Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Display rules

Display rules are culturally and socially learned norms that govern the appropriate expression, suppression, or modification of emotions in various contexts, determining when, how, and to whom emotional displays are deemed acceptable.^[1] Coined by psychologists Paul Ekman and Wallace V. Friesen in 1969, the concept emerged from cross-cultural studies revealing that while basic emotional expressions may be universal, their manifestation in social settings varies due to these rules.^[2] Display rules function as cognitive schemas or management techniques that individuals apply to intensify, deintensify, neutralize, or completely mask genuine emotional responses to align with situational expectations.^[3]^[4] The concept of display rules was introduced by Ekman and Friesen in their 1969 paper on nonverbal behavior, with seminal elaborations in Ekman's 1972 chapter on universals and cultural differences in facial expressions and Friesen's 1972 dissertation testing the idea experimentally.^[5] In landmark experiments, such as those involving American and Japanese participants viewing stress-inducing films, researchers observed that Japanese subjects masked negative emotions in the presence of an authority figure, adhering to cultural norms of politeness, while Americans displayed them more openly—highlighting how display rules operate in social situations.^[1] These rules are acquired early in childhood through socialization processes and can differ significantly across cultures; for instance, many Western cultures encourage open expression of positive emotions like happiness, whereas some East Asian cultures emphasize restraint to maintain harmony.^[6]^[7] Beyond culture, display rules extend to organizational and professional contexts, where they influence emotional labor—such as service workers feigning enthusiasm regardless of true feelings—to meet role expectations.^[8] Research has shown that adherence to these rules can affect psychological well-being, with frequent suppression linked to stress or emotional exhaustion, particularly when display rule demands conflict with authentic emotions.^[3] Variations in display rules also apply to specific emotions; for example, rules for positive emotions like amusement may permit more flexibility than those for negative ones like anger, depending on the social setting.^[3] Overall, display rules underscore the interplay between innate emotional responses and learned social regulation, shaping interpersonal interactions worldwide.^[9]

Fundamentals

Definition and Core Concepts

Display rules refer to the learned, culturally and socially determined norms that govern how individuals manage and modify their emotional expressions in specific social contexts. These rules dictate whether, when, and how intensely emotions should be displayed, suppressed, or altered to align with situational expectations. Originally conceptualized as part of nonverbal behavior repertoires, display rules emerged from observations that emotional expressions are not merely spontaneous but are shaped by unwritten social codes to ensure appropriate interpersonal conduct.^[10]^[11] The primary types of display rules include expressive rules, which permit or encourage the open showing of certain emotions in appropriate settings; masking rules, where true feelings are concealed by displaying a different emotion (such as smiling to hide anger); and intensification or minimization rules, which involve amplifying or toning down the intensity of an emotional display to fit social norms. For instance, neutralization (a form of minimization) might involve inhibiting any visible signs of emotion, while intensification could exaggerate joy in celebratory contexts. These categories allow individuals to adapt their outward emotional signals without necessarily altering their internal feelings.^[10]^[11] Display rules serve key functions in social interactions, including regulating emotional exchanges to preserve harmony, maintaining relationships by avoiding offense, and preventing conflict through controlled expressions that respect power dynamics or group expectations. By guiding individuals to align their displays with communal standards, these rules facilitate smoother social functioning and reinforce cultural values.^[11]^[8] Although related, display rules differ from general emotion regulation, which encompasses a broader array of internal and external strategies to influence the experience, timing, or expression of emotions, such as cognitive reappraisal or attentional shifts. Display rules specifically target the outward behavioral component—focusing on socially prescribed norms for visible expressions—rather than the cognitive or physiological modulation of emotions themselves. This distinction highlights how display rules operate as external guides for performative aspects of emotion, often requiring surface-level adjustments without deep internal change.^[12]^[11]

Historical Origins

The concept of display rules in psychology traces its early roots to Charles Darwin's seminal 1872 publication, The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals, where he proposed that emotional expressions are biologically inherited and serve adaptive functions, yet they can be habitually inhibited, exaggerated, or dissimulated through social conventions and cultural influences to align with societal expectations.^[13] Darwin's observations, drawn from comparative anatomy and cross-species analysis, highlighted how human emotional displays are not purely instinctive but modulated by learned behaviors, laying the groundwork for understanding expression as a socially regulated process.^[13] In the mid-20th century, Silvan Tomkins advanced this foundation through his affect theory, outlined in the 1960s volumes of Affect, Imagery, Consciousness, where he described innate affects as biologically hardwired responses that trigger facial and physiological displays, but emphasized their modification via psychological scripts and social rules that amplify, minimize, or redirect expressions to fit interpersonal contexts.^[14] Tomkins's framework portrayed emotional expression as dynamically shaped by density mechanisms—social and cognitive processes that govern how affects are co-assembled and displayed—thus bridging evolutionary biology with psychosocial regulation and influencing subsequent researchers like Paul Ekman.^[14] The concept of display rules was introduced by Paul Ekman and Wallace Friesen in their 1969 paper, with formalization through cross-cultural research in the 1970s, including their 1972 works that experimentally tested how universal emotional signals are altered by culturally specific norms dictating when, how, and to what intensity emotions should be shown, masked, or intensified.^[5] Their studies, including experiments with American and Japanese participants, demonstrated display rules in action, such as the masking of negative emotions in social settings, and extended the concept to include personal, vocational, and situational variations beyond culture alone. In the 1990s, James Gross built on this by integrating display rules into emotion regulation models, viewing them as response-focused strategies like expressive suppression that modify ongoing emotional displays to conform to social demands, as detailed in his 1998 integrative review that synthesized decades of work into a process-oriented framework.^[12] This expansion positioned display rules within broader psychological mechanisms for managing emotions in real-time social interactions. Since the 2000s, the concept has evolved through integration with social psychology and neuroscience, with functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies revealing neural correlates of display rule adherence, such as prefrontal cortex activation during suppression tasks, as shown in Ochsner et al.'s 2002 experiment where participants inhibited emotional responses to negative images, linking behavioral regulation to distinct brain networks.^[15] These findings have underscored display rules' role in everyday social functioning, shifting focus from purely behavioral descriptions to underlying cognitive and neurobiological processes.

Theoretical Foundations

Connection to Emotion Theories

Display rules serve as social filters that modulate the outward expression of basic emotions, which are posited to be universal across cultures. Paul Ekman identified six fundamental emotions—happiness, sadness, fear, disgust, anger, and surprise—characterized by distinct facial expressions that evolved for adaptive communication.^[16] These expressions are not always displayed freely; instead, display rules dictate when, how, and to whom they are shown, often intensifying, minimizing, or masking them to align with social expectations. For instance, an individual might suppress anger in a professional setting to maintain harmony, illustrating how display rules overlay biological impulses with learned behavioral controls.^[17] Within appraisal theory, display rules integrate as post-appraisal mechanisms that shape emotional behavior following the cognitive evaluation of events. Richard Lazarus's model emphasizes that emotions arise from primary appraisals (assessing relevance and threat) and secondary appraisals (evaluating coping potential), with social norms influencing the subsequent expression.^[18] Display rules thus function as regulatory strategies, such as expressive suppression, where individuals adjust outward signs after appraising a situation's interpersonal demands, potentially leading to emotional exhaustion if overused. Empirical studies on educators, for example, show that adherence to display rules correlates with suppression tactics, amplifying burnout through sustained cognitive effort.^[19] Socio-cultural theories of emotion position display rules as key mediators between personal affective experiences and collective norms, extending appraisal processes into relational contexts. Batja Mesquita's framework highlights how cultural appraisals—evaluations shaped by shared values—guide emotional regulation, with display rules enforcing expressions that reinforce social bonds or hierarchies.^[20] In interdependent cultures, for instance, display rules prioritize relational harmony, suppressing individual distress to affirm group identity, whereas independent cultures may encourage authentic displays to assert autonomy. This mediation underscores emotions as socially constructed, where display rules transform private feelings into publicly acceptable signals.^[21] From an evolutionary standpoint, display rules represent adaptive refinements of innate emotional signals, building on Charles Darwin's foundations in The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals. Darwin argued that facial expressions originated from serviceable habits—functional behaviors like snarling in threat—that became ritualized for communication, promoting survival through social signaling.^[22] Modern interpretations view display rules as extensions of this, facilitating group cohesion by modulating expressions to avoid conflict or build alliances, thus enhancing reproductive fitness in social species.^[23] Recent neuroscientific research ties display rules to brain mechanisms of suppression, particularly involving the amygdala, which processes emotional salience. Post-2010 functional neuroimaging studies reveal that expressive suppression— a core display rule application—often reduces amygdala activation to negative stimuli, aiding behavioral control but sometimes at the cost of memory encoding or heightened physiological arousal.^[24] A systematic review of 12 fMRI experiments confirms this modulation, though results vary by task demands, suggesting prefrontal-amygdala interactions underpin the neural basis for adhering to display rules in real-time social contexts.^[25] These findings bridge evolutionary adaptations with contemporary cognitive neuroscience, highlighting display rules' role in balancing innate emotional drives with learned inhibition.

Major Theoretical Models

In Silvan Tomkins' affect theory, display rules emerge as part of broader psychological scripts that regulate the expression of innate, biologically based affects to ensure social acceptability and adaptive functioning. Tomkins posited that humans are born with a set of primary affects—such as interest, enjoyment, surprise, distress, anger, fear, shame, and disgust—that serve as amplifiers of neural firing density, drawing attention to significant stimuli.^[26] These affects are initially expressed through innate facial and vocal displays, but through learning and socialization, individuals develop scripts—coherent sequences of scenes involving affects, cognitions, and behaviors—that modulate these displays according to social norms. Display rules function within these scripts as regulatory mechanisms, prescribing when to amplify, suppress, or mask affects to align with interpersonal expectations, thereby preventing social rejection or conflict. For instance, a script might dictate masking shame in professional settings to maintain relational bonds, reflecting Tomkins' view that such rules evolve from repeated affect-cognition interactions across the lifespan.^[14] Paul Ekman's model of display rules builds on the neurocultural theory of emotion, framing them as culturally learned "rules of expression" that govern the management of universal facial expressions in context-specific ways. Ekman and Friesen introduced the concept in their 1969 work, distinguishing between innate emotional expressions—observable through the Facial Action Coding System (FACS), a tool for objectively measuring facial muscle movements—and culturally variable display rules that dictate whether to express, intensify, de-intensify, or mask these expressions.^[5] Empirical support for this model comes from cross-cultural studies using FACS, which revealed consistent patterns of expression modification; for example, Japanese participants masked negative emotions more than Americans when observed by authority figures, illustrating rules like neutralization or qualification.^[27] Ekman's framework emphasizes four primary display rule operations—neutralizing, masking, intensifying, and de-intensifying—supported by experimental evidence showing their role in adapting universal emotions to social hierarchies and contexts. James Gross's process model of emotion regulation integrates display rules as a key strategy within response modulation, the final stage of a temporal sequence where emotions are altered after full generation. In this model, outlined in Gross's 1998 integrative review, emotion unfolds through five stages—situation selection, modification, attentional deployment, cognitive change, and response modulation—with display rules operating primarily in the latter to shape expressive behavior without altering experiential or physiological components.^[12] Situational display rules, such as those in service roles requiring positive expressions, involve habitual suppression or amplification, while individual differences influence their habitual use; for example, high suppressors report poorer social functioning due to reduced rapport. Gross's framework highlights the trade-offs of these strategies, with response-focused modulation like expressive suppression linked to increased cardiovascular stress but effective for short-term norm adherence. Emily A. Butler's work on interpersonal emotion dynamics examines the social consequences of adhering to display rules, particularly through expressive suppression in real-time interactions. In her 2003 study on expressive suppression, Butler demonstrated that inhibiting one's own emotions disrupts social bonding, as observers perceive less responsiveness and authenticity, leading to mutual discomfort. This framework posits that display rules are socially transmitted via coregulation processes, where one person's emotional display serves as a cue for others to adjust their expressions, fostering norm conformity; for instance, in dyadic conversations, suppression by one partner reduces positive affect reciprocity in the other. Butler's research underscores the relational costs of rule adherence, with empirical data showing heightened physiological arousal and decreased affiliation when rules prioritize masking over genuine expression.^[28] Recent extensions of these models incorporate AI and virtual reality (VR) to explore emotional expressions in digital environments, adapting traditional frameworks to mediated settings.

Cultural Aspects

Cross-Cultural Variations

Display rules for emotional expression vary significantly across cultures, often aligning with broader communication styles such as high-context and low-context frameworks. In high-context cultures, typically collectivist societies like Japan, emotional displays are modulated to prioritize group harmony and indirect communication, leading to greater emphasis on suppression or neutralization of intense emotions, particularly negative ones like anger, to avoid social disruption. Conversely, low-context cultures, such as the United States, which are more individualist, permit and even encourage open and direct expression of emotions to assert personal autonomy and clarity in interactions. These differences reflect underlying values where collectivist orientations favor relational interdependence over individual expressivity. Empirical research has documented these variations through large-scale cross-cultural studies. David Matsumoto's work in the 1990s and early 2000s, including a seminal 1990 study comparing American and Japanese respondents, established that display rules differ systematically by cultural norms, with Japanese participants rating expressive behaviors as less appropriate than Americans for emotions like disgust and anger.^[11] Extending this, a 2008 study by Matsumoto and colleagues surveyed over 5,000 individuals across 32 countries using the Display Rule Assessment Inventory, revealing that anger suppression was notably higher in Asian cultures compared to Western ones, accounting for up to 69% of variance in emotional judgment differences when linked to cultural dimensions like individualism-collectivism. These findings underscore how display rules are not universal but shaped by societal values, with tighter controls on negative emotions in interdependent cultures.^[29] Gender and power dynamics further modulate these cultural variations, often imposing stricter display rules on women in patriarchal societies. In many collectivist and high power-distance cultures, women face heightened expectations to suppress assertive emotions like anger to maintain deference and social order, while men may have more latitude for dominant expressions; for instance, studies in masculine-oriented cultures (per Hofstede's framework) show reinforced gender disparities in anger display, with women penalized more severely for overt emotionality. This pattern is evident in cross-cultural comparisons, such as a 2009 study of Canada, the US, and Japan, where women across all three reported stronger self-imposed rules for modulating anger and contempt compared to men, amplified in hierarchical contexts. Such dynamics highlight how power structures intersect with culture to enforce differential emotional norms.^[30]^[31] Globalization and migration have introduced hybrid display rules, particularly among immigrants adapting to multicultural environments, as evidenced by post-2015 research on emotional acculturation. Studies show that immigrants often blend origin and host culture norms, with frequent positive interactions leading to partial adoption of the host's expressive styles; for example, a 2018 longitudinal analysis of minority youth found that emotional fit with majority norms via acculturation reduced distress and enhanced integration, though discrimination could hinder full adaptation. In multicultural settings, this results in context-dependent rules, such as suppressing heritage emotions in professional contexts while retaining them in family ones. Recent work post-2015 emphasizes these hybrids as adaptive strategies in diverse societies.^[32]^[33] Beyond Eurocentric research, non-Western cultures like those in Africa reveal communal norms that prioritize collective well-being in display rules. In Akan society of Ghana, for instance, proverbs and socialization emphasize response modulation and situation selection to regulate emotions, suppressing individual displays that could disrupt community harmony while allowing shared expressions in rituals; a 2018 study identified four key strategies—cognitive change, response modulation, situation modification, and selection—rooted in interdependence, differing from individualistic Western patterns by valuing restraint for social cohesion over personal authenticity. These findings expand understanding of display rules in communal African contexts, highlighting harmony-oriented suppression similar to Asian collectivism but with unique emphases on orality and group rituals.^[34]

Influential Cultural Frameworks

One influential framework for understanding cultural display rules is the distinction between independent and interdependent self-construals, proposed by Hazel Markus and Shinobu Kitayama. In independent self-construals, prevalent in Western cultures like the United States, individuals prioritize personal autonomy and express emotions that affirm self-expression, such as assertiveness in social interactions.^[35] Conversely, interdependent self-construals, common in East Asian cultures, emphasize relational harmony and connectedness, leading to display rules that suppress self-focused emotions to maintain group cohesion.^[36] This framework highlights how self-construals shape not only emotional experiences but also the rules governing their public display, influencing behaviors like deference in interdependent contexts.^[37] Building on cultural variations in emotional valuation, Jeanne Tsai's affect valuation theory posits that cultures differ in the ideal affective states they promote, affecting display rules for high- versus low-arousal emotions. In the United States, high-arousal positive states like excitement are valued and openly displayed, aligning with cultural ideals of enthusiasm and vitality.^[38] In contrast, East Asian cultures, such as those in Taiwan and Hong Kong, prioritize low-arousal states like calm and peace, resulting in display rules that favor subdued expressions to preserve social equilibrium.^[39] Tsai's theory integrates these preferences into broader emotion models, showing how cultural valuation influences both actual and ideal emotional displays across contexts.^[40] These frameworks manifest in specific case studies that illustrate divergent display rules. In Japan, the emotion of amae—a culturally nuanced expression of playful dependence—encourages displays of vulnerability and reliance on others, particularly in close relationships, contrasting with American norms that favor assertive independence to demonstrate competence.^[41] Similarly, in Middle Eastern honor cultures, such as those in Arab societies, public suppression of shame is a core display rule to protect family reputation, where overt emotional vulnerability could invite collective dishonor, differing from individualistic cultures that permit more open shame expression for personal growth.^[42]^[43] Religious doctrines further shape display rules through prescriptive norms. In Islam, modesty governs grief displays, prohibiting excessive wailing or self-harm while encouraging quiet patience and prayer to honor the deceased and maintain communal dignity.^[44] Confucianism, influential in East Asian societies, enforces filial piety that masks anger toward elders, promoting harmonious deference and emotional restraint to uphold family hierarchy and social order.^[45] Emerging research in the 2020s examines how social media globalizes display rules, blending traditional cultural norms with digital influences. Studies show cultural differences in how users perceive and express emotions on platforms, such as varying interpretations of emoticons based on display rules. For instance, Koreans and Americans weigh outward emotional expressions differently in digital contexts, with implications for cross-cultural communication.^[46]

Family and Peer Dynamics

In family settings, parents play a central role in modeling and reinforcing display rules through direct interactions and verbal guidance, shaping children's emotional expressions from an early age. Caregivers often use phrases like "big boys don't cry" to discourage the open display of sadness or vulnerability in boys, promoting gender-specific norms that emphasize stoicism over emotional openness.^[47] This modeling extends to reinforcement practices, where parents reward compliant emotional behaviors, such as masking disappointment during family events, while punishing deviations, thereby internalizing these rules in children.^[48] Attachment styles further influence this process, with securely attached parents fostering environments that encourage authentic emotional expression, whereas insecure attachments may lead to more restrictive display rules that suppress negative emotions to maintain relational harmony.^[49] Empirical observations indicate that children as young as 6-8 years old adjust their emotional displays based on the perceived expectations of parents versus peers, suppressing anger or sadness more readily in family contexts to avoid disapproval.^[50] Sibling interactions and peer groups amplify these dynamics through conformity pressures, where children enforce display rules during play to gain acceptance. In playgroups, peers often ridicule overt expressions of negative emotions like fear or frustration, leading to self-suppression and mimicry of "tough" or neutral facades to fit in.^[51] Family cultural transmission perpetuates display rules across generations, particularly in immigrant households where parents blend heritage norms with host culture expectations. For instance, Mexican-origin families in the U.S. may model restrained emotional displays rooted in collectivistic values while gradually incorporating more expressive patterns from the surrounding environment, passing these hybrid rules to children through daily interactions.^[52] Overall, these intimate group influences establish foundational emotional regulation patterns, distinct from broader societal pressures. In professional settings, display rules often manifest as organizational expectations for emotional expression, compelling employees to manage their feelings to align with workplace norms. A seminal framework for understanding this is emotional labor theory, introduced by sociologist Arlie Russell Hochschild, which describes the commercialization of emotions where workers regulate their affective displays to meet job requirements, such as maintaining a positive demeanor despite personal distress.^[53] In retail and service industries, the directive "service with a smile" exemplifies these rules, requiring frontline staff to exhibit enthusiasm and courtesy to enhance customer satisfaction, even under challenging conditions; this practice has been linked to increased emotional exhaustion when surface acting—faking emotions without internal alignment—predominates over deep acting, where genuine feelings are cultivated.^[54] Such norms not only shape individual behavior but also reinforce broader economic pressures to prioritize productivity through controlled emotional performance.^[55] Media representations further embed display rules within societal ideals, influencing how emotions are perceived and expressed on a cultural scale. In Western television and film, portrayals often emphasize stoicism and restraint, particularly for male characters, discouraging overt displays of vulnerability like sadness or fear to align with norms of strength and self-reliance; this can perpetuate a cultural bias against "powerless" negative emotions, associating them with weakness rather than authenticity.^[56] Institutional environments, such as the military and healthcare, impose stringent display rules through formal protocols that prioritize operational efficacy over personal expression. In military contexts, soldiers are trained to suppress fear and distress during combat to maintain unit cohesion and decision-making clarity, with emotional regulation strategies like reappraisal encouraged to foster resilience amid high-stakes threats.^[57] Similarly, healthcare professionals, including nurses, adhere to unit-level norms that limit visible emotional reactions—such as avoiding displays of frustration or grief—to preserve patient trust and professional boundaries, though this can heighten burnout when conflicting with genuine empathetic responses.^[58] These rules, often codified in training and policy, reflect institutional imperatives for stability in crisis-prone settings. Social movements have begun to disrupt entrenched display rules, particularly around vulnerability and silence. The #MeToo movement, gaining momentum after 2017, challenged norms that previously enforced emotional restraint in discussions of trauma, encouraging survivors to publicly express pain, anger, and fear to foster solidarity and accountability; disclosures adhering to traditional expectations of subdued vulnerability garnered more visibility, while those defying them by showing frustration faced reduced engagement, highlighting persistent tensions in emotional norms.^[59] This shift has prompted broader reevaluations of suppression in professional and public spheres, promoting openness as a tool for social change.^[60] In digital realms, online social platforms introduce novel display rules mediated by tools like emojis, which serve as proxies for emotional expression in text-based communication. Users often apply euphemistic or mismatched emojis—such as smiling faces in negative contexts—to conform to politeness norms and mitigate conflict, effectively managing impressions without verbalizing raw feelings; this practice extends traditional face-to-face rules into virtual spaces, where brevity and visual cues dictate acceptable vulnerability.^[61] As social media evolves, these digital conventions increasingly shape global interactions, blending cultural display expectations with algorithmic influences on visibility.

Developmental Trajectory

Infancy and Early Childhood

In infancy, emotional expressions are primarily innate and spontaneous, such as crying to signal distress or smiling to indicate contentment, emerging from birth as reflexive responses to physiological needs and sensory stimuli.^[62] These initial displays are gradually shaped into learned patterns through interactions with caregivers, particularly between 6 and 12 months of age, when infants begin to adjust their expressions based on parental feedback, such as soothing responses to distress or encouragement of positive affect.^[63] For instance, mothers' contingent reactions to infant expressiveness, including verbal labeling and mirroring, promote the socialization of emotion displays, transitioning from unmodulated cries to more socially attuned signals.^[64] A key mechanism in this early acquisition is social referencing, where infants around 8 to 12 months use caregivers' emotional cues to regulate their own displays in uncertain situations. In the classic stranger anxiety paradigm, an infant's fear response to an approaching stranger is modulated by the mother's facial and vocal reactions; a positive maternal display encourages approach, while fearfulness heightens wariness.^[65] This process lays the groundwork for display rules by teaching infants to align their expressions with social expectations derived from parental models.^[66] By ages 2 to 3, basic forms of masking and dissimulation emerge, as children demonstrate an initial understanding of suppressing negative emotions to conform to social norms, observed in experimental tasks involving self-conscious emotions like embarrassment or disappointment. Michael Lewis's observational studies from the 1990s highlight this milestone, showing that toddlers as young as 2 years can hide felt emotions when prompted by adult expectations, marking the onset of intentional display rule adherence.^[67] Neurologically, these early developments are supported by the maturation of the prefrontal cortex (PFC), which begins integrating with limbic regions around 6 to 12 months to enable rudimentary emotion suppression and regulation.^[68] Infant neuroimaging studies, such as those using functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS), reveal PFC activation during social referencing tasks, facilitating the inhibition of spontaneous expressions.^[69] A 2021 study indicates that 11-month-old infants are sensitive to cultural differences in emotions, showing preferential looking to culturally distinct expressions of anger, happiness, and surprise, suggesting early exposure to culturally specific display norms influences emotional perception.^[70]

Later Childhood and Adolescence

During later childhood, typically ages 8 to 12, children's understanding of display rules advances through cognitive developments such as theory of mind, which emerges around ages 4 to 7 and allows anticipation of others' emotional expectations.^[71] This reflective emotion understanding enables school-age children to recognize hidden emotions, such as displaying happiness while feeling sadness to meet social norms, with accuracy improving by ages 7 to 10 as they infer desires from contextual emotional cues.^[72] By this stage, children apply these rules more strategically in peer interactions, distinguishing between genuine feelings and socially appropriate expressions. In school settings, peer dynamics drive the acquisition of display rules, often through conformity pressures and bullying avoidance, leading children to suppress emotions like sadness to fit in with group norms.^[73] For instance, knowledge of display rules for sadness negatively predicts physical victimization, as children who hide vulnerable emotions experience less peer aggression in after-school programs.^[73] This adherence fosters social integration but can strain emotional self-regulation, particularly among lower-income children who show higher emotional lability and bullying involvement due to limited rule mastery.^[73] Gender differences in display rules become evident during this period, with 2010s studies indicating stricter expectations for girls to express positive and internalizing emotions like sympathy while suppressing externalizing ones such as anger.^[74] Meta-analyses reveal small but significant effects, where girls display more positive emotions in middle childhood (Hedges' g = -0.20) compared to boys, who show greater externalizing expressions with peers (g = 0.13), reflecting socialization pressures that intensify with age and context.^[74] These patterns contribute to girls' higher emotion regulation efforts in social scenarios, potentially heightening internalizing risks. Adolescence, spanning ages 13 to 18, introduces challenges where identity formation conflicts with display rules, particularly in the social media era, prompting suppression of anxiety to maintain curated online personas.^[75] Digital platforms amplify peer feedback, leading adolescents to strategically modify emotional displays for social evaluation, though asynchronous formats like texting reduce suppression effectiveness compared to face-to-face interactions.^[76] This tension can undermine wellbeing, as social comparison on sites like Instagram fosters contamination narratives in identity development, linking to increased depression in up to 20-24% of youth by late adolescence.^[75] Post-pandemic research from the 2020s highlights emerging virtual display rules in online schooling, where adolescents increasingly relied on expressive suppression during video-based learning, correlating with elevated depressive symptoms.^[77] This shift, observed in large cohorts during COVID-19 restrictions, underscores how remote environments alter emotional regulation, with self-compassion strategies offering protective effects against the mental health impacts of masked expressions in virtual peer contexts.^[77]

Adulthood

In adulthood, display rules become more habitual and automatic, particularly in professional and romantic contexts, where individuals apply them with reduced conscious flexibility compared to earlier life stages. In workplaces, such as teaching, adults routinely engage in expressive suppression to align with professional norms, often leading to habitual patterns that prioritize composure over authentic emotional release.^[19] Similarly, in established romantic relationships, display rules evolve to permit greater emotional openness, with partners managing both positive and negative emotions less intensively than in early dating stages, fostering more routine and less effortful expressions.^[78] Life transitions in adulthood, including marriage, parenting, and career changes, often necessitate adjustments to display rules, such as intensified requirements for positive emotional displays to maintain relational harmony or meet societal expectations. During parenting, adults perceive strong display rules compelling them to up-regulate positive emotions like joy and down-regulate negatives like anger, particularly amid heightened parent-child interactions, which demands increased regulatory effort.^[79] In marriage and career shifts, these rules may similarly adapt to emphasize positivity for stability, though chronic adherence can strain emotional resources.^[80] As individuals age, socioemotional selectivity theory posits that perceived time limitations motivate a shift toward emotionally meaningful goals, resulting in more authentic emotional displays and reduced suppression of genuine feelings in later life.^[81] Older adults prioritize positive experiences and selective social interactions, leading to effective emotion regulation that favors savoring positives over avoiding negatives, often manifesting as less constrained expressions compared to midlife.^[81] Pathological conditions like alexithymia can disrupt adherence to display rules by impairing emotional expression and communication, leading to either hypoexpressive inhibition or hyperexpressive incoherence that deviates from social norms.^[82] In contemporary adulthood, chronic suppression per workplace display rules contributes to burnout, as evidenced by meta-analyses showing a positive correlation between surface acting (faking emotions) and job burnout (r = 0.246), particularly in demanding professions.^[83]

References

[1]
Are There Universal Facial Expressions? - Paul Ekman Group
Ekman coined the term display rules: rules we learn in the course of growing up about when, how, and to whom it is appropriate to show our emotional ...
[2]
[PDF] Universals and Cultural Differences in the Judgments of Facial ...
When we sought to demonstrate how cultural differences in display rules produce different facial expressions (Ekman, 1972; Friesen, 1972), we did not ask people ...
[3]
https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Femo0001078
[4]
[PDF] Universals and cultural differences in recognizing emotions
These display rules can vary across cultures, and they are norms that serve to intensify, diminish, neutralize, or mask emotional displays that would otherwise ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[5]
The contribution of self-deceptive enhancement to display rules in ...
Display rules are social norms learned early in childhood and concern the appropriateness of the expression of emotion in various social contexts (Ekman, ...
[6]
7.2 Emotions and Cultural Display - Maricopa Open Digital Press
Ekman acknowledged cultural differences in display rules (cultural norms about when and how emotions are expressed) but maintained that the basic emotions ...
[7]
[PDF] Emotion Regulation and Adherence to Display Rules after ...
The first type of display rule is guidelines for controlling emotions, meaning that the individual exerts control or manages the emotional behavior they display ...
[8]
Evidence and a Computational Explanation of Cultural Differences ...
Ekman (1972) and Friesen (1972) proposed display rules as one of the main aspects of emotional facial expression production and interpretation that vary across ...
[9]
[PDF] The repertoire of nonverbal behavior: Categories, origins, usage ...
We have become increasingly curious about what nonverbal behavior can tell us which verbal behavior does not (Ekman and Friesen, 1967b,. 1968, 1969). One of our ...
[10]
None
### Summary of Display Rules from Matsumoto (1990)
[11]
The Emerging Field of Emotion Regulation: An Integrative Review
In two studies, Richards and Gross (in press) found that emotion suppression impaired memory for auditory information that had been presented during an emotion- ...
[12]
[PDF] Universals and Cultural Differences in Facial Expressions of Emotion
Darwin (1872) proposed that universal facial expressions of emotion are inherited. He reasoned that at some early time in history certain facial movements were ...
[13]
[PDF] A Silvan Tomkins Handbook - Cloudfront.net
... Tomkins, who also of- fers examples of script rules for affect display and expression (“Wipe that smile off your face,” “I don't want to hear any more ...
[14]
[PDF] Affect and Script: Building Relationships and Communities
The innate affects of Silvan Tomkins. Nine Innate affects triggers facial displays. Positive (Inherently rewarding):. Interest-excitement optimal increase.
[15]
[PDF] An fMRI Study of the Cognitive Regulation of Emotion
By increasing or decreasing activation of particular representations, prefrontal regions enable one to selectively attend to and maintain goal-relevant.Missing: display rules<|control11|><|separator|>
[16]
[PDF] Basic-Emotions.pdf - Paul Ekman Group
In this chapter I consolidate my previous writings about basic emotions (Ekman,. 1984, 1992a, 1992b) and introduce a few changes in my thinking. My views over.
[17]
Culture and Emotion - Noba Project
Ekman and colleagues interpreted this variation as demonstrating cultural differences in “display rules,” or rules about what emotions are appropriate to show ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[18]
https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.46.8.819
[19]
Emotion Display Rules, Emotion Regulation, and Teacher Burnout
Jun 23, 2020 · In the early conception of display rules, Ekman and Friesen (1969) defined emotional display rules as “the need to manage the appearance of ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[20]
Cultural regulation of emotion: individual, relational, and structural ...
Feb 12, 2013 · The combined evidence suggests that cultural differences in emotion regulation go well beyond the effortful regulation based on display rules.
[21]
The Role of Culture in Appraisal - ResearchGate
This investigation is grounded in the appraisal theory of emotions, which highlights the role of culture in shaping emotional responses (Sutton & Wheatley, 2003) ...Missing: display rules
[22]
Darwin, C. R. 1872. The expression of the emotions in man and ...
Nov 20, 2023 · At the above date, I was already inclined to believe in the principle of evolution, or of the derivation of species from other and lower forms.
[23]
Darwin's contributions to our understanding of emotional expressions
Using photographs and engravings, Darwin took for granted that these presented the needed information about what emotion was being displayed. My own research ...
[24]
Parallel Regulation of Memory and Emotion Supports the ...
Jul 5, 2017 · Using fMRI, we found that regulation of both mnemonic and emotional content was driven by a shared frontoparietal inhibitory network and was ...
[25]
The neural bases of expressive suppression: A systematic review of ...
In this systematic review, we for the first time synthesize functional neuroimaging studies on the neural bases of expressive suppression in non-clinical ...
[26]
Silvan S. Tomkins's Affect Theory | Chicago Scholarship Online - DOI
A discussion of the work of Silvan S. Tomkins, who helped reinvigorate the study of the emotions in the 1960s by proposing a new theory of affect.
[27]
[PDF] Universal Facial Expressions of Emotion - Paul Ekman Group
lands of New Guinea were studied (Ekman and Friesen, 1971). ... Now that the situation became a social encounter, display rules were operative, and the facial ...
[28]
The social consequences of expressive suppression - PubMed
At times, people keep their emotions from showing during social interactions. The authors' analysis suggests that such expressive suppression should disrupt ...Missing: referencing rules
[29]
Facilitating Emotional Communication in Social Virtual Reality ...
Our research provides practical guidelines for optimizing avatar-mediated emotional communication in social VR environments. ... Variations of emotional display ...<|separator|>
[30]
Evaluating gesture and voice for emotion and empathy in VR ... - arXiv
Jul 1, 2025 · In this paper, we evaluate the influence of real and synthetic gestures and speech, alongside varying levels of immersion (VR vs. 2D displays) and emotional ...
[31]
Emotional acculturation: a first review - ScienceDirect.com
In the current article, I review empirical studies on immigrant minorities that provide first evidence for (i) the phenomenon of emotional acculturation.Missing: display post-
[32]
Mapping Expressive Differences Around the World - Sage Journals
This article reports such a study. More than 5,000 respondents in 32 countries completed the Display Rule Assessment Inventory. The authors examined five ...
[33]
[PDF] Differences between cultures in emotional verbal and ... - Psicothema
It is reasonable to believe that masculine cultures reinforce gender differences in display rules, particularly in the case of an- ger (Matsumoto, 1989).
[34]
[PDF] Variations of Emotional Display Rules Within and Across Cultures
This study investigates emotional display rules for seven basic emotions. The main goal was to compare emotional display rules of Canadians, US Americans, ...
[35]
Emotional acculturation in daily life interactions with majority members.
Aug 3, 2018 · When immigrant minority individuals engage in frequent and positive social contact with majority culture members, their emotions become a ...
[36]
Emotional Acculturation: Emotions as a Pathway to Social Integration
Jul 24, 2025 · This article reviews recent research that examines how emotional processes change in response to exposure to new cultures and how successful ...Missing: display rules post-
[37]
Emotion Norms, Display Rules, and Regulation in the Akan Society ...
Oct 30, 2018 · Emotion-focused proverbs highlighted four emotion regulation strategies: change in cognition, response modulation, situation modification, and situation ...Introduction · Materials and Methods · Findings · Discussion
[38]
[PDF] Culture and the Self: Implications for Cognition, Emotion, and ... - MIT
We delineate how these divergent views of the self—the independent and the interdependent— can have a systematic influence on various aspects of cognition,.
[39]
Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and ...
These construals can influence, and in many cases determine, the very nature of individual experience, including cognition, emotion, and motivation.
[40]
(PDF) Independent/Interdependent Self - ResearchGate
Markus and Kitayama's (1991) theory of independent and interdependent self-construals had a major influence on social, personality, and developmental ...
[41]
Ideal Affect: Cultural Causes and Behavioral Consequences - PubMed
I then introduce affect valuation theory, which integrates ideal affect with current models of affect and emotion and, in doing so, provides a new framework for ...
[42]
Cultural variation in affect valuation. - APA PsycNET
The authors propose that how people want to feel ("ideal affect") differs from how they actually feel ("actual affect") and that cultural factors influence ...
[43]
Affect Valuation: Theory, Measurement, and Cultural Variation
Mar 14, 2004 · Affect valuation theory proposes that: 1) “real” affect differs from “ideal” affect; 2) while personality traits may primarily influence “real” affect, ...
[44]
Amae in Japan and the United States: an exploration of a "culturally ...
Both American and Japanese participants felt more positive emotion and perceived the requester as feeling closer to them in the Amae condition than in the other ...Missing: display rules assertiveness
[45]
Secrets, gender norms and honour: Examining tensions in everyday ...
The fear of shame or stigma and the need to maintain the honour of the family might prevent people from Middle Eastern cultural backgrounds from disclosing ...
[46]
Honor and Shame in a Middle Eastern Setting - Nabataea.net
As an example, when an Arab is shamed, he may react by taking revenge on the one who causes the shame, but when an oriental is shamed, he may react by ...
[47]
Mourning The Dead - Zakir Naik - Islamway
What is prohibited is to express grief by wailing (Bewailing refers to mourning in a loud voice), shrieking, beating the chest and cheeks, tearing hair or ...
[48]
Predicting Internalizing Problems in Chinese Children: the Unique ...
Second, Chinese cultural display rules discouraging the expression of negative emotions may cause anger to be turned inward or suppressed, potentially ...
[49]
Social media users produce more affect that supports cultural values ...
Social media users produce more affect that supports cultural values, but are more influenced by affect that violates cultural values.
[50]
Visual storytelling and cultural connection in GCC social media ...
IntroductionSocial media has transformed brand communication in the GCC, making culturally relevant visual storytelling essential for effective engagement.
[51]
[PDF] Facial Expressions On Emotion - Paul Ekman Group
norms for managing emotional expression (display rules) operate. Such ... general assumption that feedback from others (e.g. “big boys don't cry").
[52]
Parental Socialization of Emotion - PMC - PubMed Central - NIH
Parental socialization practices have effects on children's emotional and social competence and that the socialization process is bidirectional.
[53]
Emotion socialisation, attachment, and patterns of adult emotional ...
Jan 7, 2008 · Attachment styles and fear of personal death: A case study ... Learning Display Rules: The Socialization of Emotion Expression in Infancy.
[54]
Display Rules for Anger, Sadness, and Pain: It Depends on Who Is ...
Children's reported use of display rules, reasons for their decisions, and reported method of expression were examined. Subjects were 32 boys and 32 girls in ...Missing: pressure | Show results with:pressure
[55]
(PDF) Children's Use and Knowledge of Display Rules for Anger ...
Aug 6, 2025 · Our primary goal was to examine the correspondence between children's self-reported use and knowledge of display rules for anger following ...Missing: pressure | Show results with:pressure
[56]
Longitudinal Relations of Cultural Orientation and Emotional ...
Our results underscore pathways through which immigrants' interactions with the family and broader sociocultural context can contribute to continued emotional ...Missing: hybrid | Show results with:hybrid
[57]
Family trouble: Heteronormativity, emotion work and queer youth ...
Jul 24, 2019 · We found that family relationships impacted queer youth mental health in complex ways that were related to the establishment of their autonomous queer selves.
[58]
Arlie Hochschild: The Presentation of Emotion
Hochschild (1983) calls these scripts for emotions feeling rules: “Feeling rules are what guide emotion work by establishing the sense of entitlement or ...
[59]
What 'Service With a Smile' Means for Employee Well-Being
Apr 15, 2019 · Employees can respond to these emotional display rules either by deep acting, which leads them to sincerely change their thoughts and ...
[60]
The Effects of Emotional Labor on Work Strain and Nonwork ... - PMC
Sep 6, 2023 · Emotional labor, first coined by Professor Arlie Hochschild in 1983, refers to employee's effortful management of emotions in order to create a ...
[61]
Emotion displays in media: a comparison between American ... - NIH
Mapping expressive differences around the world: the relationship between emotional display rules and individualism versus collectivism. J. Cross-Cult ...
[62]
Does the media we consume impact our emotions? | OUPblog
Jun 12, 2025 · Dr. Nick Bowman's research is broadly focused on understanding cognitive, emotional, physical and social demands of interactive media content.
[63]
6 Emotion | Human Behavior in Military Contexts
Several questions are relevant for military settings: What are the display rules for emotions in various military work settings? What are the effects of ...
[64]
Emotional display rules as work unit norms: a multilevel analysis of ...
Emotional labor theory has conceptualized emotional display rules as shared norms governing the expression of emotions at work.
[65]
Stereotypical Victims: Visibility of #MeToo Disclosures on Twitter
Feb 2, 2024 · #MeToo sexual assault disclosures that breached expectations of emotional displays by displaying anger or frustration received less retweets ...Missing: rules | Show results with:rules
[66]
[PDF] The Effects of Social Movements: Evidence from #MeToo
We provide real-world evidence that social movements can rapidly affect the norms for behavior by changing perceptions of a societal problem. The rest of the ...
[67]
Are you really smiling? Display rules for emojis and the relationship ...
Mar 3, 2023 · This study found that individuals tended to use euphemistic emojis and sent smiling emojis in negative contexts to manage the expressions.
[68]
The development of spontaneous facial responses to others ... - Nature
Dec 13, 2017 · In the current study, 4- and 7-month old infants were presented with facial expressions of happiness, anger, and fear.
[69]
Learning Display Rules: The Socialization of Emotion Expression in ...
The mothers' verbal responses to infant expressiveness were also analyzed. Infants at both ages display a wide range of expressions and a high rate of change.
[70]
the socialization of emotion expression in infancy - PubMed
This study presents data on changes from 3 to 6 months in the type and frequency of infant facial expression.Missing: development | Show results with:development
[71]
The Development of Stranger Fear in Infancy and Toddlerhood - NIH
Even in temperamentally fearful infants, fearfulness in response to a stranger was mitigated when mothers modeled positive rather than anxious social behaviors.
[72]
What Is Social Referencing in Child Development? An Easy ...
Jun 6, 2023 · Social referencing is defined by the American Psychological Association (APA) as comparing one's emotional and behavioral responses to those of others.
[73]
The Development and Structure of Emotions - SpringerLink
Children's understanding of display rules for expressive behavior. ... Michael Lewis. Authors. Michael Lewis. View author publications. Search author on:PubMed ...
[74]
Rapid Infant Prefrontal Cortex Development and Sensitivity to Early ...
Rapid improvements in children's ability to regulate their behavior and emotions in a goal-directed fashion, commonly referred to as executive function (EF) ...
[75]
Face Experience and the Attentional Bias for Fearful Expressions in 6
Sep 19, 2017 · Six-month-old infants showed a preference for fearful expressions when expressed by own-race faces, but not when expressed by other-race faces.<|control11|><|separator|>
[76]
Infants are sensitive to cultural differences in emotions at 11 months
Sep 30, 2021 · Infants exhibited preferential looking to Japanese over Caucasian Australian mothers' angry and surprised expressions, whereas no difference was ...Missing: neuroimaging | Show results with:neuroimaging
[77]
The Relation Between Emotion Understanding and Theory of Mind ...
May 14, 2018 · Emotion understanding may be defined as the child's understanding of the nature, causes, and control/regulation of emotion, or as the way in ...Abstract · Introduction · Results · Discussion
[78]
Understanding Social Display Rules: Using One Person's Emotional ...
Dec 9, 2019 · This study investigates whether children can use emotional expressions in social contexts to recover the desires of the person observing, rather ...
[79]
Emotional display rules and emotion self‐regulation: Associations ...
Jul 28, 2010 · In this article, we investigated linkages among emotional competence, bullying and victimization for school-age children. In doing so, we ...
[80]
Gender Differences in Emotion Expression in Children: A Meta ...
Gender differences in positive emotions were more pronounced with increasing age, with girls showing more positive emotions than boys in middle childhood (g = − ...
[81]
Beyond Screen Time: Identity Development in the Digital Age
Nov 5, 2020 · We propose an alternative, functional approach to studying adolescent mental health in the digital age, one that examines why and how digital media affect ...Identity Development In... · Cultural Factors In Identity... · Research Agenda<|separator|>
[82]
Adolescent digital emotion regulation - PMC - PubMed Central - NIH
Aug 9, 2024 · We present a new model of adolescent digital emotion regulation as a conceptual framework to help guide burgeoning research in this area.
[83]
Changes in emotion regulation strategies during the pandemic ...
Jun 4, 2024 · The study indicates how adolescents' ER strategies changed during the unprecedented global pandemic. It underscores protective roles of ...Missing: rules | Show results with:rules
[84]
ERIC - EJ535593 - ERIC
Display Rule Development in Romantic Relationships: Emotion Management and Perceived Appropriateness of Emotions across Relationship Stages. Aune, Krystyna ...
[85]
(PDF) Parenting with a smile: Display rules, regulatory effort, and ...
The results revealed that parents perceive emotional display rules, which were associated with more regulatory efforts and then a higher vulnerability to ...
[86]
Chapter 13 - Emotional Labor in Parenting
Parents perceive the existence of emotional display rules and put effort into aligning their emotions with those rules through different emotional labor ...
[87]
Socioemotional Selectivity Theory and the Regulation of Emotion in ...
Socioemotional Selectivity Theory suggests age increases motivation to derive emotional meaning from life and decreases motivation to expand one's horizons.<|separator|>
[88]
Emotional Expression, Emotional Communication, and Alexithymia.
Jun 7, 2010 · When levels of emotional display activity are either too low or too high, emotional communication tends to be disrupted with consequent ...
[89]
Relationships between emotional labor, job burnout, and emotional ...
Nov 18, 2024 · The present study adopted a meta-analysis design that incorporated structural equation modeling to explore the relationships between emotional labor (EL), job ...Missing: 2020s | Show results with:2020s