Fig 1.
A schematic representation of the unfamiliar immediate memory task.
Fig 2.
Scatter plots for the relationship between expressive suppression and false positives in face immediate memory in Experiment 1.
r (40) = .57, p< 0.001, with 95% confidence internals of .32 to .74.
Table 1.
Descriptive statistics for participants’ responses on the face immediate memory task (%) and the ERQ.
Table 2.
Correlations between face immediate face memory and ERQ strategies.
Fig 3.
Examples of face-matching tasks used in Experiment 2 and 3.
Regarding copyright issues, we could not present examples for the UK face images that were taken in different times.
Table 3.
Descriptive statistics for participants’ responses on the 1-in-1 face-matching tasks and ERQ strategies in Experiment 2.
Fig 4.
Scatter plots for the relationship between expressive suppression false positives in the overall face-matching task in Experiment 2.
r (50) = .51, p< 0.001, with 95% confidence internals of .22 to .75.
Table 4.
Correlations between face matching and ERQ strategies in Experiment 2.
Table 5.
Correlations among the four face-matching tasks in Experiment 2.
Fig 5.
Scatter plots for the relationship between catastrophizing and false positives in the overall face-matching task in Experiment 3.
r (50) = .51, p< 0.001, with 95% confidence internals of .29 to .68.
Table 6.
Descriptive statistics for participants’ responses on the face matching tasks and CERQ in Experiment 3.
Table 7.
Correlations between performances on the face-matching tasks and CERQ strategies in Experiment 3.
Table 8.
Correlations among the four face-matching tasks in Experiment 3.