The Importance of Being Flexible The Ability to Both Enhance and Suppress Emotional Expression Predicts Long-Term Adjustment George A. Bonanno, Anthony Papa, Kathleen O’Neill, Maren Westphal, and Karin Coifman Teachers College, Columbia University Address correspondence to George A. Bonanno, Clinical Psychology Program, 525 West 120th St., Box 218, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, NY 10027; e-mail: gab38@columbia.edu. ABSTRACT Researchers have documented the consequences of both expressing and suppressing emotion using between-subjects designs. It may be argued, however, that successful adaptation depends not so much on any one regulatory process, but on the ability to flexibly enhance or suppress emotional expression in accord with situational demands. We tested this hypothesis among New York City college students in the aftermath of the September 11th terrorist attacks. Subjects’ performance in a laboratory task in which they enhanced emotional expression, suppressed emotional expression, and behaved normally on different trials was examined as a prospective predictor of their adjustment across the first two years of college. Results supported the flexibility hypothesis. A regression analysis controlling for initial distress and motivation and cognitive resources found that subjects who were better able to enhance and suppress the expression of emotion evidenced less distress by the end of the second year. Memory deficits were also observed for both the enhancement and the suppression tasks, suggesting that both processes require cognitive resources. Is it better to express or conceal one's emotions? Although scholars have debated this question for centuries, research over the past few decades suggests that both expressing and suppressing the expression of emotion can serve adaptive ends, but also that both behaviors may extract some cost (Bonanno, 2001; Gross, 1998b). How can these competing findings be reconciled? Recent research on coping has indicated that the crucial element in successful adaptation is not so much which particular strategies are used, but rather whether coping strategies are applied flexibly in a manner that corresponds with the nature of the stressor (e.g., Cheng, 2001). In a similar vein, emotion theorists have increasingly argued that whether one expresses or suppresses emotional expression is not as important for adjustment as is the ability to flexibly express or suppress emotional expression as demanded by the situational context (Barrett & Gross, 2001; Bonanno, 2001; Consedine, Magai, & Bonanno, 2002; Parrott, 1993; Westphal & Bonanno, 2004). It is widely accepted that emotions are not unidimensional phenomena, but rather manifest themselves through multiple response channels, including emotional experience, expression, and physiology. Each of these components is thought to serve distinct adaptive ends and to be subject to self-regulatory processes (Bonanno, 2001; Gross, 1998b). The expression of emotion serves multiple adaptive functions, including communicating and regulating internal states (Ekman & Davidson, 1993; Izard, 1990; Zajonc, Murphy, & Inglehart, 1989) and developing and maintaining social interactions (Darwin, 1872; Ekman, 1993; Keltner, 1995). There are times, however, when expressing emotion may be harmful (Gross & Muñoz, 1995;