Volume: 4 Issues: 11 [March, 2019] pp.

01-21]
Journal of Information System and Technology Management
eISSN: 0128-6666
Journal website: www.jistm.com

EMOTION REGULATION: PREDICTING SMART-SHAMING

TENDENCY ON SOCIAL MEDIA COMMUNICATION

Mary Chris A. Austria1

Irene M. Diaz2
1
Faculty, College of Management and Business Technology, Nueva Ecija University of Science and Technology,
Cabanatuan City, Nueva Ecija, PHILIPPINES. (e-mail: [email protected])
2
Faculty, College of Management and Business Technology, Nueva Ecija University of Science and Technology,
Cabanatuan City, Nueva Ecija, PHILIPPINES. (e-mail: [email protected])

Accepted date: 14-10-2018

Published date: 10-03-2019

To cite this document: Austria, M. C. A., & Diaz, I. M. (2019). Emotion Regulation: Predicting
Smart-Shaming Tendency on Social Media Communication. Journal of Information System and
Technology Management, 4(11), 01-21.
______________________________________________________________________________________________

Abstract: Smart-shaming has been nurtured by the false notion that “my ignorance is just as good
as a discrete social phenomenon and required an aspect of self-regulation. The initial purpose of
this study was explanatory and designed to measure whether smart-shaming is an emotional
response and an endpoint of cognitive inconsistency. This notion was best explained in the light of
Festinger (1957) theory of Cognitive Dissonance. This study examined the causes, motivations and
behaviours of individuals on social media. The underlying forces as to how people process their
cognitive functions of reappraisal and expression suppression is the focal point of this study. This
paper was divided into two parts. A total of 406 respondents with the age range of 18-43 years old
with social networking programs participated in this study. In study 1, there were two hundred
fifty-six (256) participants answered Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (ERQ) and Online Smart
Shaming Scale (OSS). In study 2, there were sixty (60) selected participants out of one hundred fifty
(150) social media users. This part used nine (9) vignette stories that were based from the Online
Smart Shaming Scale. In study 1, researchers’ used correlational design for data gathering
procedure and linear regression for data analysis and found that a low level of emotion regulation
promotes smart-shaming tendency. Specifically, low cognitive reappraisal and expression
suppression promotes smart-shaming tendency. In study 2, T-test was utilized to determine the
difference of high and low Cognitive Reappraisal and Expression Suppression scores for Smart-
shaming tendency. In study 2, T-test was utilized to determine the difference of high and low
Cognitive Reappraisal and Expression Suppression study to reveal that there is a significant
difference (p>0.05) between the two scores. In relation with the initial hypothesis, there is a
negative relationship between emotion regulation and smart-shaming tendency. Likewise, cognitive
processing and emotion regulation are intertwined constructs.

Keywords: Emotion-Regulation, Appraisal, Cognitive Dissonance, Suppression, Smart-Shaming

Tendency
___________________________________________________________________________

1
Introduction
Part of self-regulatory task is to control one's thoughts, manage emotions, make decisions that guide
one's behavior (Baumeister et.al. 2007). For this reason, this paper examines one's emotional
regulation that guides thoughts and behavioural dispositions. Following this interest, emotion
regulation and its executive process gained attention for this research. This paper viewed emotion
regulation as a mechanism that tends to control an emotional state of arousal. This emotional arousal
is usually an initial arousal that can be evaluated and suppressed through cognitive reappraisal and
expression suppression strategies (Gross & John, 2009). Hence, cognitive processing and emotions
are often intertwined. There are two distinct aspects of Emotion regulation, one is regulating what
they feel and the other is regulating what they say (Gross & John, 2003). This follows that one has
to avoid saying anything that might give offense to other people. Therefore, we examined the
importance of effective regulation to prevent problematic behaviors.

Drawing on studies, the power for cognitive reappraisal and expression suppression strategies can
change subsequent beliefs and attitudes (John & Gross, 2004; Brosch et.al., 2013). It pertains to a
deliberate self-control which is consciously done by an individual (Gross & John, 2003). However,
not all human behavior requires deliberate self-regulation (DeWall, C. N., 2011). Most people are
influenced by automatic or unconscious processes (Vohs et.al., 2005 & Baumeister, 1998). This
paper introduced the distinct role of emotion regulation as to whether cognitive reappraisal and
expression suppression strategies facilitate irrational forces thereby unleash problematic thoughts,
motivations and behaviors.

Emotion Regulation (ER) is an ability to effectively manage and respond to an emotional

experience (Rolston and Richardson, 2011). This includes regulating negative emotions which
consist of shame, anger, fear guilt, regret (Keltner & Lerner 2010, Loewenstein & Lerner 2003;
Brief & Weiss, 2002). Negative emotions require one’s ability to reappraise and suppress an
emotional arousal. Case in point, anger triggers aggression and shame triggers avoidance and for
this reason one is required to effectively manage an emotion provoking situation. In fact, a study
(Frijda, 1986) found that emotions carry specific “action tendencies” that signals the most adaptive
response. In other words, emotional regulation requires cognitive work; cognitive reappraisal and
expression suppression to regulate emotional arousal.

According to a study (Eisenberg & Fabes, 2004) found that emotion regulation is not merely
regulating emotional responses but also pertains to both cognitive and emotional aspects. The
analysis of emotion regulation allowed us to deepen conceptions of one’s ability for cognitive
reappraisal and expression suppression and theoretically show how it affects shaming tendency.
Thereby, influencing our personal and social dispositions, as (Baumeister &Vohs et. al., 2005)
stated that emotions are powerful when we failed to manage or take control over an emotion
provoking situation and often mislead people. The theoretical framework used in this paper explains
the complexity of cognitive processes initially triggered by emotion generative processes.

2
Theoretical Framework and Background

Figure 1: Cognitive Dissonance Model

Leon Festinger (1957) developed the cognitive dissonance theory. This theory is referred to as
action-opinion theory and fits into counterintuitive social psychology. The core concept of action-
opinion theory suggests that actions affect subsequent beliefs/attitudes. Akin to this study, action-
opinion theory highlights the power of “rationalization” facilitated by cognitive reappraisal
(opinion) to justify one’s expression (action) according to one’s own perception and motivation.
Cognitive dissonance focuses on the pervasive human tendency to rationalize. To clarify this
notion, a study (Beauvois & Joule, 1996) found that cognitive dissonance follows the need to
“rationalize” behavior. They further asserted that this rationalization may not always be based from
logic. This theory asserted that the need to rationalize is being brought about by cognitive
inconsistency.

Cognitive dissonance happens when one has different association from the others. This follows
that people with smart-shaming tendency tends to associate smart people as being arrogant even
when they "know" it could be identified as being articulate or opinionated. This association style
by “rationalization” is facilitated by cognitive reappraisal. Construal of thoughts by cognitive
reappraisal emphasized that this kind of rationalization process may not always be based from logic.
This association is more influenced by an emotional arousal. This emotional arousal can then be
evaluated and modified by cognitive reappraisal. This paper asserted that rationalization and
justification of this kind is an emotional response.

People rationalize when there is inconsistency of thoughts. Cognitive inconsistency evokes

cognitive regulation and forces a response to reduce the dissonance. A related phenomenon of
smart shaming is worth mentioning at this point. Quoting from the Online Smart Shaming, some
expressions are as follows; “ikaw na matalino”, “ang dami mong alam” “sige na bobo na ako”. One
way to reduce the dissonance of this type is for an individual to justify his/her reactions are
acceptable or by rationalizing that others in similar situations have the same type of reactions.
Rationalizing and justifying behaviors, perceptions and actions are facilitated by cognitive
reappraisal strategy.

This study indicated the expression “Ang dami mong alam” as a smart shaming tendency. The
quoted expression suggested that the endpoint of reappraisal strategy is usually followed by an
expressive response. Akin to our study, this emotional response suggests low expressive
suppression strategy. This expression was quoted from the Online Smart Shaming Scale (OSS) used
by Raphael Rodriguez (In press) as a behavioral indicator of one’s action attacking the personality
of others. Attacking one’s personality is one way to reduce the tension of a situation. This way of

3
characterizing the dissonance process as adaptive does not suggest that it is a rational process (based
on logic). This is considered as irrational which stems from the unpleasant experience of dissonance
brought about by an initial arousal.

This paper viewed smart-shaming as an emotional response and supported by this theory. Cognitive
reappraisal can change subsequent affective states through rationalization and justification of one’s
dispositions. This theory suggests the presence of cognitive inconsistency which evokes a response
and motivates cognitive work aimed at reducing the inconsistency. This emotional state of arousal
triggered by cognitive inconsistency often elicits negative emotion. Negative emotion occurs when
there is cognitive inconsistency to one’s beliefs. This cognitive inconsistency forces a response to
reduce the dissonance. This response was initially evaluated and inhibited through reappraisal and
suppression strategies.

The complexity of the cognitive system explains the cognitive processes underlying behaviors.
This follows that people have different styles of reappraisal and expression suppression strategies.
But for smart-shaming tendency, people may be influenced by a false rationalization. Thereby rely
on simplistic strategy to reduce the unpleasant experience evoked by cognitive inconsistency. A
simplistic strategy of acting out to satisfy irrational impulses doesn’t require one to use self-
regulatory processes. Usually people must regulate responses, and this follows that one has to avoid
saying anything that might give offense to other people. When there is cognitive inconsistency, one
is motivated to reduce the cognitive inconsistency by rationalizing a perception that one’s action is
acceptable. Smart-shaming could be an endpoint of one’s motivation to reduce the cognitive
inconsistency.

These responses to cognitive inconsistency are done through cognitive reappraisal of one’s
perception, motivation and expression suppression of one’s action. The cognitive reappraisal task
was evoked by cognitive inconsistency. Cognitive inconsistency guides peoples’ cognitions.
Cognitions pertain to beliefs, attitudes and feelings. Theoretical framework for this study is
concerned with the cognitive experiences of satisfied and unsatisfied impulses, cognitive regulation
of this situational experience through reappraisal and suppression strategies.

Cognitive dissonance pertains to the conflict between cognitions which motivates one to reduce the
cognitive dissonance. Festinger asserted that this theory was inherently aversive. As an example, a
person who has low or high cognitive reappraisal may tend to avoid rational discussion. The
avoidance for rational discussion is an aversive response evoked by cognitive dissonance.
Avoidance would be the most effective response aimed at reducing the dissonance. The
unpleasantness of the dissonance forces a response. This follows that shaming could be an
emotional response.

The component for the causes of smart-shaming tendency namely; perceived arrogance and closed-
mindedness may have low reappraisal and suppression strategies, thereby increases the shaming
tendency. When individuals are less likely to commit shaming tendency their efforts of reducing
the dissonance may be non-existent or mild. The unpleasantness of cognitive inconsistency is non-
existent because individuals with high reappraisal and high expression suppression strategies
attributed to a source (one’s belief) other than cognitive dissonance. Thereby, efforts to manage
dissonance are very minimal.

If smart shaming is an emotional response, then it can be explained with a study (Smith and Kirby,
2001) stated that emotional experience is influenced by associative processes and by reasoning.

4
This follows that the detection of one’s emotional arousal elicits an adaptive emotional response
that utilizes the mind to regulate reactions which allows the individual to cope with the situation.
Thus, emotion processing does not only enhance affective experiences but also shapes our
perceptions and thereby influences people’s actions.

Literature Review
This paper concurred with the theory and research (Brosch, et.al., 2013) evaluated how cognitive
processing and emotional responses are related and found that people benefit from a more thorough
appraisal of an emotional experience. The initial purpose of this paper was explanatory and
designed to measure whether smart shaming is an emotional response. We examined how cognitive
experiences of emotion and cognitive regulation of these emotional experiences are related. Thus,
we hypothesized whether levels of emotion regulation predict smart-shaming tendency. This further
examined whether the two facets of emotion regulation differ for smart shaming tendency. We aim
to understand the complexity of cognitive-regulation. Linking the concept of smart-shaming as
there have been few empirical investigations of smart-shaming as a discrete variable affecting social
and personal decisions (Sta. Romana, 2015; Eigenberger et.al., 1963).

Emotion Regulation
Emotion regulation is the ability to manipulate emotional reactions which enable one to modify
mood and dispositions (Baumeister &Vohs, 2003; Eisenberg et.al. 2000; Murphy et.al., 2004). This
entails the power to control one’s own affective state by manipulating emotional response.
According to a study (Baumeister et.al. 2007) part of self-regulatory task is to control one's thoughts,
emotions, and motivations that guide one's behavior. In particular, we emphasize on the ability to
control emotions which involves cognitive reappraisal and expression suppression that leads to one's
motivation and behavior. This paper considered emotions as part of cognitive work for reappraisal
strategy. This notion was based on a study (Gross & John, 2003) asserted that there are two
dimensions of emotion regulatory functions and was operationalized in this paper.

One is cognitive reappraisal, which involves a deliberate evaluation of one’s emotional arousal or
a form of cognitive change which includes understanding a potentially emotion eliciting situation
in a way that changes its emotional impact. Case in point, one might evaluate the emotion of threat
by thinking “I feel threatened and I don’t want to feel threatened”. This situational tension in one’s
mind elicits a kind of emotion to adapt to environment changes (Frijda, 1986 & Memedovic et.al.,
2010). Cognitive works start to function in response to an emotional arousal. Therefore, one may
think, “I have to do something, so I won’t feel threatened”. We implied in this paper whether
people with such thoughts would either express or suppress the emotional experience.

Cognitive reappraisal of internal or situational signs of arousal can change subsequent affective
experiences (Jamieson et al., 2013 & Mauss et al., 2007). Given the power of reappraisal strategy,
we predicted the levels of emotion regulation with smart-shaming tendency. This paper focuses on
the manipulation of one’s own emotional experience through reappraisal and suppression strategies.
Case in point, when one perceives another person as arrogant would this lead to annoyance? Same
goes when one contradicts to his/her opinion would this lead to a kind of emotion and thereby
evokes an emotional experience? How would one evaluate an emotional experience is the focal
point of reappraisal strategy?

According to a study (Frijda, 1986) found that cognitive processing is the foundation of emotional
experiences which signals the most adaptive response (Frijda, 1986). The complexity of the mind
to make judgement is highly subjective (Petri, 1996; Frijda, 2000). Regardless whether the initial

5
arousal was negative or positive emotions, emotional arousal can be evaluated and modified
through reappraisal strategy.

Second is the ability to inhibit emotional responses in the way one shows emotional responses and
uses the self-regulatory ability (Gross, J.J., 2009). In other words, expression suppression serves as
a mechanism to inhibit reaction of how one shows emotional reactions. For example, one may
suppress the outward displays of affective responses. Emphasizing our argument, we viewed smart-
shaming as an emotional response and as an endpoint of reappraisal strategy. This follows that
people with low expression suppression increases smart shaming tendency.

Some studies (Baas, De Dreu, & Nijstad, 2011; Lawson & Ruff, 2004) concurred that failure to
regulate emotion decreases cognitive functions. In other words, this emotional arousal interferes
with cognitive functions such as perception, motivation and decision making. In the case of
suppression, a study (Gross and Levenson, 1993) asserted that people have expressive styles. They
further explained that individuals differ as to whether they are emotionally expressive or
emotionally inexpressive. We claimed that even when individuals are emotionally inexpressive,
the emotional experience always require cognitive reappraisal (Clore and Ortony 2000).

Individuals with high cognitive reappraisal have reported decreased negative emotionality
(Memedovic et.al., 2010). This entails the power to manipulate an emotional experience.
Emphasizing the notion, people with high reappraisal are less likely to experience negative
emotions because they have the power to take control over situations. In fact, a study (Gross &
John, 2003) suggested that individuals frequently use reappraisal strategy are generally experience
greater positive emotions and less negative emotions and show superior functioning in interpersonal
domains across self and others. Thus, cognitive reappraisal of situational signs of arousal can
change subsequent affective experiences.

However, some studies (Tangney et al., 2007; Tilghman et.al., 2008) argued that unpleasant
experiences can be externalized towards other people and found that high reappraisal is the
constituent to modify negative emotion. This modification of negative emotion is externalized. In
other words, negative emotional arousal evokes emotional experience (subject for reappraisal) and
thereby forces an emotional response. The externalization of blame asserted by Tangney (2007)
serves as an emotional response. This emotional reactivity was concurred in a study (Bynum and
Goodie, 2014) found that shame (unpleasant experience) elicits avoidance by externalizing the
negative emotion towards other people in the service of self-protection.

This emphasizes the complexity of cognitive functions. We argued that smartshaming is an

endpoint of reappraisal strategy that guides perception, motivation and behaviors of people.

Smart-Shaming
This part initially explains the core construct of smart-shaming tendency. We based the relationship
between smart-shaming and emotion regulation from a study (Schmeichel et.al, 2003) examined
the role of the self in an intelligent thought and found that complex thinking relies on self-regulatory
resources. This follows that intelligent behavior depends partly on self-regulation. They further
found that individuals who were emotionally aroused depletes the executive function and appear to
be impaired by ego depletion. We considered the previous statement as the constituent of smart
shaming tendency as they found that mental processes demand the self's executive function and
appear to be impaired by ego-depletion. Ego-depletion can be inferred by impaired logical
reasoning which required an active self-regulation and cognitive functioning.

6
Thus, we considered the concept of smart shaming as the endpoint of an emotional arousal and
some complex thinking which require an active self-regulation. This pertains to a deliberate
thinking and logical reasoning which are all constituents of self-regulating processes. Followed in
a study (De Wall, C. N., 2008) explained the notion of ego-depletion which a temporary reduction
of the self’s capacity or willingness is to engage in complex task. This temporary reduction of one’s
capacity for a complex task has been viewed as the intellectual dimension of human experience.

A complex task requires one to use logical reasoning (Baumeister et. al., 2007). Hence, intellectual
pursuits require an active work of cognitive processing. This paper considers some aspects of
cognitive reappraisal strategy that can be depleted with deliberate thinking and reasoning. In fact,
an important early study (Glass et al., 1969) concluded that adjusting to unpredictable and
unpleasant experiences involve a "psychic cost," which entails depletion of the mind.

Generally, everyone would agree that knowledge is power. However, why is it that there are people
who are proud of the fact that they are dumb? Virgilio Enriquez further explained the concept of
smart-shaming in the Philippines. He explained that from the time when our country was colonized
by Spaniards, Filipinos have fixated in their psyche to mistrust constructs that are associated with
Western culture like individualism or elitism. To emphasize the mistrust for individualism and
elitism, Raphael Rodriguez indicated the causes of perceived arrogance and closed mindedness (see
appendix). This perception of people with shaming tendency encompasses of people’s evaluation
and thoughts. This evaluation and thoughts stem from one’s own initial arousal (Frijda, 1986).

We also viewed smart-shaming as a discrete social phenomenon. The scope of shaming has become
less predictable and can have a potential damage to one’s reputation. For example, the shaming
content can be accessed from anywhere in the world and can be shared on the internet. A study
(Aquino, 2016) stated that Filipinos have the tendency to become demotivated to learn English
language due to fear of committing mistakes, lack of resources and evaluated poorly by others.
Hence, we emphasized the notion that these emotional experiences are brought about by cognitive
regulation of beliefs and attitudes.

Julia Jasmine Madrazo-Sta. Romana published an article entitled, “Smart-shaming and our Pinoy
culture of anti-intellectualism” and discussed about the phenomenon of smart-shaming in the
Philippines. Consequently, Sta, Romana stated that up to this day intellectuals are seen as
intimidating and instead we celebrate mediocrity and ignorance. Akin to this study, Rodriguez, R.
D. (In Press) conducted a study entitled, “Isang pagsusuri ng penomenon ng Smart-Shaming sa
mga Pilipinong gumagamit ng Facebook”, used the Online Smart Shaming Scale. Rodriguez
constructed the items in Filipino language and considered the causes, motivations and behaviors of
people on social media (see appendix).

Social Media Communication

Globally, majority have Facebook account and other social media platforms (Ellison et.al., 2007)
and found that social networking sites such as Facebook is common on college campuses and is
likely a crucial component of young adults’ interaction. Likewise, an increasing interest to know
online behaviors is significant among younger generations as it fosters social interaction by posting
information (Bolton et al. 2013). All respondents of our study have Facebook accounts and obtained
data from selected individuals with age range of 18-43 years old.

7
In a study (Peck, 2011 & Carvajal, A., 2014) identified four levels of communication that occurs
in social networking sites including Facebook. The four levels constitute of phatic, gut-level,
factual, and evaluative. First, phatic is the small talk of communicating or catchy but short
messages. For our Online Smart Shaming Scale (OSS), we implied phatic in the motivational facet
of “just to say something” or thoughtless statements that are usually expressed. Second, factual is
the sharing of information, based on events, observation and knowledge gained. Factual
information component of the OSS for the causes of perceived arrogance and closed-mindedness
is the basis to measure indicators of people with smart shaming tendency.

Third, gut level pertains to the sharing of personal and emotional feelings, usually shared with
friends. For the personal posts, the OSS scale emphasized an indicator under unacceptable social
media behavior by posting personal things about love life, problems with family or anything that
must be kept personal. Lastly, evaluative offers opinions, ideas and judgments on specific topics
and on other people. Evaluative is relative to factual and measures the same tendency for smart-
shaming tendency. The Online Smart Shaming Scale was constructed in 36 statements and divided
into four (4) components of smart-shaming namely; (1) Causes, (2) Motivation, (3) Behaviors, (4)
Unacceptable Social Media Behavior. The study (Peck & Carvajal, 2014) found that Facebook is
highly valued on phatic and gut-level of communications. For this reason, however, we used social
media communication to leverage the Factual and Evaluative level of communication on social
networking sites offered in the 21st century.

H1: Levels of emotion-regulation predicts smart-shaming tendency

H2: High and Low expression suppression scores differ for smart-shaming
H3: High and Low cognitive reappraisal scores differ for smart-shaming

Synthesis
Drawing on studies (Baumeister et.al., 1994, 2003, 2007) effective self regulation including
emotions and thoughts promotes human success. This follows that everyday people must control
their urges in line with the standards. People try not to hurt others like regulating what they say and
do. A social phenomenon of online smart shaming among younger generations is worth mentioning
at this point. The form of public shaming promoted by social networking platforms made the focus
of this paper important.

Given the importance of effective self-regulation particularly regulating one’s emotions and
thoughts has a potential application across a broad spectrum of human behavior. At the positive
end, logical reasoning a constituent of good self-regulation has been studied in previous researches
and found that it is the key for human success. At the negative end, poor self-regulation contributes
to a variety of human sufferings such as violence and crimes, risky sexual behaviors resulting to
HIV and other psychopathological behaviors.

Evidence on excessive alcohol consumption, drug abuse, overeating and other related factors are
found to be the consequences of poor self-regulation (Baumeister et,al., 2003; Tangney at.al., 2004;
Schmeichel et.al.,2003). Poor self-regulation unleashes irrational impulses to drive thoughts,
emotions and behaviors influencing personal and social problems. Akin to our study, smart shaming
can be inferred as an endpoint of poor cognitive reappraisal and expression suppression strategies
thereby promoting irrational and selfish acts.

Given the nature of technology, this study presented trends on social media communication in the
21st century. Thereby increase relative phenomenon that is very timely. Exposure to future

8
researchers to deepen understanding of the distinct role of emotion regulation in controlling
irrational beliefs and actions for an effective communication would be of value in the field of social
psychology.

Simulacrum

Figure 2: Conceptual Framework of The Relationship Between Emotion Regulation and

Smart-Shaming Tendency

Method
Quantitative research design was used in this study. This study examined the relationship between
emotion regulation and smart shaming tendency. Quantitative research provides the fundamental
connection between empirical observation and mathematical expression (Given, 2008). This study
used quantitative approach to analyse the relationship between the emotion regulation and smart
shaming tendency.

Study 1: Research Design

Descriptive studies are frequently used to collect descriptive data using survey methods (Borg &
Gall, 1989). Specifically, this study used correlational design for data gathering and Multiple
Regression for data analysis. Predicting Correlational design was suitable for this type of research.

Study 2: Research Design

Quasi-experimental research design was used in the study. Study 2 was conducted to further
substantiate the results from Study 1. Quasi-experiments are employed when the researcher is
interested in independent variables that cannot be randomly assigned. Usually this happens when
the independent variable in question is something that is an innate characteristic of the participants
involved. (Martorano, 2012).

Sampling Technique
STUDY 1: The study gathered 256 participants with age range of 18-43 years old and with social
media accounts. This study utilized purposive sampling technique to focus on particular
characteristics of a population which is needed in the study of interest. This study used two
instruments; Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (ERQ) by (Gross, J.J., & John, O.P., 2003) and the
Online Smart Shaming Scale (OSS) by (Raphael Rodriguez, In Press).

STUDY 2: One hundred and fifty (150) social media users were selected to answer the Emotion-
Regulation Questionnaire (ERQ) by Gross, J.J., & John, O.P. (2003) prior to the experiment in
order to screen the level of self-regulation. Sixty (60) respondents were qualified and grouped into
two categories: cognitive reappraisal and expression suppression. Both the groups of Cognitive
Reappraisal (N=30) and Expression Suppression (N=30) were further categorized into high (N=15)

9
and low (N=15). The process of selection was based in the z-scores of the participants in which the
extreme scores of the respondents are identified.

1. Respondent’s Robotfoto. This provides information about the demographic profile of the
participants such as the age, gender, and accounts in social networking sites.

2. Emotion Regulation Questionnaire. a 10-item scale designed to measure respondents’

tendency to regulate their emotions. One is emotional experience or what they feel and the
other is emotional expression. The questions involved two distinct aspects of respondent’s
emotional life. One is emotional experience or what they feel and the other is emotional
expression. The alpha reliabilities averaged .79 for Reappraisal and .73 for Suppression.
Test–retest reliability across 3 months was .69 for both scales.

3. Online Smart Shaming Scale. Constructed by Raphael Rodriguez, (In Press). The scale
consists of 36 items, some items with asterisk are reverse-coded and each item is a
situational phenomenon on social network. Specifically, this scale measures the causes of
perceived arrogance, closed-mindedness, motivations just to say something, motivations for
superiority and to look intelligent, behaviors attacking the personality, the background,
attacking the post and unacceptable social media behaviors. The cronbach alpha of the scale
is .843 which was garnered from 127 participants. All of the items used were gained from
people who experienced smart-shaming tendency on Facebook.

4. Vignette Story. A 9-item story constructed based on the Online Smart Shaming Scale. A
situational event written in Filipino context. The vignette story measures the causes of
perceived arrogance, closed-mindedness, motivations just to say something, motivations for
superiority and to look intelligent, behaviors attacking the personality, the background,
attacking the post and unacceptable social media behaviors. Respondents rated in a Likert
Scale of 1 (malayong-malayo sa akin) to 5 (may pagkakahawig sa akin). The scores were
computed by the mean of the respondents.

Data Gathering Procedure

STUDY 1: The data was collected from an online survey form. Respondents were given informed
consent to assure willingness to participate in the study. Upon approval, they were given the access
to answer the online questionnaire which includes the Respondents’ Robotfoto, Emotion Regulation
Questionnaire (ERQ) and the Online Smart Shaming Scale.

STUDY 2: The respondents answered the ERQ online aimed at obtaining the z scores of the
respondents; they were assigned in the group of high and low emotion regulation. Afterwards,
respondents were given a debriefing letter. The participants that met the criteria were contacted and
were asked to answer the vignettes stories using pen and paper survey form.

Statistical Analysis

1. Frequency. Frequency counts the number of male and female respondents also the
frequency of the age of the respondents.

2. Standard deviation. This was used to identify the dispersion of data and how widely spread
the data is.

10
 3. Correlation Analysis. This analysis was used in the study to determine if emotion regulation
is correlated to smart-shaming. Also, if it has a positive or negative relationship.

4. Linear Regression. This statistical treatment exhibits the relationship between Emotion-
Regulation (predictor variable) as predictor of Smart-shaming tendency (criterion variable)
of an individual.

5. Independent t-test analysis. This analysis was used to determine the degree of statistical
difference between the two groups and to further prove the hypothesis of the study.

Results and Discussion

The following are the findings of the Study. Interpretations are based on the statistical analysis
made on the data gathered from the forgoing sources.

Profile of The Respondents

Study 1: Demographic Profile

Table 1: Demographic Profile of The Respondents for Study 1

Gender F % Mean (SD)

Male 123 48%

Female 133 52%
Total 256 100%
Age 23.8 (5.77)
18 – 30 220 85.9
31 – 43 36 14.1
Total 256 100

Table 1 presents the frequency and percentage distribution of the respondents under study 1 in terms
of age and gender. The 256 respondents who are included in study 1 is composed of 48% Male
(n=123) and 52% Females (n=133) with a mean age of 23.8 years old. The age range for male is
between the ages of 18 – 43 (𝑋̅ = 24.2) while the female is composed of individuals between the
ages of 18 – 41 (𝑋̅ = 23.4). The average age of the entire respondents is at 23.8 years old making
the majority of the respondent part of the Millennials. Additionally, all 261 participants of the study
have Facebook accounts while 108 out of the 256 participants also have Twitter accounts.

The sample population is predominantly made up of the “Millennials”. A study (Visa, 2012) defined
them as the generation that grew up in the internet age with digital communications. They further
stated that older generations may associate computers with work. The Millennials see personal
computers in a very different light. The study further ranked social networking as 6 th of the top 10
activities millennials do using the internet.

11
 Table 2: Mean and Standard Deviation of Emotion Regulation and Smart Shaming studies
Mean SD

Emotion Regulation
Cognitive 5.10 1.60
Reappraisal
Expressive 3.73 1.87
Suppression
Smart Shaming 2.43 0.58

Table 2 presents the mean and standard deviation of Emotion Regulation and Smart Shaming
studies. The 256 respondents answered the Emotion Regulation Questionnaire. The results are
divided into the Reappraisal Items and the Suppression Items of the reappraisal the statement
“When I want to feel positive emotion, I change what I am thinking about” got the highest weighted
mean at 5.10 (SD 1.60) and interpreted as Near Strongly Agree. Almost all of the responses are in
agree interpretation. Among the Suppression Items the statement “I keep my emotions to myself”
got the highest general weighted average at 3.73 (SD 1.87). All of the responses were all in an agree
interpretation.

The sum score of the respondents’ facet in Cognitive Reappraisal is 30.6 with a standard deviation
of 9.59 whereas; the overall average score of the respondents’ facet in Expressive Suppression is
14.92 with a standard deviation of 7.46. According to the cut off scores established by Gross, J.J.,
& John, O.P. (2003), this explains that the participants have a slightly high Cognitive Reappraisal
scores and a slightly low Expressive suppression score.

Case in point, most of the participants in this study presented a consistent use of cognitive
reappraisal. Parallel to a study (Clore & Ortony, 2000) found that emotional experience always
requires cognitive reappraisal. In the Smart Shaming Survey, the 36 statements were divided into 4
aspects of on-line shaming namely (1) Causes, (2) Motivation, (3) Behaviors, and (4) Unacceptable
Social Media Behavior. The cause aspect has the highest weighted average (2.89) and is relatively
reflective of the respondent’s on-line behavior in terms of cause. The Unacceptable Social Medical
Behavior got the lowest weighted average (2.10) and has a negative interpretation reflective of the
respondent’s online behavior is different from the statements provided.

The Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (ERQ) by Gross, J.J., & John, O.P. (2003) was answered
by 256 respondents. The total scores were computed to determine the levels of emotion regulation
of an individual.

Pearson Correlation
Table 3 summarizes the Pearson Correlation between Cognitive Reappraisal and Expressive
Suppression.

12
 Table 3: Pearson Correlation of Emotion Regulation towards Smart-Shaming Tendency
r. p- value

Emotion Regulation
Expression Suppression -0.492** 0.0001
Cognitive Reappraisal -0.411** 0.0001

** Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)

Table 3 shows the Correlation Analysis of Cognitive Reappraisal, Expression Suppression and
Smart Shaming. Based on the statistical result, there is a moderate correlation between Cognitive
Reappraisal and Expressive Suppression with a value of 0.411 (p value <0.05). Since the significant
value is <0.05, it correlates that there is a statistically significant correlation between the two
variables. The result showed that there is a strong negative relationship between Smart Shaming
and Cognitive Reappraisal with a value of -0.411 and Expressive Suppression with a value of -
0.492.

The results showed that there is a significant negative correlation between cognitive reappraisal and
expressive suppression to smart-shaming tendency. Previous study (Zaja & Rojahn, 2008) stated
that emotion regulation is linked to aggression. Emotion regulation is categorized into two distinct
facets. One, the correlation of cognitive reappraisal to smart shaming is -.411 with an alpha of.000
< 0.5. Second, the expressive suppression is -.491 with an alpha of .000 < 0.5.

Linear Regression
Table 4 summarizes the Linear Regression Results between Cognitive Reappraisal and Expression
Suppression.

Table 4: Linear Regression: Predictors of Smart-Shaming

B Std. Error T Sig.

(Constant) 3.334 .112 29.779 .0001
Expression Suppression -.032 .005 -6.207 .0001
Cognitive Reappraisal -.014 .004 -3.635 .0001

Table 4 shows the result of Linear Regression model; Expression Suppression and Cognitive
Reappraisal have a significant effect on Smart Shaming. Based on the Linear Regression model,
there will be a decrease of 0.32 unit per unit increase of Smart shaming, on the other hand, there
will be a decrease of 0.14 unit per unit increase of Smart shaming. This relationship is found to be
27.8% reliable based on the r2 result. Thus, there is a significant relationship between emotion
regulation and smart-shaming. Consequently, emotion regulation predicts anti-intellectualism in an
individual.

H1 states that levels of emotion regulation predict smart-shaming tendency. To investigate the
hypothesis, the total score of the two facets of the Emotion Regulation Scale namely: Cognitive

13
Reappraisal and Expressive Suppression and the total mean scores of the Online Smart Shaming
Scale were computed.

Study 2

Study 2: Demographic Profile

From the 150 respondents under Study 2, only the top 15 and lowest 15 weighted average responses
were selected leading to only 60 respondents for Study 2. Thirty (30) were chosen for Cognitive
Reappraisal Study and another 30 for Expression Suppression Study.

Table 5: Demographic Profile of the Respondents for study 2

Gender N % Mean Age (SD)

Cognitive Reappraisal Study

High 15 21.9 (0.83)

Male 6 20%
Female 9 30%

Low 15 18.9 (5.16)

Male 8 27%
Female 7 23%

Expression Suppression Study

High 15 19.7 (3.51)

. Male 4 13%
Female 11 37%

Low 15 22.3 (4.27)

Male 6 20%
Female 9 30%

Table 5 presents the frequency and percentage distribution of the respondents under study 2 in terms
of age and gender. Sixty (60) respondents were selected. The group was categorized and divided
into 30 respondents for cognitive reappraisal study and the other 30 for expression suppression
study. The 30 respondents are selected as the 15 highest and 15 lowest responses for each study.

In the cognitive reappraisal study, 30% of the total respondents are female with high responses
while 37% are males with low responses. In the expression suppression study, 37% of the total
selected respondents are females with a high expression suppression response while 20% are males
with low expression response.

14
Based on the Demographic Profile of the selected respondents in the cognitive reappraisal study,
males have a 58% chance of having a high cognitive reappraisal response than female. This means
that for every 1 female with a high cognitive reappraisal response there is 0.58 male who would
have the same response. In the case of Expression Suppression Study, males have a 55% chance of
having a high expression Suppression response. This means that for every female who would have
a high expression suppression response; there will be 0.55 male that would have the same response.

Table 6: T-test results of High and Low Cognitive Reappraisal and Expression Suppression
to the Shaming Scores

t df Sig. (2-tailed)

Cognitive Reappraisal -2.996 28.00 .006

Expression Suppression -3.925 27.60 .001

Table 6 summarizes the t-test results of the cognitive reappraisal and expression suppression to the
shaming scores of the selected respondents of the study. Statistical analysis comparing the means
of the cognitive reappraisal and expression suppression to the shaming scores of the cognitive
appraisal study reveal that there is a significant difference (p<0.05) between the scores. This means
that the shaming responses are different from the cognitive reappraisal and suppression expression
scores of the respondents. Cognitive reappraisal got the higher score as compared to expression
suppression score.

Based on studies (Ortony et.al, 1987, 2000) examined the functions of emotions and found that
emotions are related to social functioning and associated with mental states. They found that
emotions always involve cognitive reappraisal processes. They further explained that emotions are
characterized by motivational-behavioral component. This motivational-behavioral component is
the inclination to act according to one's thoughts and one's actions. Results from the OSS Scale
showed high scores under the causes (2.89) of perceived arrogance and closed-mindedness and
unacceptable behaviors (2.63).

They asserted that emotions are conceptually defined by appraisals. The results showed that high
and low emotion regulation consistently use reappraisal strategy. This could be explained by the
need for rationalization (Beauvois & Joule, 1996). This could be explained in the theoretical
framework used in this study. In fact, emotions have been associated with creativity (Perlovsky,
2010 & Festinger, 1957). We inferred this association of creativity and emotions as the ability of
people to rationalize emotional experiences through cognitive reappraisal strategy. Results showed
nearly strong agree with the reappraisal item; “When I want to feel less negative emotion (such as
joy or amusement) I change what I’m thinking about” got the highest mean (5.30).These notions
were supported by empirical literatures (Bechara et al., 2004; Damasio et al., 1994; Scherer et al.,
2001) and found that emotions have been argued to perform appraisals of concepts and events
(Bechara et al., 2004; Damasio et al., 1994; Scherer et al., 2001).

15
The reduction of the dissonance may lead to shaming tendency and thereby rationalizes that one’s
disposition is acceptable. In fact, a study (Amir et.al., 2005) stated that poor self-regulation relies
on simplistic strategies for making judgments and decisions and present themselves in ways less
likely to make a good impression (Vohs et.al.,2005). “Rationalization” is the best response aimed
at reducing dissonance, but this is not always based on logic. In fact, rationalization shows higher
levels of aggressive responding (Stucke & Baumeister, 2006), and this could be relevant with low
expressive suppression strategy. Respondents with smart-shaming tendency showed high scores
under unacceptable social media behavior (2.63), interpreted as “may kaunting pagkakahawig sa
akin”.
Previous studies (Zarghooni, 2007 & Leary, 1996) found that the capacity to regulate the self is
consciously done for the smooth functioning of social interactions. In the same token, a study
(Finkel & Campbell et. al., 2001) stated effective emotion regulation often comes with rational
discussion instead of venting through aggressive behaviors. Respondents with no smart-shaming
tendency showed low scores under motivations for superiority and behavioral indicators of
attacking the personality, post and the background.

Individuals with low emotion-regulation capacity, unsuccessful efforts in trying to regulate

emotions deplete executive and self- regulatory resources, resulting in cognitive underperformance,
and stimulate emotional reactivity (DeWall et.al., 2007; Johns et.al., 2008; Wagner & Heatherton,
2013). This follows that smart-shaming could be an emotional response and the endpoint of
reappraisal strategy. Results showed that people with low expression suppression and cognitive
reappraisal increases smart shaming tendency.

H2 states that there is a difference between high and low cognitive reappraisal scores for
smart-shaming tendency.

H3 states that there is a difference between high and low expression scores for smart-
shaming tendency.

Summary, Conclusion and Recommendation

The following are the summary of the results, conclusions drawn from the findings and the
corresponding recommendations. The study aims to explore whether emotion regulation predicts
smart-shaming tendency.

Summary of the Findings

Respondent’s robotfoto on:

Gender and Age

The 256 respondents who are included in study 1 is composed of 48% Male (n=123) and 52%
Females (n=133) a mean age of 23.8 years old. For study 2, the cognitive reappraisal study, 30%
of the total respondents are female with high responses while 37% are males with low responses.
In the expression suppression study, 37% of the total selected respondents are females with a high
expression suppression response while 20% are males with low expression response.

16
 Study 1

Relationship of Emotion regulation and Smart Shaming Tendency

Based on the Regression model, there will be a decrease of 0.32 unit per unit increase of Smart
shaming, on the other hand, there will be a decrease of 0.14 unit per unit increase of Smart shaming.
This relationship is found to be 27.8% reliable based on the r2 result.

Pearson Correlation showed that there is a strong negative relationship between Smart Shaming and
Cognitive Reappraisal with a value of -0.411 and Expressive Suppression with a value of -0.491.
Thus, any increase or decrease in one variable relates to an increase or decrease of the other.

Data gathered from study 1 showed that out 256 participants and showed that low emotion
regulation predicts online smart shaming tendency. Similarly, as emotion regulation decreases
online smart shaming increases. Hence, there is a negative relationship between emotion-regulation
and online smart shaming tendency.

Study 2
Difference between high and low Cognitive Reappraisal and Expression Suppression for smart
shaming tendency

Shaming responses is different from the cognitive reappraisal and expressive suppression scores of
the respondents. Statistical analysis comparing the means between the z-scores and shaming scores
of the expression suppression and cognitive reappraisal reveal that there is a significant difference
(p<0.05) between the two scores. This relationship is also seen when the high (p<0.05) and low
(p<0.05) expression suppression scores are isolated.

Conclusion
This paper found that smart-shaming can be viewed as an emotional response and indeed a discrete
social phenomenon. The initial purpose of this study was explanatory and designed to measure
whether smart-shaming is an emotional response. It was hypothesized; therefore, that smart-
shaming tendency would be negatively related to emotion regulation. This hypothesis was further
examined whether cognitive reappraisal and expression suppression scores differ. This paper found
that there is a significant difference between the two facets using T-test.

Smart shaming tendency can be explained by the combination of cognitive reappraisal and
expression suppression habit of a person. There is a sufficient evidence to say that the cognitive
reappraisal and expression suppression significantly contributes/affects a person’s smart shaming
tendency. Results found that respondents have slightly high Cognitive Reappraisal scores and
slightly low Expression Suppression scores for shaming tendency. Hence, low emotion regulation
predicts smart-shaming tendency. This study found that there is a significant difference between
cognitive reappraisal and expression suppression scores for smart-shaming tendency.

The theory applied in this paper was cognitive dissonance by Leon Festinger (1957). The core
concept of cognitive dissonance stated that action dictates beliefs. The dissonance is the tension
between one’s ability for reappraisal and suppression strategy and the capacity of one to utilize it.
Smart shaming tendency can be explained in the light of Cognitive Dissonance Theory. Smart-
shaming could be the endpoint of “rationalization” aimed at reducing the cognitive inconsistency.

17
Practical and Theoretical Recommendation
The following recommendations are offered for related research in the field of social psychology.

Given the importance of effective self-regulation particularly regulating one’s emotions and
thoughts has a potential application across a broad spectrum of human behavior. At the positive
end, logical reasoning is a constituent of good self-regulation has been studied in previous
researches and found that it is the key for human success. At the negative end, poor self-regulation
contributes to a variety of human sufferings such as violence and crimes, risky sexual behaviors
resulting to HIV and other psychopathological behaviors. Evidence on excessive alcohol
consumption, drug abuse, overeating and other related factors are found to be the consequences of
poor self-regulation. Thereby unleashes irrational impulses to drive thoughts, emotions and
behaviors influencing personal and social problems.

Smart shaming can be inferred as an endpoint of poor cognitive reappraisal and expression
suppression strategies thereby influencing personal and social problems. For this reason, we suggest
the construct of cognitive reappraisal in the field of clinical and social psychology. Future
researchers may use the OSS Scale to leverage future tools to systematically organize the
components in line with cognitive reappraisal and expression suppression strategy. The complexity
of cognitive processing may add to the ambiguity of this study. Future studies may also use
interventions of cognitive reappraisal and expression suppression for smart-shaming tendency.

References
Ainsworth, S. E. (2012). Florida State University Libraries Decision Making.
Alwee, A. I. (1963). Anti-Intellectualism: The Predicament of Our Time, 1–4.
Aubrey, L. L., Brown, J. M., & Miller, W. R. (1994). Psychometric properties of a self-regulation
questionnaire (SRQ). Alcoholism; Clinical & Experimental Research, 18, 429.
Babbie, Earl R. The Practice of Social Research. 12th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth
Cengage, 2010
Baumeister, R. E., Bratslavsky, E., Muraven, M., & Tice, D. M. (1998). Ego Depletion: Is the Active
Self a Limited Resource? 74(5), 1252–1265.
Baumeister, R. F., Schmeichel, B. J., & Vohs, K. D. (n.d.). Social psychology: Handbook of basic
principles, 1–70.
Baumeister, R. F., Vohs, K. D., & Tice, D. M. (2007). The Strength Model of, 16(6), 351–355.
Baumeister, R. F., Gailliot, M., & Dewall, C. N. (n.d.). Self-Regulation and Personality: How
Interventions Increase Regulatory Success, and How Depletion Moderates the Effects
of Traits on Behavior, (December 2006).
Boekaerts, M., & Corno, L. (2005). Self-Regulation in the Classroom: A Perspective on Assessment
and Intervention, 54(2), 199–231.
Brockman, R., Ciarrochi, J., & Parker, P. (2016). Emotion regulation strategies in daily life
mindfulness, cognitive reappraisal and emotion suppression.
Brosch, T., Scherer, K. R., Grandjean, D., & Sander, D. (2013). The impact of emotion on
perception, attention, memory, and decision-making, (May), 1–10.
Brown, J. M. (1998). Self-regulation and the addictive behaviors. In W. R. Miller & N. Heather
(Eds.), Treating addictive behaviors (2nd ed., pp. 61-74). New York: Plenum Press.
Brosch, T., Scherer, K. R., Grandjean, D., & Sander, D. (2013). The impact of emotion on
perception, attention, memory, and decision-making, (May), 1–10.
Brown, J. M. (1994). Alcohol involvement and self-regulation in male alcoholics. Unpublished
Dissertation, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

18
Brown, J. M., Baumann, B. D., Smith, C. D., & Etheridge, S. L. (1997, July 1997). Self regulation,
extroversion, and substance abuse among college students. Paper presented at the Research
Society on Alcoholism, San Francisco, CA.
Buhle, J. T., Silvers, J. A., Wager, T. D., Lopez, R., Onyemekwu, C., Kober, H., …
Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gsoling, S. D. (2011). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A new source
of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 3-5.
Brown, J. M., Miller, W. R., & Lawendowski, L. A. (1999). The Self-Regulation Questionnaire.
Burman, J. T., Green, C. D., & Shanker, S. (2015). On the Meanings of Self-Regulation: Digital
Humanities in Service of Conceptual Clarity, 86(5), 1507–1521.
Cabanac, M., Fontanari, J. F., & Perlovsky, L. I. (2012). Instrumentalizing Cognitive Dissonance
Emotions, 3(12), 1018–1026.
Carvajal, A. (2014). Social Transformations facilitated by Facebook on the Filipino Generation Y
*, 2(10), 77–90.
Chen, H. (2016). A Theoretic Review of Emotion Regulation, (February), 147–153.
DeWall, C. N., Maner, J. K., & Rouby, D. A. (2009). Social exclusion and early-stage
interpersonal perception: Selective attention to signs of acceptance. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 96, 729–741
Eisenberger, N. I., Lieberman, M. D., & Williams, K. D. (2003). Does rejection hurt? An Fmri study
of social exclusion. Science. 302 (5643), 290-292.
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance, Evanston, IL: Row & Peterson.
Festinger, L. & Carlsmith, J. M. (1959). Cognitive consequences of forced compliance. Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, 58, 203 – 210.
Fieulaine, N., & Fieulaine, N. (2011). About the fuels of self-regulation: Time perspective and desire
for control in adolescent’s substance use To cite this version: Muijs, Daniel. Doing
Quantitative Research in Education with SPSS. 2nd edition. London: SAGE Publications,
2010.
Gailliot, M. T., Baumeister, R. F., Dewall, C. N., Maner, J. K., Plant, E. A., Tice, D.
M., Schmeichel, B. J. (2007). Self-Control Relies on Glucose as a Limited Energy.
Ghorbani, N., Watson, P. J., Farhadi, M., & Chen, Z. (2014). A multi-process model of self-
regulation: Influences of Mindfulness, Integrative Self-Knowledge and Self -Control in Iran,
49(2), 115–122.
Gross, J. J., & John, O. P. (2003). Individual Differences in Two Emotion Regulation Processes:
Implications for Affect, Relationships, and Well-Being, 85(2), 348– 362.
Gross, J., & Levenson, R. W. (1993). Emotional Suppression: Physiology, Self-Report, and
Expressive Behavior, 64(6), 970–986.
Gibbs, J. L., & Ellison, N. B. (2006). Self-Presentation in Online Personals, (Cmc), 152– 177.
Hare R.D. (2003). The Hare Psychopathy Checklist Revised: Second Edition. Toronto, Ontario,
Canada: Multi-Health Systems
Hewitt, P. L., Flett, G. L., Sherry, S. B., Habke, M., Parkin, M., et al. (2003). The
interpersonal expression of perfection: Perfectionistic self-presentation and
psychological distress. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(6),
1303-1325.
Ikpe, I. B. (2015). The Decline of the Humanities and the Decline of Society, 62(142), 50–66.
Iv, W. E. B., & Goodie, J. L. (2014). the cross-cutting edge Shame, guilt, and the medical learner:
ignored connections and why we should care, 1045–1054.
Kanfer, F. H. (1970a). Self-monitoring: Methodological limitations and clinical applications
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 35, 148-152.
Kanfer, F. H. (1970b). Self-regulation: Research, issues, and speculation.

19
Luchies, L. B., Finkel, E. J., & Fitzsimons, G. M. (2011). The Effects of Self-Regulatory Strength,
Content, and Strategies on Close Relationships, (December), 1–29.
Lorenzo, O. (1991). Nostalgia, Shame and the Transplanted Cuban: “la cubana arrepentida ,” 2(1),
1–25.
Miller, W. R., & Brown, J. M. (1991). Self-regulation as a conceptual basis for the
prevention and treatment of addictive behaviours.
Ochsner, K. N. (2014). Cognitive Reappraisal of Emotion: A Meta-Analysis of Human
Neuroimaging Studies, (November), 2981–2990.
Patock-Peckham, J. A., Cheong, J. W., Balhorn, M. E., & Nagoshi, C. T. (2001). A social
learning perspective: A model of parenting styles, self-regulation, perceived drinking
control, and alcohol use and problems. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental
Research, 25(9), 1284-1292.
Peters, B. J., Overall, N. C., & Jamieson, J. P. (2014). Physiological and cognitive consequences of
suppressing and expressing emotion in dyadic interactions. International Journal of
Psychophysiology, 94(1), 100–107.
Peters, B. J., Overall, N. C., & Jamieson, J. P. (2014). Physiological and cognitive consequences of
suppressing and expressing emotion in dyadic interactions. International Journal of
Psychophysiology, 94(1), 100–107.
Relationship Through Perceptions of Distributive Justice, 95(6), 1009–1031.
Rodriguez, R. D. (n.d.). Online Smart-Shaming Scale, 1.
Roos, S., & Salmivalli, C. (2015). Emotion Regulation and Negative Emotionality Moderate the
Effects of Moral (Dis) Engagement on Aggression, 61(1), 30–50.
Romana, Julia (2015), Smart-shaming and our Pinoy culture of anti-intellectualism
Sealander, K. A. (2001). A Scale for measuring students; anti-intellectualism, (2), 387– 402.
Schmeichel, B. J., Vohs, K. D., & Baumeister, R. F. (2003). Intellectual Performance and Ego
Depletion: Role of the Self in Logical Reasoning and Other Information Processing, 85(1),
33–46.
Srivastava, S., Mcgonigal, K. M., John, O. P., & Gross, J. J. (2009). The Social Costs of Emotional
Suppression: A Prospective Study of the Transition to College, 96(4), 883–897.
Street, M., Wt, L., Koole, S. L., & Koole, S. L. (2009). The psychology of emotion regulation: An
integrative review the psychology of emotion regulation: An integrative review,
(923160581).
Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource Press. Carey, K. B., Neal, D. J., & Collins, S. E.
(2004). A psychometric analysis of the self-regulation questionnaire. Addictive
Behaviors, 29(2), 253-260.
Stiles, P. (2008). Working Paper Series shame.
Sydney: Maxwell Macmillan Publishing Australia. Neal, D. J., & Carey, K. B. (2005).
A follow-up psychometric analysis of the self-regulation questionnaire. Psychology of
Addictive Behaviors, 19(4), 414-422.
Technologies, M. (2013). Online Journal of Communication and Media Technologies Volume: 3 –
Issue: 4 – October - 2013, 149–178.
Thau, S., & Mitchell, M. S. (2010). Self-Gain or Self-Regulation Impairment? Tests of Competing
Explanations of the Supervisor Abuse and Employee Deviance Relationship Through
Perceptions of Distributive Justice, 95(6), 1009–1031.
Thomaes, S., Stegge, H., & Olthof, T. (2007). Copyright © The British Psychological Society
Externalizing shame responses in children: The role of fragile-positive selfesteem Copyright
© The British Psychological Society, 559–577.
Tynan, S. A. (2014). Inhibitory Control and Classroom Behavior in Kindergarten Children.

20
Urry, H. L. (2009). Using Reappraisal to Regulate Unpleasant Emotional Episodes: Goals and
Timing Matter, 9(6), 782–797.
VandeCreek & T. L. Jackson (Eds.), Innovations in clinical practice: A source book (Vol. 17,
pp. 281-289).
Vohs, K. D., Baumeister, R. F., & Ciarocco, N. J. (2005). Self-Regulation and SelfPresentation:
Regulatory Resource Depletion Impairs Impression Management and Effortful Self-
Presentation Depletes Regulatory Resources, 88(4), 632–657.
Vohs, K. D., & Schmeichel, B. J. (2003). Self-Regulation and the Extended Now: Controlling the
Self Alters the Subjective Experience of Time, 85(2), 217–230.
Waegeman, A., Declerck, C. H., & Boone, C. (2014). A Psychometric Study of Cognitive Self-
Regulation: Are Self-Report Questionnaires and Behavioural Tasks Measuring a Similar
Construct? (December), 2159–2172.

Online reference:
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/faculty_sites/sommerb/sommerdemo/sampling/types.htm

21