2691 - DIFFERENT BUFFERS AGAINST DEPRESSION? EXPLORING GENDER-SPECIFIC INFLUENCES OF EMOTION REGULATION AND RELATIONSHIPS

Session: D06S027 - Gender and Sexual Identity 2
AUTHORS:
Lehenbauer-Baum Mario (Sigmund Freud Private University, Faculty of Psychology ~ Vienna ~ Austria) , Balžanka Samuel (Sigmund Freud Private University, Faculty of Psychology ~ Vienna ~ Austria) , Klaps Armin (Sigmund Freud Private University, Faculty of Psychology ~ Vienna ~ Austria) , Kovacovsky Zuzana (Sigmund Freud Private University, Faculty of Psychology ~ Vienna ~ Austria) , Stetina Birgit Ursula (Sigmund Freud Private University, Faculty of Psychology ~ Vienna ~ Austria)
Abstract text:
Introduction: Emotion regulation and relationship quality are protective factors against depression. Their relative strength may vary by gender; men appear to benefit more from social support, reflecting contextual and socialized differences.


Purpose: We examined differences in emotion regulation and relationships quality as buffers against depression, highlighting gender-related contextual protective factors.


Method: 382 adults (274 women, 108 men) participated in an online survey and provided data on the PERMA Profiler (subscale "Relationships" to measure perceived social support, relationships quality), Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (assessing cognitive reappraisal, emotional suppression), and PHQ-9 (depression). Hierarchical regressions were conducted separately by gender; model 1 included emotion regulation strategies (reappraisal, suppression), model 2 added perceived relationships quality to examine the incremental predictive value.


Results: Women and men did not significantly differ in cognitive reappraisal (p = .784), but women reported significantly lower emotional suppression than men (p < .001) and significantly higher relationships quality on the PERMA Profiler (p = .004). For women, model 1 explained 19.5% of depression variance, with both emotion regulation strategies as significant predictors. Prediction increased significantly to 29.8% when adding relationships quality in model 2 (all predictors remained significant). For men, model 1 explained 13.6% of depression variance, only reappraisal was significant. In model 2, only relationships quality remained significant, increasing prediction to 38.5%.


Conclusions: Like previous studies, we found that protective factors against depression are contextually shaped by gender. For women, emotion regulation and supportive relationships buffered against depression, with lower reappraisal and higher suppression predicting higher symptoms. For men, emotion regulation explained less variance, and emotional suppression was nonsignificant. Once added, perceived social support and relationships quality became the only significant predictor. Our results highlight the need for gender-sensitive, context-aware prevention and clinical strategies that strengthen emotional flexibility and adaptive regulation in women and foster relational connectedness and supportive interpersonal functioning in men.