For decades, psychology has identified a litany of strategies for coping with emotions and divided them into a ‘good’ list and a ‘bad’ list. The strategy of reappraising a situation – like when someone thinks: Maybe this setback is actually a chance for me to grow – is generally considered beneficial, for example. Suppressing your feelings is typically seen as harmful. This dichotomous view of coping strategies has made its way to TikTok videos, self-help books, and even therapy sessions.
But this supposed ground truth doesn’t always hold up. Research has increasingly shown that the same strategy can help in one situation and hurt in another. In a situation where you have some control, such as when you’re trying to get work in before a major deadline, trying to think differently about the situation to feel better might be less effective than throwing yourself into the work. It could even hinder your ability to get things done. But if you have almost no control over your situation, such as when you’re stuck in heavy traffic, changing your thinking is likely to be more helpful.
Psychologists have long known the importance of context, from one’s immediate situation to the culture in which one experiences the social world. But until recently, this idea was more theoretical than practical. Psychologists often seem satisfied with saying that context matters, without showing how or why. Even when researchers explore cultural differences in the experience of emotion, they often stop at comparing the West and the East, or dividing cultures based on ‘individualism’ and ‘collectivism’, another simple dichotomy.
My colleagues and I wanted to know whether the coping strategies that are often described as ‘helpful’ or ‘harmful’ work the same way everywhere, or if their usefulness depends on cultural context. Most of what researchers know about emotion regulation – about the ways people try to influence how they feel and express emotions – comes from just a subset of societies. These societies tend to be Western, industrialised, educated, rich, and democratic (or WEIRD, for short). Broadening the scope can help clarify which strategies are most effective for these as well as other groups of people – and, in turn, help people manage their emotions in ways that fit their cultural context.
With these aims in mind, our team synthesised relevant research findings from 37 different countries and regions, based on data from more than 150,000 participants. This allowed us to examine how reappraisal and suppression, two widely studied coping strategies, relate to mental health outcomes around the world.
To define these strategies more fully, cognitive reappraisal refers to changing how you think about a situation in order to change its emotional impact, such as by reframing a failure as a learning opportunity. The other, expressive suppression, means inhibiting expressions of emotion, such as by hiding your frustration at work or concealing feelings of schadenfreude at someone’s misfortune. Again, in the Western world, reappraisal has long been considered adaptive for mental health, and suppression maladaptive. But across our global dataset, that didn’t always seem to be the case.
Rather than just compare East and West, or individualistic and collectivistic cultures, we used a more comprehensive model developed by the Dutch social psychologist Geert Hofstede. Hofstede’s model of national cultures quantifies them on multiple dimensions, based on the average ratings of people in each culture. Some of these dimensions are:
- Uncertainty avoidance. In Japan, which scores high on uncertainty avoidance, people often prefer detailed rules and structured routines. Workplaces may emphasise formal procedures so that unexpected surprises are minimised.
- Short-term versus long-term orientation. In China, a long-term oriented culture, people tend to emphasise saving money and investing in education for the future.
- Competition versus empathy. South Korea, often seen as relatively competition-driven, places a high value on achievement in school and work, with students striving for top test scores and university placements.
- Indulgence versus restraint. In more restrained cultures like Russia, people commonly place stronger emphasis on duty, discipline and self-control, even if that means forgoing personal enjoyment.
Several patterns emerged in the global data we analysed. One is that, in cultures where there is greater tolerance of uncertainty, such as in the United States and China, cognitive reappraisal showed more evidence of being helpful. In these cultures, people’s self-reported tendency to use reappraisal in daily life was more strongly associated with good mental health, both in terms of lower adverse symptoms (eg, depression and anxiety) and more positive functioning (eg, wellbeing, life satisfaction).
Eastern cultures such as China and Japan differ meaningfully in uncertainty avoidance
We can’t say for sure why reappraisal might be more helpful in such cultures, though we can speculate about possible reasons. Consider a frustrating scenario: a delayed train on the way to an important work meeting. In a culture where certainty is deeply valued, a common response might be to focus on regaining control – such as by calling ahead, rearranging the schedule, or anxiously tracking the delay – so that there is less space for reframing the situation. Not regaining control in this situation may mean violating social expectation (eg, creating uncertainty for others). In a culture that is more at ease with uncertainty, however, someone might be more comfortable with reinterpreting the delay – seeing it as something that you cannot do much about, or as just one of many possible hiccups in the day – allowing reappraisal to buffer the stress.
While culture is often conceptualised as a divide between East and West, eastern cultures such as China and Japan differ meaningfully in uncertainty avoidance, a distinction that’s often overlooked. For someone raised in Japan, where certainty and structure are highly valued, reframing the failure (Maybe this setback will open another door) might feel less satisfying, because the cultural norm is to reduce uncertainty. In contrast, someone raised in China, where ambiguity is more accepted, may be more open to alternative interpretations (eg, This test doesn’t define me or I can learn something valuable from this mistake). There will, of course, be plenty of differences between individuals within a culture; we’re talking about how helpful reappraisal might be on average.
Reappraisal was also more related to reduced mental health symptoms in cultures with a shorter-term orientation – where people are more focused on immediate needs and outcomes. This may be because reappraisal helps them adapt when situations feel urgent or unpredictable, offering a way to quickly manage emotions without relying on long-term solutions. We found a similar result for more competition-driven cultures. In these settings, where failure or setbacks may feel particularly threatening, the ability to reinterpret challenges could be especially protective.
When we looked at emotional suppression (the strategy usually framed as ‘bad’), we found that it was more clearly associated with worse mental health in cultures that are higher on the indulgence dimension – those with a greater emphasis on gratification, enjoyment and emotional openness, relative to restraint. In cultures that value restraint more highly, suppression may be less harmful for people’s wellbeing. In these contexts, holding back emotion could align with social expectations and be viewed as a sign of maturity or respect for social harmony. In a restrained culture, because suppression fits with the surrounding cultural script, it might be less likely to produce the feelings of inauthenticity, isolation or interpersonal strain that could render it harmful in other contexts.
These patterns all point to a powerful insight: emotion regulation is not one-size-fits-all. It is an interaction between a person and their environment. Cultural norms, social expectations and lived experiences shape not only how people express their emotions, but also how they make sense of difficult situations, and whether certain approaches work for them.
It’s important to recognise that what feels helpful for one person – or what textbooks label as adaptive – may not work the same way for someone from a different cultural background or in a different situation. Encouraging reappraisal or discouraging suppression will not always be helpful. For some, being told to ‘look at it a different way’ might feel dismissive or disconnected from the realities of their social world. For others, suppression could reflect strength or cultural alignment, rather than avoidance or emotional withdrawal.
The same interventions can land differently depending on who you are and where you come from
With this in mind, it’s no surprise that even well-tested emotional interventions might not apply universally. One recent global study tested reappraisal-based training in 87 countries and regions, and found that, while it benefited most participants, its effectiveness varied significantly from place to place.
The science of emotion regulation is undergoing a shift from asking: Which strategy is best? to, instead, asking: When, for whom, and why does a strategy help or harm? When someone says: Don’t bottle it up or Look on the bright side, that guidance is likely being shaped by certain emotional norms and cultural assumptions. In clinical settings, this means that the same interventions can land differently depending on who you are and where you come from. A therapist might encourage someone to look for the silver lining, which can be useful if a person is open to different interpretations of events. But for someone raised in a culture that emphasises regaining control and solving problems directly, reappraisal might feel ineffective. Similarly, while many people feel relief when they can talk through their feelings, for some, openly expressing distress might feel inappropriate or even burdensome. Imagine nudging a friend or co-worker to ‘open up’ about their feelings: the helpfulness of this suggestion might depend, in part, on their cultural background.
In fact, research on grief has found that temporarily relying on behaviours that are considered maladaptive – such as spending time alone, without social interaction, to numb emotional pain – does not necessarily produce long-term harm. This phenomenon, which the clinical psychologist George Bonanno describes as ‘coping ugly’, suggests that, sometimes, what typically appears to be unhealthy may actually help someone get through the day. Such findings stress the importance of context – not only cultural, but also situational and temporal.
We live in a world of diverse emotional landscapes. The crosscultural data on emotion regulation bears this out, inviting us all to think more flexibly about which ways of coping are suitable for us, or for those we care about. There is more than one right way to feel, and more than one right way to deal with those feelings.
