Psychol Stud
DOI 10.1007/s12646-010-0034-1
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Emotional Disclosure in Day-to-Day Living and Subjective
Well 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 on
emotional disclosure and its relationship to health and well
being. However, emotional disclosure has been examined
largely in the context of illness or trauma. Beneficial
outcomes of emotional disclosure in day-to-day living have
not been consistently observed in non-experimental studies,
although a large proportion of individuals do report
perceived benefits. The present study aimed at exploring
the association of emotional disclosure with selected
intrapersonal and interpersonal variables and their role in
prediction of subjective well being in day-to-day living. The
sample comprised of 209 adults who did not report presence
of any major stressor in the recent past. In hierarchical
regression analysis, lower affect intensity, higher emotional
clarity, lower trait rumination, higher perceived support and
higher emotional disclosure predicted higher subjective well
being. In addition, trait rumination emerged as a significant
moderator of the relationship between emotional disclosure
and subjective well being.
Keywords Emotional disclosure . Need for emotional
disclosure . Subjective wellbeing . Affect intensity .
Trait-rumination . Emotional clarity . Perceived support
Emotional disclosure refers to the process of verbally
communicating about one’s emotional experiences to
another person (Pennebaker 1995; Zech 2000). Various
beneficial effects of written disclosure have been observed
such as better health in retrospective reports (e.g. Pennebaker
P. Saxena : S. Mehrotra (*)
Department of Mental Health & Social Psychology, NIMHANS,
Bangalore 560029, India
e-mail: drmehrotra_seema@yahoo.com
and Susman 1988) and better immune function immediately
after disclosure (Pennebaker et al. 1988).Verbal disclosure
has been examined in experimental and quasi-experimental
studies that have reported outcomes such as improve-
ments in mood (Lutgendorf and Antoni 1999; Mendolia
and Kleck 1993), enhanced immune system functioning
(Esterling et al. 1994), better role and physical functioning
(Kelley et al. 1997), and enhanced well-being (Pantchenko
et al. 2003; Lyubomirsky et al. 2006).
Trends in Emotional Disclosure Research
A scan of the available literature indicates that emotional
disclosure has been primarily explored in the context of
written-disclosure-based interventions. On the other hand,
research on verbal disclosure has been mainly in the form
of experimental/quasi-experimental studies that tend to be
restricted to college samples. There are only a few studies
that focus on social sharing of emotions in naturalistic
contexts, especially in non-college adult samples. Also,
several of these naturalistic studies have been carried out on
samples of participants experiencing major life events like
bereavement, diagnosis of cancer and HIV (e.g. Zakowski
et al. 2001; Lieberman and Goldstein 2006).
In recent times, emotional disclosure research has
witnessed a trend parallel to the shift in stress and coping
research (Affleck et al. 1999). This shift pertains to
examining mood, affect and coping in the context of day-
to-day living. In a review of eight studies conducted on
social sharing of everyday experiences, Rime et al. (1998)
observed that emotional experiences were shared in 88–
96% of the cases. These proportions were independent of
age, culture, gender and type of emotion. Since emotional
experiences are shared with such high frequencies, it is

expected that emotional expression would be leading to
beneficial outcomes. Surprisingly, this line of research
shows that although talking about emotional experiences
is generally reported to be helpful by people; contrasting or
inconsistent results are observed vis-à-vis actual benefits of
emotional disclosure in day-to-day life, across studies (Zech
2000; Rime et al. 1998; Zech and Rime 2005). This
necessitates a detailed examination of emotional disclosure
in 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 or
moderate the relationship between emotional disclosure and
health outcomes. A few variables that have been examined
as predictors or moderators of disclosure include alexithy-
mia, ambivalence over emotional expression, neuroticism,
and emotional processing (e.g. Dickinson 2005; Norman et
al. 2004; Paez et al. 1999). There are several other
intrapersonal and interpersonal variables in the broader
field of emotional regulation that have relevance for
emotional disclosure research. For example, the model of
emotional awareness, understanding and expression, pro-
posed by Kennedy-Moore and Watson (1999) points to the
potential role of variables such as typical intensity of affect
experienced, 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 their
association with emotional disclosure in day- to-day living.
Need for emotional disclosure has also been relatively
ignored as an individual difference variable. Published
Indian literature on emotional disclosure and its correlates
in day-to-day living is sparse. Raval et al. 2007 examined
beliefs about acceptability of expression of emotions and
actual expression in young Gujarati children from urban
and semi- urban schools. It was observed that children
learnt to control expression of their emotions such as
anger and sadness so as to avoid being reprimanded or
ridiculed. The authors surmised that Indian children learn
from young age to perceive and attach importance to
prevalent social norms regarding regulation of emotions.
A study by Bhati and Gunthey in 1999 examined family
environment and mental health of working women and
homemakers. The authors observed that working women
were higher on expressiveness and independence but
experienced poorer mental health. There is a need for a
systematic and comprehensive exploration of relevant
intrapersonal as well as interpersonal variables together
with emotional disclosure as predictors of subjective
wellbeing in day-to-day living.
Psychol Stud
In the above backdrop, the present study focused on the
following objectives: 1. Exploring the patterns of typical
need for emotional disclosure and extent of emotional
disclosure in day-to-day-living. 2. Examining the associa-
tion of need for disclosure and emotional disclosure with
selected intrapersonal and interpersonal variables. 3. Ex-
amining the role of emotional disclosure along with the
intra personal and interpersonal variables in prediction of
well being in day-to-day living.
Negative affect intensity, emotional clarity, motivations
underlying withholding expression of negative affect, emo-
tional control and trait rumination were examined as intraper-
sonal variables whereas perceived social support and social
constraints were the two interpersonal variables considered.
The study focused on disclosure of distressing emotions, as is
the case in the bulk of research emotional disclosure–health.
Method
Pilot Phase
Selection of variables The researchers had taken into
account the gaps in the available literature on disclosure
to decide on the variables for the study. But in addition, it
was deemed useful to explore community participants’
conception about important factors associated with emo-
tional disclosure in an urban Indian context. Hence in the
pilot phase, a focused group discussion was conducted with
twelve volunteer adults. In the focus group discussion, the
participants came up with their views about why they found
disclosure helpful, reasons for not being able to share,
factors that helped them to share and other modes of
handling negative emotions. The themes highlighted the
relevance of variables such as social constraints and various
beliefs and motives underlying non-disclosure.
Selection of measures The measures were selected using
the following criteria: brevity, cultural appropriateness of
items, documented use across varied samples and nations,
ease of comprehension as well as availability of Indian data
on their basic psychometric properties to the extent
possible. In addition, the pilot phase utilized a series of
steps including the focus group discussion (outlined above),
content validation by three experts and a cognitive
interviewing procedure to explore the appropriateness of
those measures for which Indian data on psychometric
properties were not available (emotional disclosure, rumi-
nation, social constraints and reasons for withholding
negative emotions). A few modifications in the wordings/
instructions were made based on the results of the above
steps (Table 1). Subsequently, the convergent validities of
these measures were re-established in the Indian context by
Psychol Stud

Table 1 Description of intrapersonal and interpersonal variables

I. Intrapersonal variables Operational definition Measure

1. Negative affect Intensity
2. Emotional Clarity
3. Self regulation of withholding
negative emotions
4. Emotional Control
5. Trait Rumination
II. Inter-personal variables
1. Social support
2. Social constraints
Typical intensity with which negative emotions
are experienced
Perceived ability to identify and describe
specific emotions one experiences
Motivations for withholding expression of
negative affect: Controlled regulation
(CR)—Not expressing due to external
reason (e.g. avoid censure/gain, approval)
Autonomous-regulation(AR):Non-expression
in consonance with personal values and choice
Chronic tendency to control/suppress
negative emotions
Self attentiveness with a style of repeated,
passive dwelling on perceived threats, losses
or injustice to self
Operational definition
Perceived availability of emotional,
informational and instrumental support
Perceptions that one must inhibit from disclosing
stressful thoughts and feelings to a significant
other due to certain behaviors of the significant
other, e.g. trivialization
Affect Intensity Measure—Negative intensity scale
Bryant et al. 1996
Six items with six-point response format
Emotional clarity scale of trait meta-mood measure
Salovey et al. 1995
11 items with five-point response format
Self regulation of withholding negative emotions
questionnaire
Kim et al. 2002
Present study response format changed from
seven-point to five-point and instructions simplified
based on pilot phase data. Six items labeled
integrated regulation had to be omitted due to
low internal consistency
No of items
Controlled regulation: 15
Autonomous regulation: 7
Courtald Emotional Control scale
Watson and Greer 1983
21 items with four-point response format
Rumination scale of the rumination–reflection
questionnaire
Trapnell and Campbell 1999
12 items with five-point response format
Measure
Social Support Questionnaire
Pillay and Rao 2002
One item dropped from original version: was
difficult to differentiate from another one as
observed in the pilot phase
Used: 11 items with five-point response format
Social constraints scale
Lepore and Ituarte 1999
14 items, four-point response format
Wordings modified to reflect constraints in the
context of day-to-day stressors rather than any
one particular stressor

examining their correlations with theoretically relevant
measures that have known psychometric properties in local
samples. Hindi versions of the measures were also
developed in this phase through standard translation and
back translation procedure. The details of the pilot phase
results are not discussed owing to space constraints and are
available from the authors.
was currently experiencing or had experienced in the recent
past (past 3 months) any major stressful life event.
Definition and examples of daily stressors/hassles, moder-
ate stressors and major stressors were provided to the
participants to help them differentiate the nature of stress
they might be experiencing. Data were included only from
those participants who did not report a major stressor either
currently or in the past 3 months.

Measures Emotional disclosure To assess the general frequency of

disclosure of negative emotions, the researchers used the
Basic datasheet In addition to the socio-demographics, the Emotional disclosure Scale, which was developed based on
data sheet included an item enquiring whether a participant the pattern of Snell’s Emotional Self-Disclosure Scale

(Snell et al. 1988). In the present study, participants were
enquired about the typical frequency of disclosure of
negative emotions to significant others. There were three
items, one each for sadness, anxiety and anger, each to be
answered on a five-point likert-type rating scale. Higher
total score indicates typically higher extent of emotional
disclosure. The internal consistency of the scale was 0.87.
Higher use of coping through support seeking is expected
to be associated with higher disclosure. In the pilot phase of
the study, scores on the emotional disclosure measure were
positively correlated(r=0.34) with social support subscale
of Coping Checklist (Rao et al. 1989) lending support to the
convergent validity of this measure. Typical intensity of
need for emotional disclosure was assessed using an item to
be rated on a five point likert type scale ranging from ‘quite
strongly’ to ‘not at all’. The researcher developed and
appended additional items to assess general aspects of
emotional disclosure. There were items enquiring whether
emotional disclosure was perceived to be generally helpful
or unhelpful. Those who perceived it to be generally helpful
answered another item on perceived reasons for helpfulness
of emotional disclosure. Similarly, those who perceived
disclosure to be generally unhelpful indicated reasons for
the same. For each of these items, there was a list of reasons
provided as a checklist and the participants could endorse
as many reasons as were applicable to them. They also had
the 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 larger
rating scale developed for a WHO project and has since
been used across the globe with varied samples. Initially
ten items were selected from a larger pool of 18 items
based on the criteria of homogeneity among samples.
Subsequently only the positively worded items were
retained. The five positively worded items tap positive
psychological well-being, involving relaxation, vitality and
general interests. The raw score is calculated by totaling
the responses across five items. The scores range from 0
to 25, zero representing ‘worst possible’ and 25 represent-
ing ‘best possible’ subjective well-being. The internal
consistency and convergent validity of this measure have
been demonstrated in other Indian studies (e.g. Prathima
2005).
Intrapersonal and Interpersonal Variables
The intrapersonal and interpersonal variables that
were examined, their capsule operational definition, the
measures used to assess the same along with their internal
Psychol Stud
consistency in the present sample are shown in Table 1 and
Table 2.
Sample
The study included males and females between 21 and
60 years of age with minimum 12 years of formal education
who could speak English or Hindi. To begin with, a pool of
229 participants gave consent and completed all the
measures. Twenty participants in this initial pool (9%)
reported facing a major stressor in the past 3 months as
operationalized in the study. Death or poor health of a
significant other were the most often cited major stressors
in this subgroup. The final sample (N=209) consisted of
only those who did not report major stressors. This criterion
was used at the level of analysis because the purpose of the
research was to determine the contribution of emotional
disclosure and other variables in the context of day-to-day
living rather than in the presence of major stressors. There
was a fairly equal distribution of participants in the age
groups of 21–30 years, 31–40 years, 41–50 years and 51–
60 years. Forty eight percent of the participants were men
and 52% were women. Majority (65%) were married. Fifty
two percent were graduates; 40% had qualifications above
graduate levels, while less than one-tenth of the participants
were educated up to standard 12. Majority of the sample
(60%) were professionals, a quarter were students; while
homemakers/not-employed formed 15% of the sample.
The data were collected after obtaining written informed
consent. The measures were administered in a single
session for each participant. The order of presentation of
measures was constant across participants. In 76% of the
cases, one to one administration was carried out whereas
for remaining student sub-sample, the measures were
administered 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 of
possible and obtained range of scores, means, medians,
standard deviations, information on normality of distribu-
tions and internal consistency reliabilities are presented in
Table 2. All the measures had high internal consistencies,
the values ranging between 0.80 and 0.92. Using KS-Z
statistic, a stringent measure of normality, it was observed
that the distributions of scores on emotional disclosure,
need for disclosure, affect intensity and subjective well
being were non-normal. The analyses were carried out
using appropriate non-parametric statistics. Hierarchical
regression analysis was carried out after checking for
normal distribution of errors.
Psychol Stud

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 normality
b
Significant at 0.001 level
c
Significant at 0.05 level

Patterns of Need for Emotional Disclosure and Extent
of Emotional Disclosure
More than half of the participants (56%) reported a high
need for emotional disclosure, by endorsing their general
need for emotional disclosure to be ‘quite strong’ or
‘strong’. A moderate need for disclosure was reported by
roughly one-third (32%) of the participants. Twelve percent
of the participants reported a low need for disclosure. As far
as the general extent of emotional disclosure is concerned;
nearly half of the participants (46%) reported sharing of
negative emotions ‘fully-almost fully’ with a significant
other. Roughly a quarter (26%) generally shared such
negative emotions to ‘some extent’. On the other hand, one
fifth of the participants (19%) reported generally sharing
negative emotions only to a ‘little extent’. Nine percent of the
participants reported that generally they did not share their
negative emotions at all. There was a moderate positive
correlation(r=0.43) between need for emotional disclosure
and typical extent of emotional disclosure. On the whole,
emotional disclosure in the naturalistic context seemed to
be a quite prevalent phenomenon and this is in line with the
review of studies on social sharing of everyday experiences
(Rime et al. 1998). However, the present study highlights
individual differences in need for emotional disclosure as
well as actual extent of emotional disclosure, with a
substantial minority reporting minimal disclosure. It is
observed that even though 56% of the participants reported
a strong need to disclose, yet only 46% were actually able
to disclose fully. This finding is further reflected in the
moderate positive correlation between need for emotional
and typical extent of emotional disclosure. This suggests
that experiencing a need for disclosure may not translate
into actual disclosure and high disclosure (full/almost full)
is not typical for a large proportion of Indian adults. This
pattern also implies that other variables (.e.g. supportive
context) may operate to determine the extent to which need
for disclosure may result in actual disclosure.
On the basic data sheet- item enquiring perceived
helpfulness of emotional disclosure in general, majority of
the participants (90%) reported that they perceived sharing
negative emotions to be generally helpful, while 10% of the
participants did not perceive it to be helpful. The reasons
for perceived helpfulness or non-helpfulness were also
elicited as described earlier. The reason that was endorsed
by the participants with maximum frequency (30%) was
‘feeling a sense of relief after sharing’. This was followed
by the reason that ‘sharing is helpful because one feels
understood’ (21%), ‘one gets ideas on problem-solving’
(18%), ‘gets ideas on handling feelings’ (16%), and ‘one
feels connected/close to the significant other’(11%). A
minority of participants (4%) added their own reasons, like
communication of distress to make the other person aware,
seeking justification/validation for what one is feeling. The
ten percent of participants (n=21) who reported that they
perceived emotional disclosure to be generally ‘not helpful’
were asked to indicate reasons for the same. ‘Not being able
to talk freely’ (17%), ‘being criticized’ (17%) and ‘signif-
icant other not listening completely’ (17%). were most
often cited as reasons for non-usefulness of emotional

disclosure. Not getting advice on how to handle feelings
(15%) and that by sharing, one does not get help on
problem-solving (12%), were also applicable in this sub-
sample. Apart from these reasons provided in the checklist,
a few participants spontaneously mentioned additional
reasons (22%) such as ‘not being able to trust others’,
‘not feeling the need to share’ or ‘feeling more confused by
sharing’. On the whole, the perceptions of helpfulness of
emotional disclosure in to day-to-day life appear to be
linked to multiple reasons though sense of relief and
validation emerged as the most prominent reasons. Other
reasons reported in this sample were related to assistance in
problem solving or emotional regulation. Perceived non-
helpfulness of disclosure was most commonly reported to
be due to social constraints. Other reasons included lack of
assistance in problem solving or emotional regulation,
difficulties in trusting and low need for disclosure.
Relationship of Need for Disclosure and Extent
of Disclosure with Other Variables
Socio-Demographic Variables
Men and women were found to be significantly different on
need for emotional disclosure, with women reporting a
higher need to share their negative emotions. Homemakers
reported a significantly higher need for emotional disclo-
sure in comparison to the employed participants. But a
supplementary analysis indicated that this was attributable
to gender, rather than occupational status, the homemakers-
group consisting of only women. In this supplementary
analysis, there was no difference between employed women
and homemaker on need for disclosure (Mann Whitney U =
574.00, NS). Gender differences on extent of disclosure
mirrored the finding on need for disclosure, with women
reporting higher disclosure than men. These results are in
line with available literature (e.g. Goldshmidt and Weller
2000; Hess et al. 2000) and may be at least partly
attributable to gender role socialization. Need for emotional
disclosure and typical extent of emotional disclosure were
not found to be significantly different in sub-groups of
participants varying on age, educational qualification,
religion and marital status. (Table 3) Although some studies
have reported differences between older and younger
participants on use of emotional regulation strategies and
social support utilization in general; these reports refer to
adults above 60 years of age (e.g. Phillips et al. 2006).
Intrapersonal and Interpersonal Variables
Need for emotional disclosure and extent of emotional
disclosure had low to moderate correlations with the
intrapersonal variables (Table 4). Participants who reported
Psychol Stud
habitually suppressing their negative emotions, had lower
need for disclosure as well as low disclosure with
significant others. Despite the overlap between emotional
disclosure and emotional control, it is noteworthy that the
emotional control measure assessed the frequency with
which a person habitually suppressed one’s negative
emotions across contexts whereas the emotional disclosure
measure directly assessed typical extent of disclosure with a
‘significant other’. Barr et al. (2008) reported in their study
that emotional constraints and emotional expression were
two empirically distinct higher order factors despite their
moderate positive correlation. It would also be relevant here
to examine the reasons for not expressing one’s negative
feelings. Controlled regulation refers to holding beliefs that
inhibit expression due to feared negative interpersonal
consequences of sharing. Autonomous regulation refers to
the strength of well internalized motives and beliefs for
non-expression that is perceived as a matter of choice.
Controlled regulation was uncorrelated to need for emo-
tional disclosure but was significantly negatively associated
with emotional disclosure. This suggests that individuals,
who hold beliefs reflecting negative interpersonal repercus-
sions of disclosure, may be a heterogeneous group in terms
of their actual need for disclosure. Some of the participants
with high controlled regulation could be experiencing and
reporting high unmet need for disclosure whereas some
others in this group might be able to downplay or deny the
existence of such a need. But irrespective of need,
withholding one’s emotions due to controlled reasons tends
to be associated with lower frequency of actual disclosure.
In contrast to controlled regulation, autonomous regulation
was negatively correlated with low need for emotional
disclosure as well as low actual disclosure. These findings
imply that when one experiences a sense of autonomy with
reference to reasons for not sharing, one also experiences a
reduced need to share and lower disclosure levels are in
consonance with lower experience of need.
Higher affect intensity was associated with higher need
for emotional disclosure but it was uncorrelated with actual
disclosure. Thus experience of high need for disclosure did
not translate into high disclosure for those who typically
experienced strong intensity of emotions. Lynch et al.
(2001) reported that higher affect intensity was linked to
higher suppression of feelings. This could be due to the
perceived negativity from others if an individual were to
express his/her intense negative feelings. To what extent the
nature of relationship between affect intensity and emo-
tional disclosure may be moderated by other variables
needs to be examined in further research. Emotional clarity
was found to be significantly negatively correlated with
need for emotional disclosure, but had a modest positive
correlation with typical extent of emotional disclosure. This
pattern can be understood in the light of the existing
Psychol Stud

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

Socio-demographic Number Need for Emotional Mann–Whitney (U) Extent of Emotional Mann–Whitney (U)
characteristics disclosure Mean (S.D.) disclosure Mean (S.D.)

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) significantly 7.07 (3.50) 0.53
2. Employed 125 2.63 (1.00) different groups in post 6.91 (3.17)
hoc analysis
3. Homemaker/not 31 3.12 (0.92) 6.93 (3.89)
employed
a
Significant at 0.01 level
b
Significant at 0.05 level

literature which suggests that individuals high in emotional
clarity employ more negative emotional regulation strate-
gies, especially active strategies (Barrett et al. 2001; Gohm
and Clore 2002) Their lower need to disclose their negative
emotions, could be related to their perceived ability to
manage their emotions by themselves. Though trait rumi-
nation was not consistently linked to higher/lower levels of
need for disclosure as evident in absence of a significant
correlation, it was associated with lower actual extent of
disclosure. Trait rumination has been found to be signifi-
cantly associated with neuroticism dimension of personality
and individuals high on neuroticism show ambivalence in
their ability to deal with emotions. (Luminet et al. 2000).
The patterns of correlations observed indicate that the
availability of perceived support tends to go hand in hand
with increased experience of need for disclosure and
increased disclosure; however perceptions of social con-
straints may not dampen the need for disclosure despite
being associated with decreased disclosure. (Table 4) The
association of interpersonal variables was stronger with
extent of emotional disclosure than with need for emotional
disclosure. The degree of correlation between social
support and constraints (r=0.31) indicate that these two
are not completely overlapping constructs and measurement
of one does not make the measurement of the other
redundant. Several responses to the item on perceived
non-helpfulness of disclosure reflect the presence of social
constraints such as not being listened to completely,
receiving a critical/trivializing response etc. Social con-
straints as a variable has been relatively ignored in studies
on emotional disclosure in day-to-day living, but the
patterns observed on interpersonal variables largely mirror
those in other studies (e.g. Figueiredo et al. 2004, Schmidt
and Andrykowski 2004). The reports of social constraints
were elicited in the context of a significant other with
whom the respondents generally wished to disclose prob-
lems and associated emotions. The pattern of utilization of
other supportive relationships for emotional disclosure in
the presence of constraints, and its potential buffering
impact forms an important area for further enquiry.
 Psychol Stud

Table 4 Intrapersonal & inter-

personal correlates of need for Need for emotional disclosure Extent of emotional disclosure
emotional disclosure & typical
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
Spearman rank order correla- Autonomous regulation −0.22a −0.31a
tions were used (two-tailed Trait rumination 0.08 −0.15b
tests)
a
Perceived social support 0.16b 0.36a
Significant at 0.01 level
b
Social constraints −0.07 −0.32b
Significant at 0.05 level

Hierarchical Regression Analysis: Joint Predictors
of Subjective Well-Being
A hierarchical regression analysis was carried out to
determine the predictors of subjective well-being. The
predictor variables were entered in predetermined steps
(Table 5). The variables were selected based on the
significant relationships with psychological outcomes
obtained in bi-variate analyses, in order to keep the ratio
between sample size and number of variables as optimum.
Standardization was done for all the predictor variables to
reduce multi-collinearity (Cohen et al. 2003). Categorical
variables were dummy-coded. Socio-demographic variables
were entered in the first step, so as to control for their
effect. This was followed by intrapersonal variables as
these are intrinsic to individuals, irrespective of contextual
factors. Need for emotional disclosure was entered in the
third step to determine whether it predicted psychological
outcomes after controlling for the intrapersonal variables. In
the fourth step, interpersonal variables were added. Emo-
tional disclosure was entered in the fifth step to determine
whether it predicted psychological outcomes over and above
all the other study variables. In the final step, potential
moderators of the relationship between emotional disclosure
and psychological outcomes were entered. This was to
explore if the impact of emotional disclosure on wellbeing
would vary depending on gender, levels of perceived
support, social constraints, typical intensity of negative
affect, trait rumination and the need for disclosure itself.
In the hierarchical regression analysis, the total variance
in subjective wellbeing predicted by all the variables was
44%. The first step involved introducing the socio-
demographic variables (age, marital status, occupational
categories, and gender) that contributed to predicting 08%
of the total variance in subjective well-being. In the second
step, adding intrapersonal variables, contributed to predict-
ing additional 23% of the total variance. Entering need for
emotional disclosure in the third step did not add
significantly to the prediction of variance in subjective
well-being. Interpersonal variables, i.e. social constraint and
perceived social support were entered in the fourth step,
and these significantly contributed to predicting 05% of the
total variance. Finally in the fifth step, emotional disclosure
was added to the equation and it predicted an additional
03% of the total variance, over and above all the other
study variables. Adding the moderator variables in the last
step also contributed to significantly predicting an addi-
tional variance of 05% in subjective well-being. Need for
emotional disclosure, social constraints and trait rumination
emerged as moderators of the relation between emotional
disclosure and subjective well-being in the last step.
Perceived social support showed a trend as a moderator of

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

Steps Predictors entered/added R R square R square Adjusted F change Significant

change R square F 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, affect 0.59 0.35 0.24 0.31 14.44 0.000
intensity, emotional clarity, trait rumination
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 × Social 0.70 0.49 0.07 0.44 4.05 0.001
constraints; ED × Perceived social support; ED ×
Gender; ED × Trait rumination; ED × Affect intensity

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

Psychol Stud
the relation between emotional disclosure and subjective
well-being. However, further post hoc probing for signifi-
cance of moderation effects was carried out using the steps
recommended by Aiken and West 1991. This revealed that
only trait rumination remained as a significant moderator,
with emotional disclosure predicting higher well being
among those scoring higher on trait rumination.
Final model: Examination of beta coefficients in the final
model, (after entering all the above mentioned variables and
moderators) indicated that among the socio-demographic
variable, the ‘student-status’ predicted lower wellbeing
compared to ‘employed’ or ‘homemaker’ status. This
pattern could be linked to the demands related to the
development phase in the student participants who were at
the threshold of completing their college-education and
were equipping themselves to work towards their aspired
and yet uncertain career tracks. In the final model, lower
affect intensity, higher emotional clarity, lower trait rumi-
nation higher perceived social support and higher emotional
disclosure significantly predicted higher subjective well-
being. Flett et al. (1996), in their study, had reported that
higher affect intensity was strongly associated with greater
use of emotion-oriented coping and lower negative mood
regulation expectancy, both of which mediated the link
between affect intensity and depressive symptoms. In the
present study, high affect intensity co-occurred with high
felt need for disclosure but was uncorrelated with actual
disclosure. The observed pattern in the background of the
available literature raises the hypothesis that low well being
in high affect intensity participants may be attributable
partly to perceived barriers in disclosure coupled with low
efficacy in negative mood regulation. Participants higher on
emotional clarity, found it easier to achieve desired
cognitive states indicative of high wellbeing. And this is
in line with the findings in other studies (e.g. Gohm and
Clore 2002). Thomsen (2006) in a review on rumination
reported that most of the studies had found a positive
association between rumination and distress/negative affect
and in the present study lower trait rumination predicted
higher well being. Higher trait rumination generally went
hand in hand with lower disclosure and yet, ironically,
being higher on emotional disclosure emerged as potential-
ly useful for wellbeing in individuals high on trait
rumination. This moderation effect observed in the com-
munity sample is noteworthy as the previous literature has
documented the relation between trait rumination and
emotional disclosure mostly in the context of major
stressors. Nolen-Hoeksema and Davis (1999), in their study
on participants facing the loss of a significant other, found
that ruminators were more distressed in the absence of
support than non-ruminators. Ruminators have also been
shown to be high on cognitive inflexibility, finding it
difficult 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 ruminators
could be benefiting more from emotional disclosure
because sharing might provide an avenue to break the
repetitive chain of thoughts as well as a more coherent
structure to the thought patterns. More research is needed to
unravel the complex relationships between trait rumination,
need for disclosure and extent of disclosure in view of the
possibility that that participants high on trait rumination
may not find emotional disclosure to be of value to them
due to the feared/actual negative responses from significant
others(e.g. Nolen-Hoeksema and Davis 1999). In the
present study too, in a supplementary analysis, trait
rumination had a moderate positive correlation with social
constraints(r=0.43) which might explain their typically low
disclosure. Whether such negative expectancies in social
situation could partly be a function of their style and quality
of disclosure needs further exploration. This in turn would
imply that merely facilitating the extent of disclosure might
not be beneficial for high trait ruminators, unless the
manner and quality of disclosure is also taken into account.
Higher perceived social support added significantly to the
variance in wellbeing predicted by socio-demographic and
intrapersonal variables. In the bi-variate analysis, emotional
control (compared to emotional disclosure) had a small
positive correlation with subjective well being; and it was
emotional disclosure rather than control that emerged as a
significant predictor in the regression analysis, over and
above other variables.
Further Observations
On the whole, the study variables predicted 44% of
variance in subjective wellbeing Emotional disclosure
predicted a small proportion of variance in the well being
over and above all the other study variables. The small
contribution of emotional disclosure observed in the present
study deserves a closer scrutiny. Most of the studies on
emotional disclosure, as mentioned earlier are on partic-
ipants suffering from major illnesses or those having
experienced a significant trauma. Moreover several of these
have used quasi-experimental designs. Naturalistic studies
on disclosure of negative emotions in community partic-
ipants have not consistently demonstrated psychological
benefits, even though participants tend to report perceived
benefits (Zech and Rime 2005; Rime et al. 1998). In the
present study too, it was interesting to contrast the
observation that an overwhelming majority of participants
reported emotional disclosure to be useful, with the finding
of relatively smaller contribution of emotional disclosure to
well being scores. Sense of emotional relief and feeling
understood were most often cited as reasons for global
perception of its utility. It appears that the immediate sense

of relief and validation accompanying disclosure may be
powerful reasons that lead individuals to report that
disclosure is useful. However this may not necessarily
translate into correspondingly higher levels of overall
subjective well being. Also, it is speculated that the
quality of disclosure would be an important determinant
of its impact whereas the present paper is restricted to
examining an index of the typical extent to emotional
disclosure. Social sharing of emotions in daily living may
also be linked to other beneficial outcomes (Rime et al.
1998) such as interpersonal bonding, social integration
and health which were not the focus of attention in the
present study.
Frattaroli (2006), in his meta-analytic review observed
that studies on emotional disclosure and its beneficial
outcomes carried out on participants having illness/
trauma had higher effect sizes than those involving
normal participants, the latter already scoring somewhat
lower on distress. The current study not just drew
participants from general community, but also included
data only from those participants who were not experi-
encing any major stressor. This strategy was in keeping
with the study objective and may partly explain the
modest association of emotional disclosure with subjec-
tive wellbeing. Although cross cultural studies on social
sharing of emotions point to its wide prevalence, it has
also been observed that in Asian cultures, more number
of emotion episodes may go unshared, there may be less
repetitive sharing and longer delays between the event
and initiation of sharing (Rime et al. 1998).The extent to
which these dimensions of sharing may impact on affect
and well being in the Indian culture requires in-depth
exploration perhaps using an experience sampling
methodology.
Limitations and Strengths of the Study
A few limitations of the study include the use of a cross
sectional, design, lack of representation of the elderly
group, relatively poorer representation of individuals below
graduation level and insufficient sample-size needed for
detailed analysis of moderation effects through structural
equation modeling.
The limitations notwithstanding, the study is an impor-
tant addition to the field in more ways than one. It is one of
the few studies on emotional disclosure that sampled
participants representing a broad age range of 21-to 60 years
from the community. Knowledge about the impact of
emotional disclosure on psychological outcomes is well
established in the context of major life stressors but the
impact of emotional disclosure while negotiating day-to-
day stressors is less understood. The present study
demonstrates the role of typical extent of emotional
Psychol Stud
disclosure along with other related intrapersonal and
interpersonal variables on subjective wellbeing in day-to-
day-life, using a rigorous analytical strategy. Participants
who could be possibly facing moderate levels of chronic
stressors and daily stressors were not excluded to maximize
the chance that the sample is a close approximation of the
larger population wherein moderate levels of chronic
stressors and daily hassles are common. It selectively
examined those intrapersonal and interpersonal correlates
of emotional disclosure that have hitherto been less-
researched. Need for emotional disclosure is a variable
that is often conspicuous by its absence in research studies
and the role of social constraints has also been relatively
ignored in the emotional disclosure research in community
samples. The study attempted to address this gap while
also examining the role of selected moderators in
disclosure–wellbeing relationship. The findings raise
important hypotheses for further research besides provid-
ing pointers for developing and testing preventive and
promotive intervention modules that could incorporate a
focus on intrapersonal and interpersonal processes related
to emotional disclosure.
References
Affleck, G., Zautra, A., Tennen, H., & Armeli, S. (1999). Multilevel
daily process designs for consulting and clinical psychology: a
preface for the perplexed. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 67(5), 746–754.
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and
interpreting interactions. Newbury Park: Sage.
Barr, L. H., Kahn, J. H., & Schneider, W. J. (2008). Individual
differences in emotional expression: hierarchical structure and
relation with psychological distress. Journal of Social and
Clinical 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 a
measurement model of the affect intensity measure: a three factor
research. Journal of Research in Personality, 30(2), 223–247.
Cohen, J., Cohen, P. C., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied
multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral
sciences (3rd ed.). New Jersey: Erlbaum.
Davis, R. N., & Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (2000). Cognitive inflexibility
among ruminators and non-ruminators. Cognitive Therapy and
research, 24(6), 699–711.
Dickinson PE (2005) Written emotional expression in spousal care-
givers of cancer patients. Unpublished PhD thesis, California
School 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 of
disclosure patterns and unsupportive social interactions in the
well being of breast cancer patients. Psycho-Oncology, 13(2),
96–105.
Flett, G. L., Blankstein, K. R., & Obertynski, M. (1996). Affect
intensity, coping styles, mood regulation expectancies and
depressive symptoms. Personality and Individual Differences,
20(2), 221–228.
Frattaroli, J. (2006). Experimental disclosure and its moderators: a
meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 132(6), 832–865.
Gohm, C. L., & Clore, G. L. (2002). Four latent traits of emotional
experience and their involvement in well being, coping and
attributional style. Cognition and Emotion, 16(4), 495–518.
Goldshmidt, O. L., & Weller, L. (2000). “Talking emotions”: gender
differences in a variety of conversational contexts. Symbolic
Interactions, 23(2), 117–134.
Hess, U., Senecal, S., Kirouac, G., Herrera, P., Philipot, P., & Kleck, R.
E. (2000). Emotional expressivity in men and women: stereotypes
and self perceptions. Cognitions and Emotion, 14(5), 609–642.
Kelley, J. E., Lumley, M. A., & Leisen, J. C. (1997). Health effects of
emotional disclosure in rheumatoid–arthritis patients. Health
Psychology, 16(4), 331–340.
Kennedy-Moore, E., & Watson, J. C. (1999). Expressing emotion:
Myths, realities and therapeutic strategies. New York: Guilford
Press.
Kim, Y., Deci, E. L., & Zuckerman, M. (2002). The development of the
self regulation of withholding negative emotions questionnaire.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 62(2), 316–336.
Lepore, S. J., & Ituarte, P. H. G. (1999). Optimism about cancer
enhances mood by reducing negative social interactions. Cancer
Research, Therapy and Control, 8, 165–174.
Lieberman, M. A., & Goldstein, B. A. (2006). Not all negative
emotions are equal: the role of emotional expression in an online
support group for women with breast cancer. Psycho-Oncology,
15(2), 160–168.
Luminet, O., Zech, E., Rime, B., & Wagner, H. (2000). Predicting
cognitive and social consequences of emotional episodes: the
contribution of emotional intensity, the five factor model and
alexithymia. Journal of Research in Personality, 34(4), 471–497.
Lutgendorf, S. K., & Antoni, M. H. (1999). Emotional and cognitive
processing in a trauma-disclosure paradigm. Cognitive therapy
and Research, 23(4), 423–440.
Lynch, T. R., Robins, C. J., Morse, J. Q., & MorKrause, E. D.
(2001). A mediational model relating affect intensity, emotional
inhibition and psychological distress. Behavior Therapy, 32(3),
519–536.
Lyubomirsky, S., Sousa, L., & Dickerhoof, R. (2006). The costs and
benefits of writing, talking and thinking about life’s triumphs and
defeats. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(4),
692–708.
Mendolia, M., & Kleck, R. E. (1993). Effects of talking about a
stressful event on arousal: does what we talk about make a
difference? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(2),
283–292.
Nolen-Hoeksema, S., & Davis, C. G. (1999). “Thanks for sharing
that”: ruminators and their social support networks. Journal of
Personality 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 of
written emotional disclosure in a randomized trial among
women with chronic pelvic pain. Psychosomatic Medicine, 66
(2), 174–183.
Paez, D., Velasco, C., & Gonzalez, J. L. (1999). Expressive writing
and the role of alexithymia as a dispositional-deficit in self
disclosure and psychological health. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 77(3), 630–641.
Pantchenko, T., Lawson, M., & Joyce, M. R. (2003). Verbal and non-
verbal disclosure of recalled negative experiences: relation to
well being. Psychology and Psychotherapy: Theory Research
and Practice, 76(3), 251–265.
Pennebaker, J. W. (1995). Emotion, disclosure and health. Washington
DC: American Psychological Association.
Pennebaker, J. W., & Susman, J. R. (1988). Disclosure of traumas and
psychosomatic 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 implications
for 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 social
support in relation to help-seeking behavior. Family Therapy, 29
(3), 153–167.
Prathima, S. (2005). Care-giving process in cancer: a strength
perspective. In A. Shah & K. Rao (Eds.), Psychological research
in mental health and neurosciences (1957–2007) (pp. 54–55).
Bangalore: NIMHANS.
Rao, K., Subbakrishna, D. K., & Prabhu, G. G. (1989). Development
of a coping checklist—a preliminary-report. Indian Journal of
Psychiatry, 31(2), 128–133.
Raval, V. V., Martini, T. S., & Raval, P. H. (2007). “Would others
think it is ok to express my feelings?’ Regulation of anger,
sadness and physical pain in Gujarati children in India. Social
Development, 16(1), 79–105.
Rime, B., Finkenauer, C., Luminet, O., Zech, E., & Phillipot, P.
(1998). Social sharing of emotion: new evidence and new
questions. 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. Exploring
emotional 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 and
dispositional variables associated with emotional processing in
adjustment to breast cancer: an internet based study. Health
Psychology, 23(3), 259–266.
Snell, W. E., Miller, R. S., & Belk, S. S. (1988). Development of
emotional self disclosure scale. Sex Roles, 18(1), 59–73.
Thomsen, D. K. (2006). The association between rumination and negative
affect: a review. Cognition and Emotion, 20(8), 1216–1235.
Trapnell, P. D., & Campbell, J. D. (1999). Private self consciousness
and the five factor model of personality: distinguishing rumination
from reflection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76
(2), 284–304.
Watson, M., & Greer, S. (1983). Development of a questionnaire
measure 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 with
family histories of breast cancer: application of a cognitive
processing model. British Journal of Health Psychology, 6(2),
151–165.
Zech, E. (2000). The effects of the communication of emotional
experiences. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of
Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve,Belgium.
Zech, E., & Rime, B. (2005). Is talking about an emotional experience
helpful? Effects of emotional recovery and perceived benefits.
Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, 12(4), 270–287.