ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Emotional Disclosure in Day-to-Day Living and SubjectiveWell Being

Priya Saxena & Seema Mehrotra

Received: 7 April 2010 /Accepted: 7 May 2010# National Academy of Psychology (NAOP) India 2010

Abstract There is a large body of empirical research onemotional disclosure and its relationship to health and wellbeing. However, emotional disclosure has been examinedlargely in the context of illness or trauma. Beneficialoutcomes of emotional disclosure in day-to-day living havenot been consistently observed in non-experimental studies,although a large proportion of individuals do reportperceived benefits. The present study aimed at exploringthe association of emotional disclosure with selectedintrapersonal and interpersonal variables and their role inprediction of subjective well being in day-to-day living. Thesample comprised of 209 adults who did not report presenceof any major stressor in the recent past. In hierarchicalregression analysis, lower affect intensity, higher emotionalclarity, lower trait rumination, higher perceived support andhigher emotional disclosure predicted higher subjective wellbeing. In addition, trait rumination emerged as a significantmoderator of the relationship between emotional disclosureand subjective well being.

Keywords Emotional disclosure . Need for emotionaldisclosure . Subjective wellbeing . Affect intensity .

Trait-rumination . Emotional clarity . Perceived support

Emotional disclosure refers to the process of verballycommunicating about one’s emotional experiences toanother person (Pennebaker 1995; Zech 2000). Variousbeneficial effects of written disclosure have been observedsuch as better health in retrospective reports (e.g. Pennebaker

and Susman 1988) and better immune function immediatelyafter disclosure (Pennebaker et al. 1988).Verbal disclosurehas been examined in experimental and quasi-experimentalstudies that have reported outcomes such as improve-ments in mood (Lutgendorf and Antoni 1999; Mendoliaand Kleck 1993), enhanced immune system functioning(Esterling et al. 1994), better role and physical functioning(Kelley et al. 1997), and enhanced well-being (Pantchenkoet al. 2003; Lyubomirsky et al. 2006).

Trends in Emotional Disclosure Research

A scan of the available literature indicates that emotionaldisclosure has been primarily explored in the context ofwritten-disclosure-based interventions. On the other hand,research on verbal disclosure has been mainly in the formof experimental/quasi-experimental studies that tend to berestricted to college samples. There are only a few studiesthat focus on social sharing of emotions in naturalisticcontexts, especially in non-college adult samples. Also,several of these naturalistic studies have been carried out onsamples of participants experiencing major life events likebereavement, diagnosis of cancer and HIV (e.g. Zakowskiet al. 2001; Lieberman and Goldstein 2006).

In recent times, emotional disclosure research haswitnessed a trend parallel to the shift in stress and copingresearch (Affleck et al. 1999). This shift pertains toexamining mood, affect and coping in the context of day-to-day living. In a review of eight studies conducted onsocial sharing of everyday experiences, Rime et al. (1998)observed that emotional experiences were shared in 88–96% of the cases. These proportions were independent ofage, culture, gender and type of emotion. Since emotionalexperiences are shared with such high frequencies, it is

P. Saxena : S. Mehrotra (*)Department of Mental Health & Social Psychology, NIMHANS,Bangalore 560029, Indiae-mail: drmehrotra_seema@yahoo.com

Psychol StudDOI 10.1007/s12646-010-0034-1

expected that emotional expression would be leading tobeneficial outcomes. Surprisingly, this line of researchshows that although talking about emotional experiencesis generally reported to be helpful by people; contrasting orinconsistent results are observed vis-à-vis actual benefits ofemotional disclosure in day-to-day life, across studies (Zech2000; Rime et al. 1998; Zech and Rime 2005). Thisnecessitates a detailed examination of emotional disclosurein day-to-day living and its correlates.

Variables Examined in Emotional Disclosure Literature

There has been a growing recognition of individual differ-ences that predict the extent of emotional disclosure ormoderate the relationship between emotional disclosure andhealth outcomes. A few variables that have been examinedas predictors or moderators of disclosure include alexithy-mia, ambivalence over emotional expression, neuroticism,and emotional processing (e.g. Dickinson 2005; Norman etal. 2004; Paez et al. 1999). There are several otherintrapersonal and interpersonal variables in the broaderfield of emotional regulation that have relevance foremotional disclosure research. For example, the model ofemotional awareness, understanding and expression, pro-posed by Kennedy-Moore and Watson (1999) points to thepotential role of variables such as typical intensity of affectexperienced, belief system about disclosure (reasons/motivations for non-disclosure), emotional clarity, rumina-tion, perception of social support and social constraints.These variables have been infrequently examined for theirassociation with emotional disclosure in day- to-day living.Need for emotional disclosure has also been relativelyignored as an individual difference variable. PublishedIndian literature on emotional disclosure and its correlatesin day-to-day living is sparse. Raval et al. 2007 examinedbeliefs about acceptability of expression of emotions andactual expression in young Gujarati children from urbanand semi- urban schools. It was observed that childrenlearnt to control expression of their emotions such asanger and sadness so as to avoid being reprimanded orridiculed. The authors surmised that Indian children learnfrom young age to perceive and attach importance toprevalent social norms regarding regulation of emotions.A study by Bhati and Gunthey in 1999 examined familyenvironment and mental health of working women andhomemakers. The authors observed that working womenwere higher on expressiveness and independence butexperienced poorer mental health. There is a need for asystematic and comprehensive exploration of relevantintrapersonal as well as interpersonal variables togetherwith emotional disclosure as predictors of subjectivewellbeing in day-to-day living.

In the above backdrop, the present study focused on thefollowing objectives: 1. Exploring the patterns of typicalneed for emotional disclosure and extent of emotionaldisclosure in day-to-day-living. 2. Examining the associa-tion of need for disclosure and emotional disclosure withselected intrapersonal and interpersonal variables. 3. Ex-amining the role of emotional disclosure along with theintra personal and interpersonal variables in prediction ofwell being in day-to-day living.

Negative affect intensity, emotional clarity, motivationsunderlying withholding expression of negative affect, emo-tional control and trait rumination were examined as intraper-sonal variables whereas perceived social support and socialconstraints were the two interpersonal variables considered.The study focused on disclosure of distressing emotions, as isthe case in the bulk of research emotional disclosure–health.

Method

Pilot Phase

Selection of variables The researchers had taken intoaccount the gaps in the available literature on disclosureto decide on the variables for the study. But in addition, itwas deemed useful to explore community participants’conception about important factors associated with emo-tional disclosure in an urban Indian context. Hence in thepilot phase, a focused group discussion was conducted withtwelve volunteer adults. In the focus group discussion, theparticipants came up with their views about why they founddisclosure helpful, reasons for not being able to share,factors that helped them to share and other modes ofhandling negative emotions. The themes highlighted therelevance of variables such as social constraints and variousbeliefs and motives underlying non-disclosure.

Selection of measures The measures were selected usingthe following criteria: brevity, cultural appropriateness ofitems, documented use across varied samples and nations,ease of comprehension as well as availability of Indian dataon their basic psychometric properties to the extentpossible. In addition, the pilot phase utilized a series ofsteps including the focus group discussion (outlined above),content validation by three experts and a cognitiveinterviewing procedure to explore the appropriateness ofthose measures for which Indian data on psychometricproperties were not available (emotional disclosure, rumi-nation, social constraints and reasons for withholdingnegative emotions). A few modifications in the wordings/instructions were made based on the results of the abovesteps (Table 1). Subsequently, the convergent validities ofthese measures were re-established in the Indian context by

Psychol Stud

examining their correlations with theoretically relevantmeasures that have known psychometric properties in localsamples. Hindi versions of the measures were alsodeveloped in this phase through standard translation andback translation procedure. The details of the pilot phaseresults are not discussed owing to space constraints and areavailable from the authors.

Measures

Basic datasheet In addition to the socio-demographics, thedata sheet included an item enquiring whether a participant

was currently experiencing or had experienced in the recentpast (past 3 months) any major stressful life event.Definition and examples of daily stressors/hassles, moder-ate stressors and major stressors were provided to theparticipants to help them differentiate the nature of stressthey might be experiencing. Data were included only fromthose participants who did not report a major stressor eithercurrently or in the past 3 months.

Emotional disclosure To assess the general frequency ofdisclosure of negative emotions, the researchers used theEmotional disclosure Scale, which was developed based onthe pattern of Snell’s Emotional Self-Disclosure Scale

Table 1 Description of intrapersonal and interpersonal variables

I. Intrapersonal variables Operational definition Measure

1. Negative affect Intensity Typical intensity with which negative emotionsare experienced

Affect Intensity Measure—Negative intensity scale

Bryant et al. 1996

Six items with six-point response format

2. Emotional Clarity Perceived ability to identify and describespecific emotions one experiences

Emotional clarity scale of trait meta-mood measure

Salovey et al. 1995

11 items with five-point response format

3. Self regulation of withholdingnegative emotions

Motivations for withholding expression ofnegative affect: Controlled regulation(CR)—Not expressing due to externalreason (e.g. avoid censure/gain, approval)Autonomous-regulation(AR):Non-expressionin consonance with personal values and choice

Self regulation of withholding negative emotionsquestionnaire

Kim et al. 2002

Present study response format changed fromseven-point to five-point and instructions simplifiedbased on pilot phase data. Six items labeledintegrated regulation had to be omitted due tolow internal consistency

No of items

Controlled regulation: 15

Autonomous regulation: 7

4. Emotional Control Chronic tendency to control/suppressnegative emotions

Courtald Emotional Control scale

Watson and Greer 1983

21 items with four-point response format

5. Trait Rumination Self attentiveness with a style of repeated,passive dwelling on perceived threats, lossesor injustice to self

Rumination scale of the rumination–reflectionquestionnaire

Trapnell and Campbell 1999

12 items with five-point response format

II. Inter-personal variables Operational definition Measure

1. Social support Perceived availability of emotional,informational and instrumental support

Social Support Questionnaire

Pillay and Rao 2002

One item dropped from original version: wasdifficult to differentiate from another one asobserved in the pilot phase

Used: 11 items with five-point response format

2. Social constraints Perceptions that one must inhibit from disclosingstressful thoughts and feelings to a significantother due to certain behaviors of the significantother, e.g. trivialization

Social constraints scale

Lepore and Ituarte 1999

14 items, four-point response format

Wordings modified to reflect constraints in thecontext of day-to-day stressors rather than anyone particular stressor

Psychol Stud

(Snell et al. 1988). In the present study, participants wereenquired about the typical frequency of disclosure ofnegative emotions to significant others. There were threeitems, one each for sadness, anxiety and anger, each to beanswered on a five-point likert-type rating scale. Highertotal score indicates typically higher extent of emotionaldisclosure. The internal consistency of the scale was 0.87.Higher use of coping through support seeking is expectedto be associated with higher disclosure. In the pilot phase ofthe study, scores on the emotional disclosure measure werepositively correlated(r=0.34) with social support subscaleof Coping Checklist (Rao et al. 1989) lending support to theconvergent validity of this measure. Typical intensity ofneed for emotional disclosure was assessed using an item tobe rated on a five point likert type scale ranging from ‘quitestrongly’ to ‘not at all’. The researcher developed andappended additional items to assess general aspects ofemotional disclosure. There were items enquiring whetheremotional disclosure was perceived to be generally helpfulor unhelpful. Those who perceived it to be generally helpfulanswered another item on perceived reasons for helpfulnessof emotional disclosure. Similarly, those who perceiveddisclosure to be generally unhelpful indicated reasons forthe same. For each of these items, there was a list of reasonsprovided as a checklist and the participants could endorseas many reasons as were applicable to them. They also hadthe option to cite any other unlisted reason

Wellbeing

World Health Organization Five Well-being Index (WHO-Five) (Bech 1998) This scale was derived from a largerrating scale developed for a WHO project and has sincebeen used across the globe with varied samples. Initiallyten items were selected from a larger pool of 18 itemsbased on the criteria of homogeneity among samples.Subsequently only the positively worded items wereretained. The five positively worded items tap positivepsychological well-being, involving relaxation, vitality andgeneral interests. The raw score is calculated by totalingthe responses across five items. The scores range from 0to 25, zero representing ‘worst possible’ and 25 represent-ing ‘best possible’ subjective well-being. The internalconsistency and convergent validity of this measure havebeen demonstrated in other Indian studies (e.g. Prathima2005).

Intrapersonal and Interpersonal Variables

The intrapersonal and interpersonal variables thatwere examined, their capsule operational definition, themeasures used to assess the same along with their internal

consistency in the present sample are shown in Table 1 andTable 2.

Sample

The study included males and females between 21 and60 years of age with minimum 12 years of formal educationwho could speak English or Hindi. To begin with, a pool of229 participants gave consent and completed all themeasures. Twenty participants in this initial pool (9%)reported facing a major stressor in the past 3 months asoperationalized in the study. Death or poor health of asignificant other were the most often cited major stressorsin this subgroup. The final sample (N=209) consisted ofonly those who did not report major stressors. This criterionwas used at the level of analysis because the purpose of theresearch was to determine the contribution of emotionaldisclosure and other variables in the context of day-to-dayliving rather than in the presence of major stressors. Therewas a fairly equal distribution of participants in the agegroups of 21–30 years, 31–40 years, 41–50 years and 51–60 years. Forty eight percent of the participants were menand 52% were women. Majority (65%) were married. Fiftytwo percent were graduates; 40% had qualifications abovegraduate levels, while less than one-tenth of the participantswere educated up to standard 12. Majority of the sample(60%) were professionals, a quarter were students; whilehomemakers/not-employed formed 15% of the sample.

The data were collected after obtaining written informedconsent. The measures were administered in a singlesession for each participant. The order of presentation ofmeasures was constant across participants. In 76% of thecases, one to one administration was carried out whereasfor remaining student sub-sample, the measures wereadministered in small groups of 15 to 20 participants each,under close supervision of the first author.

Results and Discussion

The descriptive statistics on all the variables in term ofpossible and obtained range of scores, means, medians,standard deviations, information on normality of distribu-tions and internal consistency reliabilities are presented inTable 2. All the measures had high internal consistencies,the values ranging between 0.80 and 0.92. Using KS-Zstatistic, a stringent measure of normality, it was observedthat the distributions of scores on emotional disclosure,need for disclosure, affect intensity and subjective wellbeing were non-normal. The analyses were carried outusing appropriate non-parametric statistics. Hierarchicalregression analysis was carried out after checking fornormal distribution of errors.

Psychol Stud

Patterns of Need for Emotional Disclosure and Extentof Emotional Disclosure

More than half of the participants (56%) reported a highneed for emotional disclosure, by endorsing their generalneed for emotional disclosure to be ‘quite strong’ or‘strong’. A moderate need for disclosure was reported byroughly one-third (32%) of the participants. Twelve percentof the participants reported a low need for disclosure. As faras the general extent of emotional disclosure is concerned;nearly half of the participants (46%) reported sharing ofnegative emotions ‘fully-almost fully’ with a significantother. Roughly a quarter (26%) generally shared suchnegative emotions to ‘some extent’. On the other hand, onefifth of the participants (19%) reported generally sharingnegative emotions only to a ‘little extent’. Nine percent of theparticipants reported that generally they did not share theirnegative emotions at all. There was a moderate positivecorrelation(r=0.43) between need for emotional disclosureand typical extent of emotional disclosure. On the whole,emotional disclosure in the naturalistic context seemed tobe a quite prevalent phenomenon and this is in line with thereview of studies on social sharing of everyday experiences(Rime et al. 1998). However, the present study highlightsindividual differences in need for emotional disclosure aswell as actual extent of emotional disclosure, with asubstantial minority reporting minimal disclosure. It isobserved that even though 56% of the participants reporteda strong need to disclose, yet only 46% were actually ableto disclose fully. This finding is further reflected in the

moderate positive correlation between need for emotionaland typical extent of emotional disclosure. This suggeststhat experiencing a need for disclosure may not translateinto actual disclosure and high disclosure (full/almost full)is not typical for a large proportion of Indian adults. Thispattern also implies that other variables (.e.g. supportivecontext) may operate to determine the extent to which needfor disclosure may result in actual disclosure.

On the basic data sheet- item enquiring perceivedhelpfulness of emotional disclosure in general, majority ofthe participants (90%) reported that they perceived sharingnegative emotions to be generally helpful, while 10% of theparticipants did not perceive it to be helpful. The reasonsfor perceived helpfulness or non-helpfulness were alsoelicited as described earlier. The reason that was endorsedby the participants with maximum frequency (30%) was‘feeling a sense of relief after sharing’. This was followedby the reason that ‘sharing is helpful because one feelsunderstood’ (21%), ‘one gets ideas on problem-solving’(18%), ‘gets ideas on handling feelings’ (16%), and ‘onefeels connected/close to the significant other’(11%). Aminority of participants (4%) added their own reasons, likecommunication of distress to make the other person aware,seeking justification/validation for what one is feeling. Theten percent of participants (n=21) who reported that theyperceived emotional disclosure to be generally ‘not helpful’were asked to indicate reasons for the same. ‘Not being ableto talk freely’ (17%), ‘being criticized’ (17%) and ‘signif-icant other not listening completely’ (17%). were mostoften cited as reasons for non-usefulness of emotional

Table 2 Descriptive statistics on all the measures

Variables/Scale Min–Max possible Min–Max obtained Mean Median S.D. KS-Za Cronbach’s Alpha(present study)

Need for emotional disclosure 0–4 0–4 2.70 03 1.02 2.81b –

Emotional disclosure 0–12 0–12 6.96 07 3.35 1.54c 0.88

Intrapersonal variables

Controlled regulation 15–75 15–74 34.2 32 13.0 1.27 0.91

Autonomous regulation 7–35 7–34 22.3 23 5.96 1.23 0.80

Emotional control 21–84 25–84 48.3 48 10.78 0.82 0.92

Emotional clarity 11–55 19–55 42.1 43 8.56 1.13 0.91

Affect intensity 6–36 6–36 20.1 19 5.94 1.47c 0.84

Trait rumination 12–60 19–60 39.3 40 8.98 0.96 0.86

Interpersonal variables

Social support 14–70 29–70 53.8 55 10.10 1.04 0.93

Social constraints 14–56 14–49 28.7 29 8.20 1.25 0.89

Outcome variable

Subjective well-being (SWB) 0–25 3–25 17.50 19 4.64 2.68b 0.92

a Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for testing departure from normalityb Significant at 0.001 levelc Significant at 0.05 level

Psychol Stud

disclosure. Not getting advice on how to handle feelings(15%) and that by sharing, one does not get help onproblem-solving (12%), were also applicable in this sub-sample. Apart from these reasons provided in the checklist,a few participants spontaneously mentioned additionalreasons (22%) such as ‘not being able to trust others’,‘not feeling the need to share’ or ‘feeling more confused bysharing’. On the whole, the perceptions of helpfulness ofemotional disclosure in to day-to-day life appear to belinked to multiple reasons though sense of relief andvalidation emerged as the most prominent reasons. Otherreasons reported in this sample were related to assistance inproblem solving or emotional regulation. Perceived non-helpfulness of disclosure was most commonly reported tobe due to social constraints. Other reasons included lack ofassistance in problem solving or emotional regulation,difficulties in trusting and low need for disclosure.

Relationship of Need for Disclosure and Extentof Disclosure with Other Variables

Socio-Demographic Variables

Men and women were found to be significantly different onneed for emotional disclosure, with women reporting ahigher need to share their negative emotions. Homemakersreported a significantly higher need for emotional disclo-sure in comparison to the employed participants. But asupplementary analysis indicated that this was attributableto gender, rather than occupational status, the homemakers-group consisting of only women. In this supplementaryanalysis, there was no difference between employed womenand homemaker on need for disclosure (Mann Whitney U =574.00, NS). Gender differences on extent of disclosuremirrored the finding on need for disclosure, with womenreporting higher disclosure than men. These results are inline with available literature (e.g. Goldshmidt and Weller2000; Hess et al. 2000) and may be at least partlyattributable to gender role socialization. Need for emotionaldisclosure and typical extent of emotional disclosure werenot found to be significantly different in sub-groups ofparticipants varying on age, educational qualification,religion and marital status. (Table 3) Although some studieshave reported differences between older and youngerparticipants on use of emotional regulation strategies andsocial support utilization in general; these reports refer toadults above 60 years of age (e.g. Phillips et al. 2006).

Intrapersonal and Interpersonal Variables

Need for emotional disclosure and extent of emotionaldisclosure had low to moderate correlations with theintrapersonal variables (Table 4). Participants who reported

habitually suppressing their negative emotions, had lowerneed for disclosure as well as low disclosure withsignificant others. Despite the overlap between emotionaldisclosure and emotional control, it is noteworthy that theemotional control measure assessed the frequency withwhich a person habitually suppressed one’s negativeemotions across contexts whereas the emotional disclosuremeasure directly assessed typical extent of disclosure with a‘significant other’. Barr et al. (2008) reported in their studythat emotional constraints and emotional expression weretwo empirically distinct higher order factors despite theirmoderate positive correlation. It would also be relevant hereto examine the reasons for not expressing one’s negativefeelings. Controlled regulation refers to holding beliefs thatinhibit expression due to feared negative interpersonalconsequences of sharing. Autonomous regulation refers tothe strength of well internalized motives and beliefs fornon-expression that is perceived as a matter of choice.Controlled regulation was uncorrelated to need for emo-tional disclosure but was significantly negatively associatedwith emotional disclosure. This suggests that individuals,who hold beliefs reflecting negative interpersonal repercus-sions of disclosure, may be a heterogeneous group in termsof their actual need for disclosure. Some of the participantswith high controlled regulation could be experiencing andreporting high unmet need for disclosure whereas someothers in this group might be able to downplay or deny theexistence of such a need. But irrespective of need,withholding one’s emotions due to controlled reasons tendsto be associated with lower frequency of actual disclosure.In contrast to controlled regulation, autonomous regulationwas negatively correlated with low need for emotionaldisclosure as well as low actual disclosure. These findingsimply that when one experiences a sense of autonomy withreference to reasons for not sharing, one also experiences areduced need to share and lower disclosure levels are inconsonance with lower experience of need.

Higher affect intensity was associated with higher needfor emotional disclosure but it was uncorrelated with actualdisclosure. Thus experience of high need for disclosure didnot translate into high disclosure for those who typicallyexperienced strong intensity of emotions. Lynch et al.(2001) reported that higher affect intensity was linked tohigher suppression of feelings. This could be due to theperceived negativity from others if an individual were toexpress his/her intense negative feelings. To what extent thenature of relationship between affect intensity and emo-tional disclosure may be moderated by other variablesneeds to be examined in further research. Emotional claritywas found to be significantly negatively correlated withneed for emotional disclosure, but had a modest positivecorrelation with typical extent of emotional disclosure. Thispattern can be understood in the light of the existing

Psychol Stud

literature which suggests that individuals high in emotionalclarity employ more negative emotional regulation strate-gies, especially active strategies (Barrett et al. 2001; Gohmand Clore 2002) Their lower need to disclose their negativeemotions, could be related to their perceived ability tomanage their emotions by themselves. Though trait rumi-nation was not consistently linked to higher/lower levels ofneed for disclosure as evident in absence of a significantcorrelation, it was associated with lower actual extent ofdisclosure. Trait rumination has been found to be signifi-cantly associated with neuroticism dimension of personalityand individuals high on neuroticism show ambivalence intheir ability to deal with emotions. (Luminet et al. 2000).

The patterns of correlations observed indicate that theavailability of perceived support tends to go hand in handwith increased experience of need for disclosure andincreased disclosure; however perceptions of social con-straints may not dampen the need for disclosure despitebeing associated with decreased disclosure. (Table 4) Theassociation of interpersonal variables was stronger with

extent of emotional disclosure than with need for emotionaldisclosure. The degree of correlation between socialsupport and constraints (r=0.31) indicate that these twoare not completely overlapping constructs and measurementof one does not make the measurement of the otherredundant. Several responses to the item on perceivednon-helpfulness of disclosure reflect the presence of socialconstraints such as not being listened to completely,receiving a critical/trivializing response etc. Social con-straints as a variable has been relatively ignored in studieson emotional disclosure in day-to-day living, but thepatterns observed on interpersonal variables largely mirrorthose in other studies (e.g. Figueiredo et al. 2004, Schmidtand Andrykowski 2004). The reports of social constraintswere elicited in the context of a significant other withwhom the respondents generally wished to disclose prob-lems and associated emotions. The pattern of utilization ofother supportive relationships for emotional disclosure inthe presence of constraints, and its potential bufferingimpact forms an important area for further enquiry.

Table 3 Examining need for emotional disclosure and extent of emotional disclosure in subgroups of participants varying on socio-demographiccharacteristics (N=209)

Socio-demographiccharacteristics

Number Need for Emotionaldisclosure Mean (S.D.)

Mann–Whitney (U) Extent of Emotionaldisclosure Mean (S.D.)

Mann–Whitney (U)

Gender

Male 101 2.42 (0.93) 3752.00a 6.40 (3.03) 4316.50a

Female 108 2.96 (1.04) 7.47 (3.57)

Marital status

Single 73 2.58 (1.06) 4011.00 6.79 (3.45) 4801.50

Married 136 2.76 (0.99) 7.04 (3.32)

Religion

Hindu 155 2.68 (1.03) 4005.00 6.88 (3.43) 3910.50

Others 54 2.76 (1.00) 7.18 (3.16)

Number Mean (S.D.) Kruskal-Wallis (χ2) Mean (S.D.) Kruskal-Wallis (χ2)

Age (in years)

21–30 60 2.65 (1.07) 1.02 6.90 (3.51) 1.93

31–40 52 2.82 (0.96) 7.46 (3.50)

41–50 47 2.61 (1.09) 6.68 (3.25)

51–60 50 2.72 (0.97) 6.76 (3.14)

Education

Standard XII 17 2.47 (1.37) 0.56 6.41 (4.15) 1.40

Graduation 109 2.70 (1.03) 6.75 (3.46)

Post-graduation 83 2.74 (0.93) 7.34 (3.03)

Occupation

1. Students 53 2.62 (1.07) 6.18b (2 & 3) significantlydifferent groups in posthoc analysis

7.07 (3.50) 0.53

2. Employed 125 2.63 (1.00) 6.91 (3.17)

3. Homemaker/notemployed

31 3.12 (0.92) 6.93 (3.89)

a Significant at 0.01 levelb Significant at 0.05 level

Psychol Stud

Hierarchical Regression Analysis: Joint Predictorsof Subjective Well-Being

A hierarchical regression analysis was carried out todetermine the predictors of subjective well-being. Thepredictor variables were entered in predetermined steps(Table 5). The variables were selected based on thesignificant relationships with psychological outcomesobtained in bi-variate analyses, in order to keep the ratiobetween sample size and number of variables as optimum.Standardization was done for all the predictor variables toreduce multi-collinearity (Cohen et al. 2003). Categoricalvariables were dummy-coded. Socio-demographic variableswere entered in the first step, so as to control for theireffect. This was followed by intrapersonal variables asthese are intrinsic to individuals, irrespective of contextualfactors. Need for emotional disclosure was entered in thethird step to determine whether it predicted psychologicaloutcomes after controlling for the intrapersonal variables. Inthe fourth step, interpersonal variables were added. Emo-tional disclosure was entered in the fifth step to determinewhether it predicted psychological outcomes over and aboveall the other study variables. In the final step, potentialmoderators of the relationship between emotional disclosureand psychological outcomes were entered. This was toexplore if the impact of emotional disclosure on wellbeing

would vary depending on gender, levels of perceivedsupport, social constraints, typical intensity of negativeaffect, trait rumination and the need for disclosure itself.

In the hierarchical regression analysis, the total variancein subjective wellbeing predicted by all the variables was44%. The first step involved introducing the socio-demographic variables (age, marital status, occupationalcategories, and gender) that contributed to predicting 08%of the total variance in subjective well-being. In the secondstep, adding intrapersonal variables, contributed to predict-ing additional 23% of the total variance. Entering need foremotional disclosure in the third step did not addsignificantly to the prediction of variance in subjectivewell-being. Interpersonal variables, i.e. social constraint andperceived social support were entered in the fourth step,and these significantly contributed to predicting 05% of thetotal variance. Finally in the fifth step, emotional disclosurewas added to the equation and it predicted an additional03% of the total variance, over and above all the otherstudy variables. Adding the moderator variables in the laststep also contributed to significantly predicting an addi-tional variance of 05% in subjective well-being. Need foremotional disclosure, social constraints and trait ruminationemerged as moderators of the relation between emotionaldisclosure and subjective well-being in the last step.Perceived social support showed a trend as a moderator of

Need for emotional disclosure Extent of emotional disclosure

Affect intensity 0.25a 0.05

Clarity −0.15b 0.14b

Emotional control −0.39a −0.65a

Controlled regulation −0.10 −0.29a

Autonomous regulation −0.22a −0.31a

Trait rumination 0.08 −0.15b

Perceived social support 0.16b 0.36a

Social constraints −0.07 −0.32b

Table 4 Intrapersonal & inter-personal correlates of need foremotional disclosure & typicalextent of emotional disclosure

Spearman rank order correla-tions were used (two-tailedtests)a Significant at 0.01 levelb Significant at 0.05 level

Table 5 Hierarchical regression: predictors and moderators of subjective well-being

Steps Predictors entered/added R R square R squarechange

AdjustedR square

F change SignificantF change

Step 1 Age, marital status, gender, occupational status 0.33 0.11 0.11 0.08 4.83 0.000

Step 2 Emotional control, controlled regulation, affectintensity, emotional clarity, trait rumination

0.59 0.35 0.24 0.31 14.44 0.000

Step 3 Need for emotional disclosure 0.59 0.35 0.00 0.31 0.32 0.575

Step 4 Perceived social support, social constraints 0.63 0.40 0.05 0.36 8.85 0.000

Step 5 Emotional disclosure 0.65 0.43 0.03 0.39 8.52 0.004

Step 6 ED × Need for emotional disclosure; ED × Socialconstraints; ED × Perceived social support; ED ×Gender; ED × Trait rumination; ED × Affect intensity

0.70 0.49 0.07 0.44 4.05 0.001

R square=0.49; F=9.01; p=0.000; Adjusted R square=0.44

Psychol Stud

the relation between emotional disclosure and subjectivewell-being. However, further post hoc probing for signifi-cance of moderation effects was carried out using the stepsrecommended by Aiken and West 1991. This revealed thatonly trait rumination remained as a significant moderator,with emotional disclosure predicting higher well beingamong those scoring higher on trait rumination.

Final model: Examination of beta coefficients in the finalmodel, (after entering all the above mentioned variables andmoderators) indicated that among the socio-demographicvariable, the ‘student-status’ predicted lower wellbeingcompared to ‘employed’ or ‘homemaker’ status. Thispattern could be linked to the demands related to thedevelopment phase in the student participants who were atthe threshold of completing their college-education andwere equipping themselves to work towards their aspiredand yet uncertain career tracks. In the final model, loweraffect intensity, higher emotional clarity, lower trait rumi-nation higher perceived social support and higher emotionaldisclosure significantly predicted higher subjective well-being. Flett et al. (1996), in their study, had reported thathigher affect intensity was strongly associated with greateruse of emotion-oriented coping and lower negative moodregulation expectancy, both of which mediated the linkbetween affect intensity and depressive symptoms. In thepresent study, high affect intensity co-occurred with highfelt need for disclosure but was uncorrelated with actualdisclosure. The observed pattern in the background of theavailable literature raises the hypothesis that low well beingin high affect intensity participants may be attributablepartly to perceived barriers in disclosure coupled with lowefficacy in negative mood regulation. Participants higher onemotional clarity, found it easier to achieve desiredcognitive states indicative of high wellbeing. And this isin line with the findings in other studies (e.g. Gohm andClore 2002). Thomsen (2006) in a review on ruminationreported that most of the studies had found a positiveassociation between rumination and distress/negative affectand in the present study lower trait rumination predictedhigher well being. Higher trait rumination generally wenthand in hand with lower disclosure and yet, ironically,being higher on emotional disclosure emerged as potential-ly useful for wellbeing in individuals high on traitrumination. This moderation effect observed in the com-munity sample is noteworthy as the previous literature hasdocumented the relation between trait rumination andemotional disclosure mostly in the context of majorstressors. Nolen-Hoeksema and Davis (1999), in their studyon participants facing the loss of a significant other, foundthat ruminators were more distressed in the absence ofsupport than non-ruminators. Ruminators have also beenshown to be high on cognitive inflexibility, finding itdifficult to shift/change patterns of thinking and have been

found to benefit with external help (Davis and Nolen-Hoeksema 2000).In the current study, high ruminatorscould be benefiting more from emotional disclosurebecause sharing might provide an avenue to break therepetitive chain of thoughts as well as a more coherentstructure to the thought patterns. More research is needed tounravel the complex relationships between trait rumination,need for disclosure and extent of disclosure in view of thepossibility that that participants high on trait ruminationmay not find emotional disclosure to be of value to themdue to the feared/actual negative responses from significantothers(e.g. Nolen-Hoeksema and Davis 1999). In thepresent study too, in a supplementary analysis, traitrumination had a moderate positive correlation with socialconstraints(r=0.43) which might explain their typically lowdisclosure. Whether such negative expectancies in socialsituation could partly be a function of their style and qualityof disclosure needs further exploration. This in turn wouldimply that merely facilitating the extent of disclosure mightnot be beneficial for high trait ruminators, unless themanner and quality of disclosure is also taken into account.Higher perceived social support added significantly to thevariance in wellbeing predicted by socio-demographic andintrapersonal variables. In the bi-variate analysis, emotionalcontrol (compared to emotional disclosure) had a smallpositive correlation with subjective well being; and it wasemotional disclosure rather than control that emerged as asignificant predictor in the regression analysis, over andabove other variables.

Further Observations

On the whole, the study variables predicted 44% ofvariance in subjective wellbeing Emotional disclosurepredicted a small proportion of variance in the well beingover and above all the other study variables. The smallcontribution of emotional disclosure observed in the presentstudy deserves a closer scrutiny. Most of the studies onemotional disclosure, as mentioned earlier are on partic-ipants suffering from major illnesses or those havingexperienced a significant trauma. Moreover several of thesehave used quasi-experimental designs. Naturalistic studieson disclosure of negative emotions in community partic-ipants have not consistently demonstrated psychologicalbenefits, even though participants tend to report perceivedbenefits (Zech and Rime 2005; Rime et al. 1998). In thepresent study too, it was interesting to contrast theobservation that an overwhelming majority of participantsreported emotional disclosure to be useful, with the findingof relatively smaller contribution of emotional disclosure towell being scores. Sense of emotional relief and feelingunderstood were most often cited as reasons for globalperception of its utility. It appears that the immediate sense

Psychol Stud

of relief and validation accompanying disclosure may bepowerful reasons that lead individuals to report thatdisclosure is useful. However this may not necessarilytranslate into correspondingly higher levels of overallsubjective well being. Also, it is speculated that thequality of disclosure would be an important determinantof its impact whereas the present paper is restricted toexamining an index of the typical extent to emotionaldisclosure. Social sharing of emotions in daily living mayalso be linked to other beneficial outcomes (Rime et al.1998) such as interpersonal bonding, social integrationand health which were not the focus of attention in thepresent study.

Frattaroli (2006), in his meta-analytic review observedthat studies on emotional disclosure and its beneficialoutcomes carried out on participants having illness/trauma had higher effect sizes than those involvingnormal participants, the latter already scoring somewhatlower on distress. The current study not just drewparticipants from general community, but also includeddata only from those participants who were not experi-encing any major stressor. This strategy was in keepingwith the study objective and may partly explain themodest association of emotional disclosure with subjec-tive wellbeing. Although cross cultural studies on socialsharing of emotions point to its wide prevalence, it hasalso been observed that in Asian cultures, more numberof emotion episodes may go unshared, there may be lessrepetitive sharing and longer delays between the eventand initiation of sharing (Rime et al. 1998).The extent towhich these dimensions of sharing may impact on affectand well being in the Indian culture requires in-depthexploration perhaps using an experience samplingmethodology.

Limitations and Strengths of the Study

A few limitations of the study include the use of a crosssectional, design, lack of representation of the elderlygroup, relatively poorer representation of individuals belowgraduation level and insufficient sample-size needed fordetailed analysis of moderation effects through structuralequation modeling.

The limitations notwithstanding, the study is an impor-tant addition to the field in more ways than one. It is one ofthe few studies on emotional disclosure that sampledparticipants representing a broad age range of 21-to 60 yearsfrom the community. Knowledge about the impact ofemotional disclosure on psychological outcomes is wellestablished in the context of major life stressors but theimpact of emotional disclosure while negotiating day-to-day stressors is less understood. The present studydemonstrates the role of typical extent of emotional

disclosure along with other related intrapersonal andinterpersonal variables on subjective wellbeing in day-to-day-life, using a rigorous analytical strategy. Participantswho could be possibly facing moderate levels of chronicstressors and daily stressors were not excluded to maximizethe chance that the sample is a close approximation of thelarger population wherein moderate levels of chronicstressors and daily hassles are common. It selectivelyexamined those intrapersonal and interpersonal correlatesof emotional disclosure that have hitherto been less-researched. Need for emotional disclosure is a variablethat is often conspicuous by its absence in research studiesand the role of social constraints has also been relativelyignored in the emotional disclosure research in communitysamples. The study attempted to address this gap whilealso examining the role of selected moderators indisclosure–wellbeing relationship. The findings raiseimportant hypotheses for further research besides provid-ing pointers for developing and testing preventive andpromotive intervention modules that could incorporate afocus on intrapersonal and interpersonal processes relatedto emotional disclosure.

References

Affleck, G., Zautra, A., Tennen, H., & Armeli, S. (1999). Multileveldaily process designs for consulting and clinical psychology: apreface for the perplexed. Journal of Consulting and ClinicalPsychology, 67(5), 746–754.

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing andinterpreting interactions. Newbury Park: Sage.

Barr, L. H., Kahn, J. H., & Schneider, W. J. (2008). Individualdifferences in emotional expression: hierarchical structure andrelation with psychological distress. Journal of Social andClinical Psychology, 27(10), 1045–1077.

Barrett, L. F., Gross, J., Conner, T., & Benvenuto, M. (2001).Emotion differentiation and regulation. Cognition and Emotion,15, 713–724.

Bech, P. (1998). Quality of life in the psychiatric patient. London:Mosby, Wolfe.

Bhati, H., & Gunthey, R. (1999). Working women: family environ-ment and mental health. Indian Journal of Clinical Psychology,26(2), 246–249.

Bryant, F. B., Yarnold, P. R., & Grimm, L. G. (1996). Towards ameasurement model of the affect intensity measure: a three factorresearch. Journal of Research in Personality, 30(2), 223–247.

Cohen, J., Cohen, P. C., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Appliedmultiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioralsciences (3rd ed.). New Jersey: Erlbaum.

Davis, R. N., & Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (2000). Cognitive inflexibilityamong ruminators and non-ruminators. Cognitive Therapy andresearch, 24(6), 699–711.

Dickinson PE (2005) Written emotional expression in spousal care-givers of cancer patients. Unpublished PhD thesis, CaliforniaSchool of Professional Psychology, California

Esterling, B. A., Antoni, M. H., Fletcher, M. A., Margulies, S., &Schneiderman, N. (1994). Emotional disclosure through writing

Psychol Stud

or speaking modulates latent Epstein-Barr virus antibody titers.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62(1), 130–140.

Figueiredo, M. I., Fries, E., & Ingram, K. M. (2004). The role ofdisclosure patterns and unsupportive social interactions in thewell being of breast cancer patients. Psycho-Oncology, 13(2),96–105.

Flett, G. L., Blankstein, K. R., & Obertynski, M. (1996). Affectintensity, coping styles, mood regulation expectancies anddepressive symptoms. Personality and Individual Differences,20(2), 221–228.

Frattaroli, J. (2006). Experimental disclosure and its moderators: ameta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 132(6), 832–865.

Gohm, C. L., & Clore, G. L. (2002). Four latent traits of emotionalexperience and their involvement in well being, coping andattributional style. Cognition and Emotion, 16(4), 495–518.

Goldshmidt, O. L., & Weller, L. (2000). “Talking emotions”: genderdifferences in a variety of conversational contexts. SymbolicInteractions, 23(2), 117–134.

Hess, U., Senecal, S., Kirouac, G., Herrera, P., Philipot, P., & Kleck, R.E. (2000). Emotional expressivity in men and women: stereotypesand self perceptions. Cognitions and Emotion, 14(5), 609–642.

Kelley, J. E., Lumley, M. A., & Leisen, J. C. (1997). Health effects ofemotional disclosure in rheumatoid–arthritis patients. HealthPsychology, 16(4), 331–340.

Kennedy-Moore, E., & Watson, J. C. (1999). Expressing emotion:Myths, realities and therapeutic strategies. New York: GuilfordPress.

Kim, Y., Deci, E. L., & Zuckerman, M. (2002). The development of theself regulation of withholding negative emotions questionnaire.Educational and Psychological Measurement, 62(2), 316–336.

Lepore, S. J., & Ituarte, P. H. G. (1999). Optimism about cancerenhances mood by reducing negative social interactions. CancerResearch, Therapy and Control, 8, 165–174.

Lieberman, M. A., & Goldstein, B. A. (2006). Not all negativeemotions are equal: the role of emotional expression in an onlinesupport group for women with breast cancer. Psycho-Oncology,15(2), 160–168.

Luminet, O., Zech, E., Rime, B., & Wagner, H. (2000). Predictingcognitive and social consequences of emotional episodes: thecontribution of emotional intensity, the five factor model andalexithymia. Journal of Research in Personality, 34(4), 471–497.

Lutgendorf, S. K., & Antoni, M. H. (1999). Emotional and cognitiveprocessing in a trauma-disclosure paradigm. Cognitive therapyand Research, 23(4), 423–440.

Lynch, T. R., Robins, C. J., Morse, J. Q., & MorKrause, E. D.(2001). A mediational model relating affect intensity, emotionalinhibition and psychological distress. Behavior Therapy, 32(3),519–536.

Lyubomirsky, S., Sousa, L., & Dickerhoof, R. (2006). The costs andbenefits of writing, talking and thinking about life’s triumphs anddefeats. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(4),692–708.

Mendolia, M., & Kleck, R. E. (1993). Effects of talking about astressful event on arousal: does what we talk about make adifference? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(2),283–292.

Nolen-Hoeksema, S., & Davis, C. G. (1999). “Thanks for sharingthat”: ruminators and their social support networks. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 77(4), 801–814.

Norman, S. A., Lumley, M. A., Dooley, J. A., & Diamond, M. P.(2004). For whom does it work? Moderators of the effects ofwritten emotional disclosure in a randomized trial amongwomen with chronic pelvic pain. Psychosomatic Medicine, 66(2), 174–183.

Paez, D., Velasco, C., & Gonzalez, J. L. (1999). Expressive writingand the role of alexithymia as a dispositional-deficit in self

disclosure and psychological health. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 77(3), 630–641.

Pantchenko, T., Lawson, M., & Joyce, M. R. (2003). Verbal and non-verbal disclosure of recalled negative experiences: relation towell being. Psychology and Psychotherapy: Theory Researchand Practice, 76(3), 251–265.

Pennebaker, J. W. (1995). Emotion, disclosure and health. WashingtonDC: American Psychological Association.

Pennebaker, J. W., & Susman, J. R. (1988). Disclosure of traumas andpsychosomatic processes. Social Science and Medicine, 26(3),327–332.

Pennebaker, J. W., Keicolt-Glaser, J. K., & Glaser, R. (1988).Disclosure of traumas and immune function: health implicationsfor psychotherapy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychol-ogy, 56(2), 239–245.

Phillips, L. H., Henry, J. D., Hoise, J. A., & Milne, A. B. (2006). Age,anger regulation and well being. Aging and Mental Health, 10(3),250–256.

Pillay, U., & Rao, K. (2002). The structure and function of socialsupport in relation to help-seeking behavior. Family Therapy, 29(3), 153–167.

Prathima, S. (2005). Care-giving process in cancer: a strengthperspective. In A. Shah & K. Rao (Eds.), Psychological researchin mental health and neurosciences (1957–2007) (pp. 54–55).Bangalore: NIMHANS.

Rao, K., Subbakrishna, D. K., & Prabhu, G. G. (1989). Developmentof a coping checklist—a preliminary-report. Indian Journal ofPsychiatry, 31(2), 128–133.

Raval, V. V., Martini, T. S., & Raval, P. H. (2007). “Would othersthink it is ok to express my feelings?’ Regulation of anger,sadness and physical pain in Gujarati children in India. SocialDevelopment, 16(1), 79–105.

Rime, B., Finkenauer, C., Luminet, O., Zech, E., & Phillipot, P.(1998). Social sharing of emotion: new evidence and newquestions. European Review of Social Psychology, 9, 145–189.

Salovey, P., Mayer, J., Goldman, S. L., Turvey, C., & Palfai, T. P.(1995). Emotional attention, clarity and repair. Exploringemotional intelligence using the trait meta mood scale. In J. W.Pennebaker (Ed.), Emotion, disclosure, & health (pp. 125–154).Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.

Schmidt, J. E., & Andrykowski, M. A. (2004). The role of social anddispositional variables associated with emotional processing inadjustment to breast cancer: an internet based study. HealthPsychology, 23(3), 259–266.

Snell, W. E., Miller, R. S., & Belk, S. S. (1988). Development ofemotional self disclosure scale. Sex Roles, 18(1), 59–73.

Thomsen, D. K. (2006). The association between rumination and negativeaffect: a review. Cognition and Emotion, 20(8), 1216–1235.

Trapnell, P. D., & Campbell, J. D. (1999). Private self consciousnessand the five factor model of personality: distinguishing ruminationfrom reflection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(2), 284–304.

Watson, M., & Greer, S. (1983). Development of a questionnairemeasure of emotional control. Journal of Psychosomatic Medi-cine, 27, 299–305.

Zakowski, S. G., Valdimarsdottir, H. B., & Bovbjerg, D. H. (2001).Emotional expressivity and intrusive cognitions in women withfamily histories of breast cancer: application of a cognitiveprocessing model. British Journal of Health Psychology, 6(2),151–165.

Zech, E. (2000). The effects of the communication of emotionalexperiences. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University ofLouvain, Louvain-la-Neuve,Belgium.

Zech, E., & Rime, B. (2005). Is talking about an emotional experiencehelpful? Effects of emotional recovery and perceived benefits.Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, 12(4), 270–287.

Psychol Stud