Differences in the effect of adolescents’ strategies for expressing academic emotions on academic emotions and peer acceptance in competitive and cooperative situations

Academic emotions are emotional experiences linked to learning and achievement and can influence learning processes, outcomes, relationships, and mental health. Emotion regulation in academic contexts is therefore critical. Two key strategies of emotional expression are suppression (inhibiting outward expression) and expression (revealing emotions). Prior work often labeled suppression as nonadaptive and expression—especially of positive emotion—as adaptive, but frequently underemphasized the role of situational context. Guided by emotion regulation flexibility and self-regulated learning theories, this study examined how strategies for expressing academic emotions relate to adolescents’ own emotional experiences and to peer acceptance, specifically comparing competitive versus cooperative situations common in schools. Study 1 tested whether links between academic emotions and expression strategies differ by situation; Study 2 tested whether links between expression strategies and peer acceptance differ by situation. Hypotheses included: (a) emotional expression would enhance positive emotions; (b) suppression would reduce positive and increase negative academic emotions (Study 1). For Study 2, the authors hypothesized that (a) in cooperative situations, expressing positive emotions would garner higher peer acceptance; other predictions were exploratory due to limited prior research.

Research has shown that emotional expression can effectively regulate emotions, whereas suppression may weaken positive emotions and intensify negative ones in learning contexts. Suppression has also been linked to poorer social functioning and impeded information exchange, while expressing positive emotions can signal friendliness and sociability. However, the adaptiveness of suppression versus expression depends on situational demands. Emotion regulation flexibility frameworks emphasize strategy–situation fit, and self-regulated learning theories underscore context-dependent selection of strategies to meet learning goals. Evidence in academic and social domains indicates that excessive expression of unpleasant emotions can be maladaptive, and suppression can sometimes confer benefits (e.g., in disliked classes or outperformance contexts). School environments entail both competition (negative interdependence) and cooperation (positive interdependence), which shape interaction patterns and outcomes. Prior findings suggest higher achievement and more positive engagement in cooperative contexts, but little is known about how expression strategies influence academic emotions and social outcomes (e.g., peer acceptance) across these contexts. Display rules and intergroup processes may render expression of positive emotion beneficial in cooperative settings (signaling affiliation/trust) but potentially costly in competitive settings (signaling superiority or provoking schadenfreude).

Study 1: Participants and Design: 65 adolescents from two public middle-high schools in Shandong, China (ages 12–18). Thirty-one were assigned to a competitive situation (M=15.39, SD=1.78; 15 boys), and 34 to a cooperative situation (M=15.71, SD=1.59; 24 boys). Groups did not differ significantly by gender, grade, or age; sensitivity analyses indicated 80% power for small effects (Cohen’s f=0.18). The study used a mixed experimental design as described by the authors: situation (competitive vs. cooperative), academic emotion (positive vs. negative), and regulation strategy (suppression vs. expression), with academic emotion intensity as the dependent variable. Materials: Story vignettes induced academic emotions. After screening, 15 positive and 15 negative academic emotion stories were selected for each situation. Valence and arousal ratings (9-point scales) supported effective induction (e.g., competitive positive valence M=7.22; negative valence M=2.04). Procedure: An adapted Reactivity and Regulation-Image Task was implemented in E-prime 2.0, substituting stories for images. Trial flow: fixation (2 s), instruction screen indicating strategy (watch/suppression/expression; 2 s), story presentation (25 s) during which participants applied the indicated strategy, and rating of positive or negative academic emotions on a 7-point scale. Each situation included three conditions (watching; suppression; expression), with 10 trials per condition (balanced positive/negative stories). Participants received standardized instruction, practiced six trials with verbal reports to ensure correct strategy use, and then completed the formal task (~25 minutes). Data Analysis: Repeated measures ANOVA tested effects of situation and strategy on positive and negative academic emotion intensities. Study 2: Participants: 113 adolescents (Grades 7–12) from Shandong, China (ages 12–18; M=15.34, SD=1.62; 46 boys), >90% Han ethnicity; sensitivity analyses indicated 80% power for small effects (f=0.13). Measures and Procedure: Using hypothetical scenarios, participants rated acceptance of a target classmate who was in a competitive or cooperative relationship with them and who suppressed or expressed positive or negative academic emotions. Acceptance was measured with three items (7-point scale; higher scores = higher acceptance) derived from Wentzel (1994) and Schall et al. (2016). Reliability was high across conditions (α=0.92–0.96). Testing occurred in classrooms (~10 minutes); IRB approval and parental consent were obtained. Data Analysis: ANOVAs examined acceptance as a function of situation and emotion type for suppression and expression conditions separately. Paired t-tests compared acceptance for suppression versus expression within each situation and valence condition.

Study 1 (Academic emotions): • Positive academic emotions: Main effect of strategy was significant, F(2,126)=14.60, p<0.001, ηp²=0.19; no significant main effect of situation and no interaction. Post hoc: suppression led to lower positive emotion intensity (M=4.93, SD=1.10) than watching (M=5.52, SD=0.97) and expression (M=5.55, SD=1.08); watching vs. expression did not differ. • Negative academic emotions: Main effect of strategy was significant, F(2,126)=3.13, p<0.05, ηp²=0.05; no significant main effect of situation and no interaction. Post hoc: expression reduced negative emotion intensity (M=3.97, SD=0.99) versus watching (M=4.16, SD=0.95); suppression (M=4.00, SD=1.12) did not differ significantly from the other two conditions. Interpretation: Strategy–emotion links were stable across competitive and cooperative contexts. Suppressing positive emotions weakened them; expressing negative emotions reduced their intensity. Study 2 (Peer acceptance): Suppression: • ANOVA showed a significant main effect of academic emotion type, F(1,112)=25.66, p<0.001, ηp²=0.19, and a significant Situation × Emotion Type interaction, F(1,112)=9.81, p<0.01; main effect of situation was nonsignificant. • Suppressing positive emotion: acceptance higher in competitive (M=4.40, SD=1.55) than cooperative (M=3.89, SD=1.38), F(1,112)=10.63, p<0.01. • Within competitive: suppressing negative (M=4.74, SD=1.32) > suppressing positive (M=4.40, SD=1.55), F(1,112)=3.92, p<0.05. • Within cooperative: suppressing negative (M=4.84, SD=1.32) > suppressing positive (M=3.89, SD=1.38), F(1,112)=39.62, p<0.001. Expression: • ANOVA revealed significant main effects of situation and emotion type, and a significant Situation × Emotion Type interaction. • Expressing positive emotion: acceptance lower in competitive (M=4.61, SD=1.54) than cooperative (M=5.23, SD=1.27), F(1,112)=16.55, p<0.001. • In both competitive and cooperative situations, expressing negative emotion yielded lower acceptance than expressing positive emotion: competitive F(1,112)=13.40, p<0.001; cooperative F(1,112)=57.48, p<0.001 (negative expression Ms≈3.97–4.07 vs. positive expression Ms≈4.61–5.23). Paired comparisons: • Competitive: positive emotion—no significant acceptance difference between suppression (M=4.40, SD=1.55) and expression (M=4.61, SD=1.54). Negative emotion—suppression (M=4.74, SD=1.32) > expression (M=3.97, SD=1.42), t(112)=4.52, p<0.001, d=0.56. • Cooperative: positive emotion—expression (M=5.23, SD=1.27) > suppression (M=3.89, SD=1.38), t(112)=-7.63, p<0.001, d=1.01. Negative emotion—suppression (M=4.84, SD=1.32) > expression (M=4.07, SD=1.40), t(112)=4.72, p<0.001, d=0.57. Overall pattern: Strategy–peer acceptance links were situation-specific. Suppressing positive emotion was more acceptable in competitive than cooperative contexts; expressing positive emotion was more acceptable in cooperative than competitive contexts. Suppressing negative emotion was more acceptable than expressing it in both contexts.

The findings demonstrate that the effectiveness of emotional expression strategies depends on the outcome domain. Regarding adolescents’ own academic emotions (Study 1), effects were stable across competitive and cooperative contexts: suppressing positive emotions weakened the positive experience, while expressing negative emotions reduced their intensity. This suggests that expression can be beneficial for managing negative academic emotions, whereas suppression compromises positive affect. In contrast, regarding social outcomes (Study 2), effects were strongly context-dependent. In competitive situations, suppressing positive academic emotions garnered relatively higher peer acceptance (and expressing positive emotion garnered lower acceptance) likely because outward displays of success can signal superiority, threaten rivals’ goals, or violate competitive display rules. In cooperative situations, expressing positive emotion enhanced acceptance, consistent with shared goals and affiliation signals that facilitate collaboration. Across both contexts, suppressing negative emotions was preferred socially to expressing them, perhaps because negative displays can disrupt group functioning and threaten others’ learning goals, whereas suppression may be perceived as considerate self-restraint. Collectively, results support emotion regulation flexibility: adolescents benefit from selecting expression strategies that fit situational demands and regulatory goals—optimizing either personal emotional experience or social acceptance.

This research clarifies how adolescents’ strategies for expressing academic emotions differentially relate to personal emotional experience and peer acceptance across competitive and cooperative contexts. The links between strategies and academic emotions were situation-stable, whereas links to peer acceptance were situation-specific. Practically, adolescents may adaptively: (a) express positive emotions, especially in cooperative settings; (b) express negative emotions to alleviate their own distress; and (c) suppress negative emotions to maintain peer acceptance. Educators and parents can incorporate guidance on flexible emotion expression strategies into instruction and social–emotional learning to promote well-being, collaboration, and academic development. Future research should: examine specific discrete emotions (e.g., anxiety), explore subject-specific academic contexts, refine stimuli to balance arousal across valences, move beyond hypothetical scenarios to real interactions and specified targets, investigate additional social outcomes (e.g., social support, relationship satisfaction), and compare expression strategies with other regulation forms (e.g., reappraisal).

• Emotion specificity: Adolescents may use varied strategies depending on discrete emotions; effects for specific emotions (e.g., anxiety) were not isolated. • Domain specificity: Academic emotions can vary by subject; findings may differ across disciplines (e.g., mathematics). • Stimulus arousal: Positive emotion stories had higher arousal than negative ones, which may affect Study 1’s internal validity. • Hypothetical scenarios: Study 2 used imagined targets; real peer contexts may yield different acceptance judgments. • Limited social outcomes: Study 2 focused on peer acceptance; other outcomes (e.g., social support, relationship satisfaction) were not tested. • Strategy scope: Only suppression and expression were examined; other regulation strategies relevant to academics (e.g., cognitive reappraisal) were not included.