">38</reflink>]; Preece et al., [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref23">53</reflink>]; Smith et al., [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref24">59</reflink>]). Relational-cultural theory (RCT; Jordan, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref25">34</reflink>]) may present a framework for this relationship. According to this theory, people grow through relationships throughout their life spans. Authenticity is necessary for authentic engagement in growth-fostering relationships. Hiding large parts of life experiences means being in relationships inauthentically with others and is one of the biggest obstacles to connecting with others. Therefore, suppressing emotions could lead to decreased perceived rapport, social bonds, and closeness and inhibit relationship formation, resulting in loneliness. Empirical evidence also supported this interpretation stemming from the theory. For example, a meta-analysis study reported that more emotional suppression was significantly associated with poorer social well-being, including lower social satisfaction and quality, more negative first impressions, worse romantic relationship quality, and lower social support (Chervonsky & Hunt, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref26">14</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0193251352-4">The cultural context</hd> <p>People from different cultures have different construals regarding the self, others, and the interdependence. These construals can affect the nature of individual experience, including emotion, cognition, and motivation (Markus & Kitayama, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref27">43</reflink>]). In this context, emotion regulation norms vary culturally (Markus & Kitayama, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref28">44</reflink>]). People from collectivistic cultures adopt harmonious interdependence with others. Conversely, individuals from individualistic cultures seek to maintain their independence from others through their unique inner attributes (Markus & Kitayama, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref29">43</reflink>]). Accordingly, suppression is highly valued and encouraged in collectivistic societies while discouraged in individualistic societies (Matsumoto et al., [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref30">45</reflink>]). Consistent with this, evidence has posited that suppressing emotions in collectivistic cultures as compared to individualistic cultures can be more frequent and fulfill a broader range of social functions (Butler et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref31">11</reflink>]). Turkey is identified as a collectivist culture with high power distance, which is based on cultural values of interdependence and commitment to the group (Hofstede, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref32">28</reflink>]; Kagitcibasi, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref33">35</reflink>]). However, it is also accepted that it is in the transition phase from collectivism to individualism, such that reflects the influence of the co-existence of two cultures (Aycicegi-Dinn & Sunar, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref34">6</reflink>]; Kağitçibaşi, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref35">36</reflink>]). For example, in a meta-analytic study of 46 countries compared to the U.S. using separate measures of individualism and collectivism, Turkey was similar to the U.S. on individualism, although it was more collectivistic (Oyserman et al., [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref36">50</reflink>]). Parallel with this evaluation, previous studies reported that individuals from Turkey were engaged more in suppression than Western societies (Arens et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref37">3</reflink>]; Voswinckel et al., [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref38">64</reflink>]).</p> <p>When the relationship between repression and interpersonal well-being is considered within the context of culture, findings are relatively inconsistent. Some evidence indicated that suppression of emotions was associated with lower social well-being, regardless of whether the culture is collectivistic or individualistic (Matsumoto et al., [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref39">45</reflink>]). For example, a study across cultures demonstrated that the Chinese sample scored higher in suppression use than U.S. participants and the Asian American participants, authenticity was lower for Chinese participants compared to others, and the negative association between suppression and social functioning holds in all participants (English & John, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref40">18</reflink>]). This study also found that inauthenticity mediated the relationship between suppression and lower social support and relationship satisfaction across all participants. The negative impact of suppression on interpersonal well-being, which is incompatible with the personal autonomy and authenticity that individualistic Western societies value, is well-established in the literature (Butler et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref41">10</reflink>]; Han et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref42">25</reflink>]; Preece et al., [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref43">53</reflink>]). On the other hand, the social costs of suppression in collectivistic cultures remain unclear. Various studies found null to weak effects of suppressing emotions on interpersonal well-being among collectivistic East Asian societies (Butler et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref44">11</reflink>]; Soto et al., [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref45">60</reflink>]). For example, a study demonstrated that experimentally elicited suppression caused decreased interpersonal responsiveness during face-to-face interaction, as well as hostile behaviour and negative partner perceptions, and this effect was reduced among participants with more Asian values (Butler et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref46">11</reflink>]). In the Turkish context, a study on early adolescents found that the relationship between anger emotion and loneliness was stronger when they used greater suppression (Karababa, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref47">38</reflink>]). As a result, if this line of reasoning is correct, and suppression can lead to decreased social functioning for even individuals from collectivistic societies, then hiding emotions would be very likely to be associated positively with loneliness in the Turkish population.</p> <hd id="AN0193251352-5">The gender context</hd> <p>As mentioned above, the literature indicates that suppression of emotions predicts both loneliness and social-based maladaptive outcomes that have the potential to contribute to loneliness (Butler et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref48">10</reflink>]; Cameron & Overall, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref49">13</reflink>]; Preece et al., [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref50">53</reflink>]). Afterward, we noticed it was unclear how the question of whether the suppressed emotion was positive or negative would make a difference in the relationship between suppression and loneliness. Notwithstanding everything, previous studies have implied that suppressing positive emotions may lead to loneliness by showing a more detrimental effect on relationships than suppressing negative emotions (Han et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref51">25</reflink>]). Positive emotions compared to negative emotions are particularly critical to the formation and maintenance of social bonds (Nezlek & Kuppens, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref52">49</reflink>]). According to the social-functional perspective (Frijda & Mesquita, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref53">20</reflink>]; Keltner & Haidt, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref54">39</reflink>]), one of the fundamental functions of emotions is to coordinate a person's social interactions and relationships. Accordingly, positive emotions can foster social connectedness (engagement in close, mutually satisfying relationships) and the formation of long-term cooperative relationships by providing affiliative intent and approachability-based communication and inducing positive emotional states in others (Anderson et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref55">2</reflink>]; Nezlek & Kuppens, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref56">49</reflink>]). Therefore, suppressing positive emotions sends others signals which can prevent the formation and maintenance of satisfying relationships, such as the desire to withdraw and a lack of social interest (English & John, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref57">18</reflink>]). Expressing negative emotions is more detrimental to social harmony than expressing positive emotions (Markus & Kitayama, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref58">44</reflink>]). In Eastern societies where suppressing emotions is encouraged (Markus & Kitayama, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref59">44</reflink>]), suppression of negative emotions may be socially adaptive so as not to harm others, and thus to keep a close relationship or the harmony of the group (Butler et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref60">11</reflink>]; Miyamoto & Ryff, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref61">48</reflink>]). A closely related finding demonstrated that suppression of positive and negative emotions was associated with lower relationship satisfaction for American participants, and lower relationship satisfaction was revealed to be associated with increased suppression of positive emotions suppression while but not suppression of negative emotions for Korean participants (Han et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref62">25</reflink>]). Therefore, we expected that suppression of positive emotions compared to negative ones would more strongly predict loneliness.</p> <p>Another question waiting to be answered is how gender moderates the predictive effect of suppression of positive and negative emotions on loneliness. Concerning this question, we expected that the positive impact of suppression of positive emotions on loneliness would be higher in women and suppression of negative emotions in men. In addition to the effect of suppression of positive and negative emotions on social outcomes (English & John, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref63">18</reflink>]; Han et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref64">25</reflink>]), our conjecture derives from gender roles that dictate women and men adapt to different emotional display rules (Simpson & Stroh, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref65">58</reflink>]). Men tend to suppress their positive emotions in the masculine context while women tend to suppress their negative emotions in the feminine context (Simpson & Stroh, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref66">58</reflink>]). In general, it also is a more socially acceptable situation in that women express their emotions, and men suppress their emotions, whether the feeling is positive or negative (Safdar et al., [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref67">57</reflink>]). When considered from this point of view, suppressing positive emotions, which is more socially detrimental, might be advantageous for men than women. Consistent with this reasoning, a study found that women compared to men experienced decreases in adjustment and self-esteem and increases in negative reactive emotions when they suppressed their positive emotions (Nezlek & Kuppens, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref68">49</reflink>]). Contrary, the suppression of negative emotions that is more socially advantageous, especially in Eastern societies might be even more advantageous for women. Notwithstanding everything, we are conscious that only gender would not accurately explain the comprehensive process underlying the relationship between the suppression of positive and negative emotions and loneliness. However, we hope this study will significantly contribute to this burgeoning research field.</p> <hd id="AN0193251352-6">The current study</hd> <p>The present study purposed to test its aim in university-attending emerging adults. Each developmental period involves its own developmental needs and sensitive experiences (Havighurst, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref69">26</reflink>]). In this context, given that establishing satisfying social and romantic relationships with others, planning for future life, and identity formation come to the forefront in emerging adulthood (Arnett, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref70">4</reflink>]; Havighurst, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref71">26</reflink>]), it is plausible that one corollary of this fact is that loneliness is a rising concern center in this developmental period (Buecker et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref72">9</reflink>]). Empirical evidence confirms this notion. One of these identified young people aged 18–22 as the loneliest generation of Americans (Demarinis, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref73">16</reflink>]). Likewise, a report from the UK indicated that 18–24-year-olds were nearly three times more likely than 65-74-year-olds to have experienced loneliness "more often than normal" (Royal Society for Public Health, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref74">55</reflink>]). Related evidence on age differences in loneliness from young adulthood to old age has highlighted the higher level of loneliness among younger adults (Hawkley et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref75">27</reflink>]). In addition to the developmental risk, loneliness sources of university-attending emerging adults can reflect aspects of the university context such as moving away from their local community and home, separating from established social networks, having difficulty re-establishing social networks, and having various financial and academic concerns (Cutrona, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref76">15</reflink>]; Hopmeyer et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref77">31</reflink>]; Hysing et al., [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref78">33</reflink>]). Accordingly, the intersection of the emerging adulthood developmental period and the university context appears to make individuals a particularly vulnerable population to loneliness, suggesting the importance of extending the current understanding of loneliness at this stage of development. Although emerging adulthood is defined as a period from 18 to 29 (Arnett, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref79">5</reflink>]), this study focused on "ages 18-25", i.e. when this intersection can be the most effectively tested. Moreover, it is significant to uncover antecedents of loneliness to develop effective interventions targeting loneliness, before people suffering from loneliness are at risk for developing more serious mental health issues, such as suicidal ideation and depression (McClelland et al., [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref80">46</reflink>]; Park et al., [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref81">51</reflink>]).</p> <p>On the other hand, how emotions are managed is critical in constructing social outcomes by guiding interpersonal relationships. Therefore, also judged by the social consequences of the suppression of emotions (Chervonsky & Hunt, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref82">14</reflink>]), the predictive effect of suppression of emotion on loneliness seems to be an important research question that needs to be examined. While relatively limited evidence is agreement that suppression of emotions predicted loneliness positively, unfortunately, we don't know whether this relationship varies according to types of emotion and gender. This situation limits the extent to which a whole picture of the relationship between suppression and loneliness can be drawn and inhibits a meaningful contribution to the prevention and intervention processes. Therefore, we hope this study will be a significant step in this context. For this step, we determined two aims: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref83">1</reflink>) to examine the predictive role of suppression of positive and negative emotions in loneliness and (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref84">2</reflink>) to explore whether gender moderated this relationship.</p> <hd id="AN0193251352-7">Methodology</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0193251352-8">Participants and procedure</hd> <p>The present study was cross-sectional and descriptive. The study had a single measurement in only one group. Participants were university-attending emerging adults. The study adopted convenience and criterion sampling methods. The inclusion criteria for this study were (i) being in the 18–25 age range, and (ii) attending university. The initial number of participants was 416. Because eight participants did not meet the age criterion, they were excluded. The study was run with a final sample size of 408 participants, who were eligible based on these criteria. Participants identified as female (<emph>n</emph> = 286, 70.1%) and male (<emph>n</emph> = 122, 29.9%). The participants ranged from 18 to 25, with an average age of 20.98 (<emph>SD</emph> = 1.61). All participants were undergraduate students. Regarding the university year, 99 (24.3%) participants were in the first year of their studies, 109 (26.7%) second-year, 98 (24.0%) third-year students, and 102 (25.0%) fourth-year students. All participants' ethnicity was Turkish.</p> <p>Data collection for this study was carried out during the first semester of the 2022/2023 academic year. Participants were emerging adults attending the Faculty of Education of a mid-sized university in a mid-sized in the Western part of Turkey. The participants were recruited from the researcher's compulsory courses. The researcher was directly involved in the data collection process. The researcher informed the participants about the purpose of the study before administering the questionnaires, assuring them that their participation would be voluntary, their answers would be kept anonymous, withdrawal was free at any process stage, and would not affect their academic evaluation. Online informed consent was obtained from all participants included in the study. Eligible and volunteer participants completed the questionnaires in their classroom environment by receiving an email with a questionnaire link through Google Forms. The questionnaire battery took approximately 10–15 min to complete. The participants were thanked for their participation, and there was no compensation.</p> <hd id="AN0193251352-9">Measures</hd> <p> <bold> <emph>Expressive suppression</emph>:</bold> The Emotion Regulation Questionnaire, developed by Gross and John ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref85">23</reflink>]) and adapted to Turkish culture by Yurtsever ([<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref86">67</reflink>]), was used to determine the extent to which participants suppressed their positive and negative emotions. The scale with 10 items consists of two sub-dimensions; cognitive reappraisal (6 items) and expressive suppression (4 items). Participants answered 4 items in the only expressive suppression sub-dimension twice, considering both their positive and negative emotions. Items are rated on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = "strongly disagree" to 7 = "strongly agree"), with higher scores indicating greater suppression. An example item of expressive suppression of positive emotion is "When I am feeling positive emotions, I am careful not to express them"; and an example item of expressive suppression of negative emotion is "When I feel negative emotions, I am careful not to express them". In the development and Turkish adaptation studies, Cronbach's alpha coefficients of the expressive suppression sub-dimension were 0.73 and 0.78, respectively. In this study, Cronbach's alpha was found to be 0.89 for suppression of positive emotion and 0.88 for suppression of negative emotion.</p> <p> <bold> <emph>Loneliness:</emph> </bold> The UCLA Loneliness Scale (Demir, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref87">17</reflink>], adapted from the original version by Russell et al., [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref88">56</reflink>]) is a 20-item measure of loneliness, rated on a 4-point Likert scale (1 = "not at all true" to 4 = "I often feel this way"). Higher scores indicate a greater loneliness level. Examples of items are "I feel in tune with the people around me" and "I do not feel alone". The scale showed excellent internal consistency in the development study and the Turkish translation (Cronbach's alpha, 0.96 and 0.96, respectively). Cronbach's alpha coefficient was found to be 0.88 for this study.</p> <hd id="AN0193251352-10">Statistical analysis</hd> <p>All analyses in the present study were run in IBM SPSS statistical software (version 23.0). First, the statistical assumptions relevant to the normality and the moderation model were assessed. Second, Pearson's bivariate correlational analyses were conducted to investigate associations between the investigated variables. Third, to test the moderating effect of gender on the association between suppression of positive and negative emotions and loneliness, separate hierarchical multiple regression steps were conducted. The steps in both models included the predictor variables (i.e. suppression of positive emotions and suppression of negative emotions), followed next by gender, and gender-by-suppression interaction term in the third and final step. The gender was coded Dummy variable (Female = 0, Male = 1). Cohen's d analysis, which means a standardised effect size, was used to measure the mean difference between females and males. Lastly, consistent with procedures outlined by Aiken and West ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref89">1</reflink>]), to illustrate the suppression x gender interaction for loneliness, we plotted the predictive beta effects of the suppression of positive emotions on loneliness in females and males by using the high (above +1 standard deviation), medium (between −1 and +1 standard deviation), and low (under −1 standard deviation) values for suppression.</p> <hd id="AN0193251352-11">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0193251352-12">Preliminary analysis</hd> <p>The normality criteria for all measurements of the investigated variables and the regression assumptions were checked before advanced analyses. First, boxplots did not show the presence of univariate outliers. The results showed that the kurtosis values of the variables varied between −0.69 and 0.38, and skewness values between 0.03 and 0.86, which evidenced that all values within the range of +/− 2 met the normality criteria (George & Mallery, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref90">21</reflink>]). The Durbin-Watson value was 1.89 for model 1 and 1.87 for model 2. This statistic is between the acceptable range of one to three. Furthermore, all correlations were <0.80, the tolerance values differing between 0.11 and 0.98 were >0.10, and Variance Inflation Factors (VIF) changing between 1.00 and 9.19 were <10.0. The Mahalanobis statistic for multivariate outliers in the 0.001 significance did not identify out-of-range values. As a result, considering these findings in light of Field's ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref91">19</reflink>]) recommendations, the expected normality and regression assumptions were validated.</p> <p>Means and standard deviations of variables are presented in Table 1. Pearson's correlations revealed the correlations between all variables to be significant (see Table 1). Loneliness had a significant positive correlation with suppressing both positive and negative emotions. There was also a positive and significant relationship between the suppression of positive emotion and the suppression of negative emotion. Males reported higher scores than females in the suppression of both positive emotions (<emph>t</emph> = −8.463***; <emph>Cohen's d</emph> =.84) and negative emotions (<emph>t</emph> = −2.349*; <emph>Cohen's d</emph> =.24). For loneliness, there was no gender difference between females and males (<emph>t</emph> = −1.346; <emph>Cohen's d</emph> =.14).</p> <p>Table 1. Descriptive and correlational statistics concerning the variables.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td><p>Measures</p></td><td><p>Correlations</p></td><td><p>Whole sample</p></td><td><p>Females</p></td><td><p>Males</p></td><td><p>Mean difference</p></td></tr><tr><td /><td><p>1</p></td><td><p>2</p></td><td><p><italic>M</italic></p></td><td><p>SD</p></td><td><p><italic>M</italic></p></td><td><p>SD</p></td><td><p><italic>M</italic></p></td><td><p>SD</p></td><td><p><italic>t</italic></p></td><td><p><italic>p</italic></p></td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><p>1. Positive Suppression</p></td><td char="."><p>1</p></td><td /><td char="."><p>2.88</p></td><td char="."><p>1.67</p></td><td char="."><p>2.46</p></td><td char="."><p>1.33</p></td><td char="."><p>3.87</p></td><td char="."><p>1.96</p></td><td char="."><p>−8.463</p></td><td char="."><p><.000</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2. Negative Suppression</p></td><td char="."><p>.26***</p></td><td char="."><p>1</p></td><td char="."><p>3.97</p></td><td char="."><p>1.64</p></td><td char="."><p>3.85</p></td><td char="."><p>1.57</p></td><td char="."><p>4.26</p></td><td char="."><p>1.78</p></td><td char="."><p>−2.349</p></td><td char="."><p><.05</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>3. Loneliness</p></td><td char="."><p>.29***</p></td><td char="."><p>.21***</p></td><td char="."><p>1.90</p></td><td char="."><p>.60</p></td><td char="."><p>1.87</p></td><td char="."><p>.52</p></td><td char="."><p>1.96</p></td><td char="."><p>.76</p></td><td char="."><p>−1.346</p></td><td char="."><p>>.05</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 <emph>*p</emph> <.05; **<emph>p</emph> <.01; ***<emph>p</emph> <.001.</p> <hd id="AN0193251352-13">Moderation analysis</hd> <p>To test the moderating effect of gender on the association between suppression of positive and negative emotions and loneliness, the hierarchical multiple regression steps were conducted. At step 1, suppression of positive and negative emotions was entered as a predictor into the model. Suppression of positive and negative emotions predicted significantly and positively loneliness (<emph>b</emph> =.29, <emph>p</emph> <.001; <emph>b</emph> =.21, <emph>p</emph> <.001, respectively). In step 2, gender was entered as a predictor into the model. In either model, gender did not provide a significant increment to the model (<emph>b</emph> = −.06, <emph>p</emph> >.05; <emph>b</emph> =.04, <emph>p</emph> >.05). Lastly, the interaction term was entered into the model. In either model, the interaction significantly did not increase the model's fit (<emph>b</emph> = −.05, <emph>p</emph> >.05; <emph>b</emph> =.02, <emph>p</emph> >.05) (see Table 2). Then, we plotted the predictive beta effects of the suppression of positive emotions on loneliness in females and males (see Figure 1). In model 1, when considering the simple slope analysis, the beta value of suppression of positive emotions on loneliness was.30 (<emph>p</emph> <.001) for females and.28 for males (<emph>p</emph> <.01). In model 2, the beta value of suppression of positive emotions on loneliness was.22 (<emph>p</emph> <.001) for females and.19 (<emph>p</emph> <.05) for males. As a result, given the regression and the slope analyses, the findings demonstrated that gender did not function as a moderator. However, suppression of both positive and negative emotions was predictive of loneliness.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 1. The effects of suppression of positive and negative emotions and gender on loneliness.</p> <p>Table 2. The hierarchical regression analyses.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td><p>Model 1</p></td><td><p><italic>B</italic></p></td><td><p>SE</p></td><td><p>Beta</p></td><td><p><italic>t</italic></p></td><td><p><italic>F</italic></p></td><td><p><italic>R</italic><sup>2</sup></p></td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><p>Step 1</p></td></tr><tr><td><p> Suppression of positive emotion</p></td><td char="."><p>.18</p></td><td char="."><p>.03</p></td><td char="."><p>.29***</p></td><td char="."><p>6.187</p></td><td char="."><p>38.277</p></td><td char="."><p>.086</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Step 2</p></td></tr><tr><td><p> Suppression of positive emotion</p></td><td char="."><p>.19</p></td><td char="."><p>.03</p></td><td char="."><p>.31***</p></td><td char="."><p>6.122</p></td><td char="."><p>19.724</p></td><td char="."><p>.089</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Gender</p></td><td char="."><p>−.08</p></td><td char="."><p>.07</p></td><td char="."><p>−.06</p></td><td char="."><p>−1.075</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Step 3</p></td></tr><tr><td><p> Suppression of positive emotion</p></td><td char="."><p>.21</p></td><td char="."><p>.09</p></td><td char="."><p>.35*</p></td><td char="."><p>2.178</p></td><td char="."><p>13.137</p></td><td char="."><p>.089</p></td></tr><tr><td><p> Gender</p></td><td char="."><p>−.05</p></td><td char="."><p>.14</p></td><td char="."><p>−.03</p></td><td char="."><p>−.327</p></td></tr><tr><td><p> The interaction</p></td><td char="."><p>−.01</p></td><td char="."><p>.04</p></td><td char="."><p>−.05</p></td><td char="."><p>−.236</p></td></tr><tr><td><p><bold>Model 2</bold></p></td><td char="."><p><bold><italic>B</italic></bold></p></td><td char="."><p><bold>SE</bold></p></td><td char="."><p><bold>Beta</bold></p></td><td char="."><p><bold><italic>t</italic></bold></p></td><td char="."><p><bold><italic>F</italic></bold></p></td><td char="."><p><bold><italic>R</italic><sup>2</sup></bold></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Step 1</p></td></tr><tr><td><p> Suppression of negative emotion</p></td><td char="."><p>.13</p></td><td char="."><p>.03</p></td><td char="."><p>.21***</p></td><td char="."><p>4.353</p></td><td char="."><p>18.945</p></td><td char="."><p>.042</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Step 2</p></td></tr><tr><td><p> Suppression of negative emotion</p></td><td char="."><p>.13</p></td><td char="."><p>.03</p></td><td char="."><p>.21***</p></td><td char="."><p>4.221</p></td><td char="."><p>9.850</p></td><td char="."><p>.042</p></td></tr><tr><td><p> Gender</p></td><td char="."><p>.06</p></td><td char="."><p>.06</p></td><td char="."><p>.04</p></td><td char="."><p>.875</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Step 3</p></td></tr><tr><td><p> Suppression of negative emotion</p></td><td char="."><p>.11</p></td><td char="."><p>.09</p></td><td char="."><p>.18</p></td><td char="."><p>1.256</p></td><td char="."><p>6.559</p></td><td char="."><p>.039</p></td></tr><tr><td><p> Gender</p></td><td char="."><p>.06</p></td><td char="."><p>.07</p></td><td char="."><p>.04</p></td><td char="."><p>.858</p></td></tr><tr><td><p> The interaction</p></td><td char="."><p>.01</p></td><td char="."><p>.06</p></td><td char="."><p>.02</p></td><td char="."><p>.157</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>2 *<emph>p</emph> <.05, **<emph>p</emph> <.01, ***<emph>p</emph> <.001.</p> <hd id="AN0193251352-14">Discussion</hd> <p>The present study was developed to both explore the direct relationships between the investigated variables and test the moderating effect of gender on the relationship between the suppression of positive and negative emotions and loneliness in university-attending emerging adults. Consistent with our predictions, and a modest body of research indicating greater emotion suppression being associated with greater loneliness (Karababa, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref92">38</reflink>]; Preece et al., [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref93">53</reflink>]; Smith et al., [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref94">59</reflink>]; Tan et al., [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref95">61</reflink>]), the present study demonstrated that suppression of both positive and negative emotions positively predicted loneliness, regardless of gender. In addition to empirical evidence, the present findings received theoretical support. For example, functionalist theories of emotion posit that emotionally expressive behaviour has a central role in maintaining social intimacy by providing to know others' emotional and mental states and associated intentions and needs. In contrast, suppression can impede social functioning by damaging the normal flow of emotion-based communication in everyday life (Keltner & Haidt, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref96">39</reflink>]). As a result, given that previous studies on the relationship between suppression and interpersonal consequences did not take into account the gender context and whether the emotion is positive or negative, we believe that the findings broadened the existing empirical and theoretical literature by considering the nuanced effects of suppression.</p> <p>Given establishing satisfying relationships with friends and romantic partners which is inherent to this transitional period of development, as well as planning for future life, identity formation, increased responsibilities, and academic, social, and financial sources of stress of university life (Arnett, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref97">4</reflink>]; Cutrona, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref98">15</reflink>]; Havighurst, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref99">26</reflink>]; Hopmeyer et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref100">31</reflink>]; Hysing et al., [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref101">33</reflink>]), university-attending emerging adults are a group for whom effectively regulating emotions may be particularly significant. Turkish individuals may be in a more sensitive position in this respect. In Turkish culture, education is considered the most effective way of economic and social advancement and individual improvement. Correspondingly, considering that Turkish university students are more likely to experience future anxiety, academic stress, and parental pressure, they may more intensively demand emotional regulation resources. Given that emotion regulation processes occur primarily in interpersonal contexts (Gross et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref102">24</reflink>]), it is more possible that Turkish university-attending emerging adults' social well-being levels depend on how well they can do. In Turkish society, which, unlike Western societies, is relatively a reflection of collectivist cultures that place less emphasis on the expression of one's true inner attributes, it is not surprising that suppressing emotions is used more frequently than in Western countries (Arens et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref103">3</reflink>]; Voswinckel et al., [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref104">64</reflink>]). However, the relative accord between suppression and Turkish culture could not eliminate its social costs. This finding received support from the literature. For example, a study showed that suppression had an adverse impact on social functioning across cultures – European Americans, Asian Americans, and Chinese nationals – in both early and later adulthood, and even across 10 years, by harming relationship satisfaction and social support (English & John, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref105">18</reflink>]). Likewise, in the Turkish context, a study on early adolescents found that the relationship between anger emotion and loneliness was stronger when they used greater suppression (Karababa, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref106">38</reflink>]).</p> <p>The findings indicated that suppressing positive emotions compared to negative emotions was a greater risk factor for loneliness. Consistent with the present study, in comparison with negative emotions, the relationship between the suppression of positive emotions and interpersonal and intrapersonal consequences has been more consistently underscored by the literature, regardless of whether the culture is collectivistic or individualistic (Han et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref107">25</reflink>]; Nezlek & Kuppens, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref108">49</reflink>]). Suppression of positive emotions is generally regarded as socially undesirable behaviour, whereas expressing positive emotions is an adaptive social reaction (Lyubomirsky et al., [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref109">41</reflink>]). Suppression of positive emotions has the potential to signal a lack of interest in others and indifference to others and to decrease others' positive feelings, which may disrupt the formation and maintenance of satisfying, close, and supportive relationships (Laurenceau et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref110">40</reflink>]; Nezlek & Kuppens, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref111">49</reflink>]), which, in turn, may lead individuals to loneliness. On the other hand, like suppression of positive emotions, it remains unclear whether suppressing negative emotions is associated similarly with intrapersonal and interpersonal well-being. This situation is related to cultural norms in general. With the value placed on interdependence, individuals from collectivistic societies are more likely to suppress their negative feelings to prevent burdening and hurting others and contribute to maintaining harmony (Markus & Kitayama, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref112">44</reflink>]; Matsumoto et al., [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref113">45</reflink>]). As such, because suppressing negative emotions can be better tolerated than positive emotions in collectivistic societies, it may be associated less with loneliness compared to suppression of positive emotions. With the value placed on true inner attributes, individuals from individualistic societies are encouraged to express their emotions rather than suppress them, regardless of whether an emotion is positive or negative (Markus & Kitayama, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref114">44</reflink>]; Matsumoto et al., [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref115">45</reflink>]). For example, a study demonstrated that suppression of both positive and negative emotions was associated with decreased subjective well-being and relationship satisfaction, for American participants, while suppressing negative emotions was less detrimental than suppressing positive emotions, for Korean participants (Han et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref116">25</reflink>]). However, evidence suggested that suppressing negative emotions might facilitate adaptive interactions, but did not fully eliminate its costs (Han et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref117">25</reflink>]). One reason for this may be that suppressing negative emotions could not remove the experience of negative emotions (Gross & John, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref118">23</reflink>]). For example, a study found that efforts to suppress negative emotions are associated with increases in experiencing negative emotions (Nezlek & Kuppens, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref119">49</reflink>]). In conclusion, future research should investigate the relationship between suppression and interpersonal outcomes by considering the nature of the emotion in the context of cultural norms.</p> <p>The present findings demonstrated the effects of the suppression of positive and negative emotions on loneliness did not significantly vary by gender for Turkish emerging adults. This finding was not consistent with our expectations. In this study, although males suppressed their both positive and negative emotions more than females in parallel to the literature, we did not reach a parallel result in loneliness. This result reveals such a question: if males suppress their emotions more than females, and suppression is generally negatively associated with adaptive social outcomes then why do not males experience higher levels of loneliness than women? Maybe, culturally expressed gender expectations in which men are expected not to show their emotions as much as women and are therefore strongly encouraged to suppress their feelings (Brooks, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref120">8</reflink>]) may have balanced this difference. Suppression is central to norms of masculinity. This gender-role expectation is more dominant in collectivistic and transitional societies (Brooks, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref121">8</reflink>]). Turkey has a social structure that is changing from collectivist to individualist but still maintains collectivist elements (Aycicegi-Dinn & Sunar, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref122">6</reflink>]; Kağıtçıbaşı, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref123">36</reflink>]). Therefore, males who suppress their emotions, especially positive ones, are less likely to experience outcomes such as exclusion and social inharmoniousness. Despite everything, in the gender and cultural interaction, hiding emotions for males reduced the socially punishing aspects of suppression but could not provide social gains.</p> <hd id="AN0193251352-15">Limitations, future studies, and implications</hd> <p>As with all studies, this study has some limitations. This study based on a single measurement in only one group is cross-sectional and descriptive. Therefore, making any directional or causal implications about the findings among the investigated variables is not meaningful. We also need to be cautious about generalising the findings. Although there is a consensus that the negative consequences of emotion suppression are higher in Western cultures, the literature has shown inconsistencies in Eastern cultures (Han et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref124">25</reflink>]). Therefore, it is important to consider the nature of different cultural contexts when investigating the influence of the suppression of emotions on loneliness. The present study focused on the extent to which female and male emerging adults suppressing their positive and negative emotions suffer loneliness. An important factor that can determine the extent to which the suppressed emotion is detrimental or beneficial to social outcomes is the context (Kalokerinos et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref125">37</reflink>]). Namely, a study found that when the valence of the context was negative, targets that suppressed positive emotions compared to expressive ones were more appropriately considered by the participants (Kalokerinos et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref126">37</reflink>]). In this study context, one of the critical questions becomes when, with whom, and where individuals suppress their positive and negative. In addition to the contextual manner, suppression-related individual differences, such as age and past experiences, that may be associated with lower or greater loneliness should be identified. We hope that future studies can meet these uncertainties. Although the present study has made important contributions to the relationship between suppression and loneliness, it did not test for mediators that may explain the way that is from suppression to loneliness, such as peer acceptance, and perceived social support. Also, there may be factors such as tolerance and forbearance underlying suppression. Future studies should examine these possibilities. Lastly, this study did not specifically focus on apparent positive and negative emotions such as anger and happiness. Future studies can better uncover the effect strength of suppression on loneliness by focusing on specific emotions.</p> <p>The present study has some implications for both the literature and counseling practice. First, emotion regulation is a relatively young but rapidly growing study field. Most previous empirical studies have focused on the effect of suppression on psychological outcomes rather than social ones, regardless of factors such as emotion type and gender. Of studies that have examined the social outcomes, a few have aimed to explore its effect on loneliness. In conclusion, the two bodies of work, specifically suppression and loneliness, rarely intersect. Therefore, this study provided an important contribution to advance the literature by providing some of the first evidence to more comprehensively understand the mechanisms underlying the relationship between suppression and loneliness. Second, in general, the literature has indicated that the suppression of emotions is dysfunctional and that emotional expression is functional to establish and maintain social gains, supporting the present findings (Kalokerinos et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref127">37</reflink>]). Mental health professionals should take into consideration whether clients who come to therapy and suffer from loneliness suppress their positive and negative emotions. However, suppression may be a healthy coping strategy toward a positive social goal, especially in collectivistic societies (Wei et al., [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref128">65</reflink>]). Cultural differences should also be considered. This implication is also appertaining to gender. The findings demonstrated that although males suppressed their positive and negative emotions more than females, both did not significantly report a difference in loneliness. In the cultural context, males are encouraged to suppress their emotions, especially positive ones. Therefore, mental health professionals should take into consideration that dictating males to express completely their emotions may not be congruent with their collectivistic needs and life experiences. Notwithstanding everything, it might be beneficial that professionals consider that establishing satisfying relationships may depend on when, with whom, and where individuals feel comfortable expressing or suppressing their positive and negative emotions (Wei et al., [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref129">65</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0193251352-16">Disclosure statement</hd> <p>No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.</p> <hd id="AN0193251352-17">Data availability statement</hd> <p>The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.</p> <hd id="AN0193251352-18">Ethical compliance section</hd> <p>All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the University Research Committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.</p> <hd id="AN0193251352-19">Informed consent</hd> <p>Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants involved in this study.</p> <ref id="AN0193251352-20"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref83" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Sage Publications, Inc.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref55" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Anderson, C., Keltner, D., & John, O. P. (2003). Emotional convergence between people over time. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84 (5), 1054 – 1068. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.5.1054</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref37" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Arens, E. A., Balkir, N., & Barnow, S. (2013). Ethnic variation in emotion regulation: Do cultural differences end where psychopathology begins? Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 44 (3), 335 – 351. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022112453314</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref70" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Arnett, J. J. (2011). Emerging adulthood(s): The cultural psychology of a new life stage. In L. A. Jensen (Ed.), Bridging cultural and developmental approaches to psychology: New syntheses in theory, research, and policy (pp. 255 – 275). Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref79" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Arnett, J. J. (2018). Conceptual foundations of emerging adulthood. In J. L. Murray & J. J. Arnett (Eds.), Emerging adulthood and higher education: A new student development paradigm (pp. 11 – 24). Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref34" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Aycicegi-Dinn, A., & Sunar, D. (2017). A cross-cultural and within-culture comparison of child-rearing practices and their correlates. Turkish Journal of Psychology, 32 (79), 111 – 114.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref5" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Beutel, M. E., Klein, E. M., Brähler, E., Reiner, I., Jünger, C., Michal, M., Wiltink, J., Wild, P. S., Münzel, T., Lackner, K. J., & Tibubos, A. N. (2017). Loneliness in the general population: Prevalence, determinants and relations to mental health. BMC Psychiatry, 17, 97. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-017-1262-x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref120" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Brooks, G. R. (1998). A new psychotherapy for traditional men. Jossey-Bass.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref72" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Buecker, S., Mund, M., Chwastek, S., Sostmann, M., & Luhmann, M. (2021). Is loneliness in emerging adults increasing over time? A preregistered cross-temporal meta-analysis and systematic review. Psychological Bulletin, 147 (8), 787 – 805. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000332</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Butler, E. A., Egloff, B., Wlhelm, F. H., Smith, N. C., Erickson, E. A., & Gross, J. J. (2003). The social consequences of expressive suppression. Emotion, 3 (1), 48 – 67. https://doi.org/10.1037/1528-3542.3.1.48</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Butler, E. A., Lee, T. L., & Gross, J. J. (2007). Emotion regulation and culture: Are the social consequences of emotion suppression culture-specific? Emotion, 7 (1), 30 – 48. https://doi.org/10.1037/1528-3542.7.1.30</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cacioppo, J. T., Cacioppo, S., & Boomsma, D. I. (2014). Evolutionary mechanisms for loneliness. Cognition and Emotion, 28 (1), 3 – 21. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2013.837379</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cameron, L. D., & Overall, N. C. (2018). Suppression and expression as distinct emotion-regulation processes in daily interactions: Longitudinal and meta-analyses. Emotion, 18 (4), 465 – 480. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000334</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chervonsky, E., & Hunt, C. (2017). Suppression and expression of emotion in social and interpersonal outcomes: A meta-analysis. Emotion, 17 (4), 669 – 683. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000270</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cutrona, C. E. (1982). Transition to college: Loneliness and the process of social adjustment. In L. A. Peplau & D. Pearlman (Eds.), Loneliness: A sourcebook of current theory, research and practice (pp. 291 – 309). Wiley Interscience.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Demarinis, S. (2020). Loneliness at epidemic levels in America. Explore (New York, N. Y.), 16 (5), 278 – 279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.explore.2020.06.008</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Demir, A. (1989). Validity and reliability of UCLA loneliness scale. Journal of Turkish Psychology, 7 (23), 14 – 18.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> 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 (2), 314 – 329. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029847</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Field, A. (2018). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (5th ed.). Sage Publications Inc.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Frijda, N. H., & Mesquita, B. (1994). The social roles and functions of emotions. In S. Kitayama & H. R. Markus (Eds.), Emotion and culture: Empirical studies of mutual influence (pp. 51 – 87). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10152-002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> George, D., & Mallery, P. (2016). IBM SPSS statistics 23 step by step: A simple guide and reference (14th ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315545899</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gross, J. J. (2014). Emotion regulation: Conceptual and empirical foundations. In J. J. Gross (Ed.), Handbook of emotion regulation (2nd ed., pp. 3 – 20). Guilford Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> 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 (2), 348 – 362. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.2.348</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gross, J. J., Richards, J. M., & John, O. P. (2006). Emotion regulation in everyday life. In D. K. Snyder, J. Simpson, & J. N. Hughes (Eds.), Emotion regulation in couples and families: Pathways to dysfunction and health (pp. 13 – 35). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/11468-001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Han, D. E., Park, H. G., An, U. J., Kim, S. E., & Kim, Y. H. (2022). Emotion suppression on relationship and life satisfaction: Taking culture and emotional valence into account. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 39 (9), 02654075221088521. https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075221088521</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Havighurst, R. J. (1972). Developmental tasks and education. McKay Company.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hawkley, L. C., Buecker, S., Kaiser, T., & Luhmann, M. (2022). Loneliness from young adulthood to old age: Explaining age differences in loneliness. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 46 (1), 39 – 49. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025420971048</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's recent consequences: Using dimension scores in theory and research. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 1 (1), 11 – 17. https://doi.org/10.1177/147059580111002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Holt-Lunstad, J. (2022). Social connection as a public health issue: The evidence and a systemic framework for prioritizing the "social" in social determinants of health. Annual Review of Public Health, 43 (1), 193 – 213. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-052020-110732</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Holt-Lunstad, J., Smith, T. B., & Layton, J. B. (2010). Social relationships and mortality risk: A meta-analytic review. PLoS Medicine, 7 (7), e1000316. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000316</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hopmeyer, A., Terino, B., Adamczyk, K., Corbitt Hall, D., DeCoste, K., & Troop-Gordon, W. (2022). The lonely collegiate: An examination of the reasons for loneliness among emerging adults in college in the Western United States and West-Central Poland. Emerging Adulthood, 10 (1), 237 – 248. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167696820966110</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hu, T., Zhang, D., Wang, J., Mistry, R., Ran, G., & Wang, X. (2014). Relation between emotion regulation and mental health: A meta-analysis review. Psychological Reports, 114 (2), 341 – 362. https://doi.org/10.2466/03.20.PR0.114k22w4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hysing, M., Petrie, K. J., Bøe, T., Lønning, K. J., & Sivertsen, B. (2020). Only the lonely: A study of loneliness among university students in Norway. Clinical Psychology in Europe, 2 (1), 1 – 16. https://doi.org/10.32872/cpe.v2i1.2781</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jordan, J. V. (2001). A relational-cultural model: Healing through mutual empathy. Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic, 65 (1), 92 – 103. https://doi.org/10.1521/bumc.65.1.92.18707</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kagitcibasi, C. (2005). Autonomy and relatedness in cultural context: Implications for self and family. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 36 (4), 403 – 422. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022105275959</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kağitçibaşi, Ç. (2007). Family, self, and human development across cultures: Theories and applications (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kalokerinos, E. K., Greenaway, K. H., & Casey, J. P. (2017). Context shapes social judgments of positive emotion suppression and expression. Emotion, 17 (1), 169 – 186. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000222</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Karababa, A. (2020). The relationship between trait anger and loneliness among early adolescents: The moderating role of emotion regulation. Personality and Individual Differences, 159, 1 – 10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.109856</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Keltner, D., & Haidt, J. (1999). Social functions of emotions at four levels of analysis. Cognition & Emotion, 13 (5), 505 – 521. https://doi.org/10.1080/026999399379168</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Laurenceau, J.-P., Barrett, L. F., & Pietromonaco, P. R. (2004). Intimacy as an interpersonal process: The importance of self-disclosure, partner disclosure, and perceived partner responsiveness in interpersonal exchanges. In H. T. Reis & C. E. Rusbult (Eds.), Close relationships: Key readings (pp. 199 – 211). Taylor & Francis.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lyubomirsky, S., King, L., & Diener, E. (2005). The benefits of frequent positive affect: Does happiness lead to success? Psychological Bulletin, 131 (6), 803 – 855. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.131.6.803</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mahon, N. E., Yarcheski, A., Yarcheski, T. J., Cannella, B. L., & Hanks, M. M. (2006). A meta-analytic study of predictors for loneliness during adolescence. Nursing Research, 55 (5), 308 – 315. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006199-200609000-00003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98 (2), 224 – 253. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.98.2.224</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1994). The cultural shaping of emotion: A conceptual framework. In S. Kitayama & H. R. Markus (Eds.), Emotion and culture: Empirical studies of mutual influence (pp. 339 – 351). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10152-020</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Matsumoto, D., Yoo, S. H., Nakagawa, S., & Multinational Study of Cultural Display Rules. (2008). Culture, emotion regulation, and adjustment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94 (6), 925 – 937. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.94.6.925</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McClelland, H., Evans, J. J., Nowland, R., Ferguson, E., & O'Connor, R. C. (2020). Loneliness as a predictor of suicidal ideation and behavior: A systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies. Journal of Affective Disorders, 274, 880 – 896. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2020.05.004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Miu, A. C., Szentágotai-Tătar, A., Balazsi, R., Nechita, D., Bunea, I., & Pollak, S. D. (2022). Emotion regulation as mediator between childhood adversity and psychopathology: A meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 93, 102141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2022.102141</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Miyamoto, Y., & Ryff, C. D. (2011). Cultural differences in the dialectical and non-dialectical emotional styles and their implications for health. Cognition and Emotion, 25 (1), 22 – 39. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931003612114</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nezlek, J. B., & Kuppens, P. (2008). Regulating positive and negative emotions in daily life. Journal of Personality, 76 (3), 561 – 579. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2008.00496.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Oyserman, D., Coon, H. M., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2002). Rethinking individualism and collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 128 (1), 3 – 72. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.128.1.3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Park, C., Majeed, A., Gill, H., Tamura, J., Ho, R. C., Mansur, R. B., Nasri, F., Rosenblat, J. D., Wong, E., & McIntyre, R. S. (2020). The effect of loneliness on distinct health outcomes: A comprehensive review and meta-analysis. Psychiatry Research, 294, 113514. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2020.113514</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Peplau, L. A., & Perlman, D. (1982). Perspectives on loneliness. In L. A. Peplau & D. Perlman (Eds.), Loneliness: A sourcebook of current theory, research and therapy (pp. 1 – 20). John Wiley.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Preece, D. A., Goldenberg, A., Becerra, R., Boyes, M., Hasking, P., & Gross, J. J. (2021). Loneliness and emotion regulation. Personality and Individual Differences, 180, 110974. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2021.110974</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Prefit, A. B., Candea, D. M., & Szentagotai-Tătar, A. (2019). Emotion regulation across eating pathology: A meta-analysis. Appetite, 143, 104438. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2019.104438</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Royal Society for Public Health. (2020). RSPH calls for more mental health support for young people in lockdown. https://<ulink href="http://www.rsph.org.uk/about-us/news/rsphcalls-for-more-mental-health-support-for-young-people-inlockdown.htm">www.rsph.org.uk/about-us/news/rsphcalls-for-more-mental-health-support-for-young-people-inlockdown.htm</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Russell, D., Peplau, L. A., & Ferguson, M. L. (1978). Developing a measure of loneliness. Journal of Personality Assessment, 42 (3), 290 – 294. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4203_11</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Safdar, S., Friedlmeier, W., Matsumoto, D., Yoo, S. H., Kwantes, C. T., Kakai, H., & Shigemasu, E. (2009). Variations of emotional display rules within and across cultures: A comparison between Canada, USA, and Japan. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science / Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement, 41 (1), 1 – 10. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014387</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Simpson, P. A., & Stroh, L. K. (2004). Gender differences: Emotional expression and feelings of personal inauthenticity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89 (4), 715 – 721. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.4.715</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smith, C. V., Lair, E. C., & O'Brien, S. M. (2019). Purposely stoic, accidentally alone? Self-monitoring moderates the relationship between emotion suppression and loneliness. Personality and Individual Differences, 149, 286 – 290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.06.012</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Soto, J. A., Perez, C. R., Kim, Y.-H., Lee, E. A., & Minnick, M. R. (2011). Is expressive suppression always associated with poorer psychological functioning? A cross-cultural comparison between European Americans and Hong Kong Chinese. Emotion, 11 (6), 1450 – 1455. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023340</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tan, A. J., Mancini, V., Gross, J. J., Goldenberg, A., Badcock, J. C., Lim, M. H., Becerra, R., Jackson, B., & Preece, D. A. (2022). Loneliness versus distress: A comparison of emotion regulation profiles. Behaviour Change, 39 (3), 180 – 190. https://doi.org/10.1017/bec.2022.18</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Thompson, R. A. (1994). Emotion regulation: A theme in search of definition. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 59 (2-3), 25 – 52. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5834.1994.tb01276.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Valtorta, N. K., Kanaan, M., Gilbody, S., Ronzi, S., & Hanratty, B. (2016). Loneliness and social isolation as risk factors for coronary heart disease and stroke: Systematic review and meta-analysis of longitudinal observational studies. Heart, 102 (13), 1009 – 1016. https://doi.org/10.1136/heartjnl-2015-308790</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Voswinckel, I., Spranz, S., Langguth, N., Stangier, U., Gawrilow, C., & Steil, R. (2019). Suppression, reappraisal, and acceptance of emotions: A comparison between Turkish immigrant and German adolescents. Journal of Cultural Cognitive Science, 3 (1), 91 – 101. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41809-019-00031-7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wei, M., Su, J. C., Carrera, S., Lin, S.-P., & Yi, F. (2013). Suppression and interpersonal harmony: A cross-cultural comparison between Chinese and European Americans. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 60 (4), 625 – 633. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033413</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Weiss, R. S. (1973). Loneliness: The experience of emotional and social isolation. The MIT Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yurtsever, G. (2008). Negotiators' profit predicted by cognitive reappraisal, suppression of emotions, misrepresentation of information, and tolerance of ambiguity. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 106 (2), 590 – 608. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.106.2.590-608</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Ali Karababa</p> <p>Reported by Author</p> <p></p> <p>Ali Karababa is an associate professor at the Department of Psychological Counseling and Guidance at Usak University, Turkey. Her research interests include adolescence, parenting, family relationships, loneliness, emotion regulation, and socio-emotional well-being, as well as school and cultural contexts.</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref87"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref88"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref90"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref91"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref95"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref102"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref109"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref110"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref125"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref128"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1503989
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: The Effects of Suppression of Positive and Negative Emotions on Loneliness in Turkish University-Attending Emerging Adults: Does Gender Make a Difference?
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Ali+Karababa%22">Ali Karababa</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0458-3437">0000-0003-0458-3437</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22British+Journal+of+Guidance+%26+Counselling%22"><i>British Journal of Guidance & Counselling</i></searchLink>. 2025 53(6):892-905.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 14
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Emotional+Response%22">Emotional Response</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Psychological+Patterns%22">Psychological Patterns</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22College+Students%22">College Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Gender+Differences%22">Gender Differences</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Positive+Attitudes%22">Positive Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Negative+Attitudes%22">Negative Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Social+Influences%22">Social Influences</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Cultural+Influences%22">Cultural Influences</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Affective+Measures%22">Affective Measures</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Turkey%22">Turkey</searchLink>
– Name: SubjectThesaurus
  Label: Assessment and Survey Identifiers
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SU" term="%22UCLA+Loneliness+Scale%22">UCLA Loneliness Scale</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/03069885.2024.2384721
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0306-9885<br />1469-3534
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: This study aimed to examine the predictive effect of suppression of positive and negative emotions on loneliness and whether gender moderated the relationship between them in the Turkish population. The sample consisted of 408 (286 females and 122 males) university-attending emerging adults aged 18-25 (M = 20.98, SD = 1.61). The participants completed the measures of suppression sub-dimension of emotion regulation and loneliness, as well as a demographic survey. The results demonstrated that suppression of positive and negative emotions positively predicted loneliness regardless of gender. The findings also indicated that although males compared to females reported significantly greater suppression of positive and negative emotions, there was no significant difference between females and males on loneliness. In conclusion, in the socio-cultural context, hiding emotions in males reduced the socially punishing aspects of suppression but could not provide social gains. Lastly, the findings were discussed in the literature context.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2026
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1503989
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1503989
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/03069885.2024.2384721
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 14
        StartPage: 892
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Emotional Response
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Psychological Patterns
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: College Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Gender Differences
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Positive Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Negative Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Social Influences
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Cultural Influences
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Affective Measures
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Turkey
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: UCLA Loneliness Scale
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: The Effects of Suppression of Positive and Negative Emotions on Loneliness in Turkish University-Attending Emerging Adults: Does Gender Make a Difference?
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Ali Karababa
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0306-9885
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1469-3534
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 53
            – Type: issue
              Value: 6
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: British Journal of Guidance & Counselling
              Type: main
ResultId 1