First, we exploit the within-country timing of COVID-19-related shutdown policies to estimate the relationship between emergency orders from governments and state violence against civilians across Africa. We find a substantively large and statistically significant relationship between shutdowns and repression, which holds after conditioning for the spread and lethality of the disease within-country and over time. This result suggests that lockdown measures related to the coronavirus pandemic expanded the ability of the state to intervene in citizens’ lives. Moreover, the state often implemented these powers through force rather than more proportionate measures. The way denial is described in this paper—denial of diagnosis or denial of impact—is one of the several definitions quoted in the literature (Vos and Haes 2007; Moyer and Levine 1998). Greer et al. described denial in breast cancer as “apparent active rejection of any evidence about their diagnosis which might have been offered, including the evidence of breast removal, such as “it wasn’t serious, they just took off my breast as a precaution” (Greer et al. 1979, p. 786).
Minimizing the impact of cancer is a milder and more realistic form of denial, and was measured in studies by Butow. Our definition of denial indicates a clear conceptual difference between denial and repression. 轉按 does not specifically refer to the emotional consequences of a disease, but rather to negative emotions in general. A person might repress these emotions, while not denying the seriousness of the disease. Denial or minimizing can either be an act (an event-driven coping response) or it can reflect a habitual style of minimizing the seriousness of unpleasant events. How does political polarization occur under repressive conditions?
The Type C individual does not even try to express needs and feelings; these are hidden under a mask of normalcy and self-sufficiency’ (Temoshok 1987, pp. 558–560). Repressing memories of traumatic events concerns a complex of cognitions and emotions that is mainly limited to a certain theme or event, such as sexual abuse in childhood. This is different from repression, which concerns the tendency not to express negative emotions in general. Repression of memories is initiated by traumatic events, whereas repression is a habitual style applied in a variety of situations. Although repressing memories of traumatic events could lead to an habitual style of repression, or magnify an existing tendency to repression that does not undo the conceptual difference. If any distinction is made between suppression and repression, the focus is usually placed on processes, i.e. on time-limited cognitive acts.
Verywell Mind articles are reviewed by board-certified physicians and mental healthcare professionals. Medical Reviewers confirm the content is thorough and accurate, reflecting the latest evidence-based research. Content is reviewed before publication and upon substantial updates. Based on psychometric comparisons, alexithymia shows some correspondence to the sensitizing style of high-anxious persons, rather than the avoidant style of repressors. Repressive individuals often report that they are not upset despite objective evidence to the contrary, whereas alexithymic individuals acknowledge that they are upset, but have difficulty in specifying the nature of their distress. It is interesting that cancer studies showed opposite consequences of the two phenomena.
Furthermore, not having someone model how to express and cope with emotions may lead to the development of coping strategies that focus on avoiding and inhibiting negative emotions. We may orient our attention more toward positive emotions that are acceptable and tolerated by others. Some memory researchers argue that the term ‘conscious repression’ is a more accurate alternative to unconscious repression. This is supported by studies that show that when asked to forget/not think about items on a memory test, participants demonstrate significantly less accurate memory retrieval. Clinicians also believe that the mind’s act of repressing memories continuously exerts both a mental and physical burden on the individual.
Two studies found that repressors scored high on both other-deception and self-deception questionnaires (Derakshan and Eysenck 1999; Furnham et al. 2002). The study of Derakshan and Eysenck also showed that repressors are more self-deceivers than other-deceivers. This was demonstrated with the so-called ‘bogus pipeline’ method, where participants are connected via electrodes to a piece of apparatus resembling a lie detector, which could allegedly detect whether they are telling the truth. Compared to a control condition, people are generally more willing to report truthfully about their emotional states when subjected to the bogus line condition, even if this report is seen as socially undesirable or embarrassing for that person.
This can help you bring clarity to your emotional world, which can often be confusing and messy. Learning mindfulness techniques can be fundamental in helping you develop the skills to pay attention to what you are experiencing in the present moment without judging or getting upset with yourself and your emotions. When you notice a change in how you feel, you can use these moments to pause and name the emotion that has been triggered. Just as you may name the different car models as they pass, you can start to practice observing your emotions from a distance as they come and name them. Understanding the triggers can equip us to be prepared for particular emotions to show up and enable us to manage them more effectively. For example, if I know that speaking in a meeting typically makes me feel anxious, I can take a few moments to calm my anxiety by taking 10 deep breaths.