Emotion regulation of social exclusion: a cross-cultural study

The study investigates how culture shapes both emotional reactions to, and emotion regulation of, social exclusion. Grounded in the need-threat temporal model of ostracism, social exclusion threatens belonging, self-esteem, control, and meaningful existence. Cultural norms influence emotional responding and regulation, with prior work suggesting an "own-race bias" in processing emotion and possible cultural differences in regulation motivation and adaptiveness. This study focuses on cognitive reappraisal (reinterpretation) and tests two main hypotheses: (1) participants exhibit stronger negative emotional responses to social exclusion depicted by same-race characters; (2) emotion regulation effectiveness (via reappraisal) is greater when regulating responses to own-race social exclusion. Additionally, the authors expected White (individualistic) participants to show better regulation than East Asian (collectivistic) participants.

Prior research shows social exclusion causes immediate threat to fundamental needs and prompts coping efforts including down-regulation of negative affect. Cultural context shapes both emotional responses and regulation processes. Studies report own-race biases in recognizing and reacting to emotions (e.g., stronger responses to same-race faces). One study found greater social distress to exclusion when faces are same-race, though only in White participants, leaving cross-cultural generalizability unclear. Culture also affects motivation to regulate emotions and the adaptiveness of strategies: Asians often report less motivation to regulate and greater difficulties; suppression may be less maladaptive for East Asians than for Whites. Cognitive reappraisal is widely used and may be culturally comparable in frequency, making it suitable to test cultural effects while minimizing confounds. Gaps remain regarding how culture influences emotion regulation of social exclusion specifically and whether own-race biases extend to regulation effectiveness.

Design: Cross-cultural behavioral experiment with two within-subject conditions (picture race: White vs East Asian characters) and two blocks (no-reappraisal passive viewing, followed by reappraisal). Outcome measures were trial-wise ratings of vicarious negative emotion on a 9-point scale; reappraisal advantage was computed as the difference between ratings in no-reappraisal and reappraisal blocks. Participants: 80 college students (40 self-identified White from University of Manchester, UK; 40 East Asian from Shenzhen University, China). Exclusion criteria: self-reported mental health history; significant time living abroad (>1 year); vulnerability to depression (SDS>0.5 or BDI-II>13). Initial exclusions: 3 White and 2 East Asian removed based on questionnaires. Final sample N=80 (20 male/20 female per group). No significant group differences in demographics or baseline questionnaires (BDI-II, SDS, STAI-T, ERQ reappraisal/suppression, RSQ). Power: post hoc G*Power indicated >99% power to detect medium effect (f=0.25) for repeated-measures ANOVA within-between interaction at alpha=0.05 with N=80. Questionnaires: Demographics; BDI-II; SDS; STAI-T; ERQ (reappraisal, suppression); RSQ. Stimuli: 60 images depicting social exclusion (30 White-character images; 30 East Asian-character images), matched on content except characters’ race. Each image shows one rejectee and a group of rejectors. Valence and arousal pre-rated by 40 non-participating students (20 White, 20 East Asian) on 9-point scales; no significant effects of picture type, participant ethnic group, or interaction on valence or arousal. Number of people and image contrast were matched. Images presented centrally on LCD screen. Task and procedure: Two blocks presented in fixed order to avoid carry-over from reappraisal to passive viewing: (1) no-reappraisal (passive viewing); (2) reappraisal (reinterpretation). The 60 images were randomly split across blocks with equal numbers of White and East Asian images per block; assignment randomized per participant. Trial structure: fixation (2 s) → image (8 s) → rating (5 s). Instructions: No-reappraisal—"think about how you would feel in a similar situation to the highlighted person." Reappraisal—"imagine a better outcome or alternative explanation; e.g., the group is discussing something the person isn’t interested in, or the person could soon join; then report how you would feel if you were the highlighted person." Statistical analysis: SPSS 20; descriptive stats as mean±SD. Hypothesis 1: Repeated-measures ANOVA on no-reappraisal ratings with within-subject factor picture type (White vs EA) and between-subject factor ethnic group (White vs East Asian). Hypothesis 2: Emotion regulation ability operationalized as reappraisal advantage (no-reappraisal minus reappraisal ratings). Two-way ANOVA on reappraisal advantage with picture type (within) and ethnic group (between). Additional analyses: ANOVA on reappraisal-block ratings; temporal analyses comparing first vs second half of trials within each block (paired t-tests) to assess potential attenuation over time; gender analyses (picture type within; gender between) for no-reappraisal ratings and reappraisal advantage.

No-reappraisal (passive viewing) ratings: Significant interaction of picture type × ethnic group, F(1,78)=30.74, p<0.001, η²=0.283. Simple effects:

• White participants reported higher negative emotion for White vs EA images: 6.12±1.36 vs 5.53±1.48; F(1,78)=21.73, p<0.001, η²=0.218.
• East Asian participants reported higher negative emotion for EA vs White images: 6.00±0.94 vs 5.60±0.84; F(1,78)=10.10, p=0.002, η²=0.115.
• Between groups: For White images, White>East Asian (6.12±1.36 vs 5.60±0.84), F(1,78)=4.36, p=0.04, η²=0.053; for EA images, no significant group difference, F(1,78)=2.84, p=0.096, η²=0.035 (White vs East Asian: 5.53±1.48 vs 6.00±0.94). Reappraisal advantage (no-reappraisal minus reappraisal): Main effects—picture type F(1,78)=12.85, p=0.001, η²=0.141 (greater advantage for EA images 1.13±1.43 vs White images 0.83±1.43); ethnic group F(1,78)=6.55, p=0.001, η²=0.077 (White 1.35±1.69 > East Asian 0.60±0.94). Interaction picture type × ethnic group significant, F(1,78)=30.39, p<0.001, η²=0.280. Simple effects:
• East Asian participants: larger reappraisal advantage for EA vs White images (0.99±1.06 vs 0.22±0.83), F(1,78)=41.38, p<0.001, η²=0.347.
• White participants: no significant difference between picture types, F(1,78)=1.86, p=0.177 (White vs EA images: 1.44±1.65 vs 1.27±1.73).
• Between groups: For White images, White>East Asian (1.44±1.65 vs 0.22±0.83), F(1,78)=17.55, p<0.001, η²=0.184; for EA images, no significant group difference, F(1,78)=0.80, p=0.374 (White vs East Asian: 1.27±1.73 vs 0.99±1.06). Reappraisal block ratings (completeness): Main effect of picture type, F(1,78)=25.60, p<0.001, η²=0.247 (White images 5.03±1.50 > EA images 4.64±1.51). Main effect of ethnic group, F(1,78)=5.13, p=0.026, η²=0.062 (East Asian 5.20±1.05 > White 4.47±1.72). Temporal analyses: No significant attenuation within blocks. No-reappraisal first vs second half: t(79)=0.09, p=0.930 (5.83±1.02 vs 5.80±1.20). Reappraisal first vs second half: t(79)=-0.26, p=0.794 (4.79±1.35 vs 4.88±1.59). Gender analyses: No-reappraisal ratings—main effect of gender, F(1,78)=11.16, p=0.001, η²=0.125 (females reported higher negative emotion: 6.20±0.99 vs males 5.42±1.10). Reappraisal advantage—main effect of gender marginal, F(1,78)=3.86, p=0.053, η²=0.047 (females showed marginally larger reappraisal advantage).

Findings support both hypotheses and extend the literature on cultural modulation of social emotion. Both White and East Asian participants showed an own-race bias in emotional reactivity: stronger negative affect to social exclusion when depicted by same-race characters. This aligns with in-group/out-group frameworks and prior evidence that empathy and perceived threat are heightened for in-group members. The own-race bias also extended to regulation: participants exhibited more effective emotion regulation (greater reappraisal advantage) when regulating responses to own-race exclusion. Processes tied to social identity, in-group belonging, and greater empathic connection may facilitate regulation, whereas cross-cultural misunderstandings and reduced empathic attunement may hinder it. Additionally, White participants generally showed greater reappraisal effectiveness than East Asian participants, consistent with research indicating higher motivation to regulate and fewer regulation difficulties among individuals from more individualistic cultures. Cultural differences in preferred strategies (e.g., East Asians’ greater use of distancing/avoidance) may also contribute, given this study targeted reinterpretation specifically. Overall, results underscore culture’s role in shaping both reaction to and regulation of social exclusion.

This cross-cultural study demonstrates robust own-race biases in both emotional reactivity to and regulation of social exclusion: participants reacted more negatively to and regulated more effectively when viewing exclusion involving own-race characters. White participants also showed greater overall effectiveness using cognitive reappraisal than East Asian participants. These findings highlight culture as a key modulator of social-emotional processes and suggest tailoring assessment and intervention strategies (e.g., emotion regulation skills training) to cultural background may improve outcomes for individuals experiencing social exclusion or bullying. Future research should compare different reappraisal strategies (reinterpretation vs distancing), incorporate more ecologically valid exclusion paradigms, assess broader age ranges, and include measures of attributions, baseline self-regulation, and implicit racial attitudes.

• Use of imagined, picture-based social exclusion scenarios may not evoke the same responses as real exclusion; though standard in emotion regulation research, ecological validity is limited.
• Sample restricted to young adults; generalizability to children, adolescents, and older adults is unknown.
• Observers’ attributions about the exclusion scenarios were not measured, which could influence emotional reactivity and regulation.
• Baseline self-regulation capacity was not assessed, potentially affecting subsequent reappraisal performance.
• Implicit racial attitudes were not measured; such attitudes may influence cross-cultural effects.
• Lack of control stimuli without social exclusion means exclusion-specific effects cannot be isolated within this design.
• Fixed block order (passive viewing before reappraisal) introduces potential confounds with temporal attenuation; within-block temporal analyses did not show attenuation, but counterbalancing would be preferable in future work.