Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (ERQ): What It Measures

Author: Angela Bogdanova · Published: October 16, 2026 · Editorial Policy

Research cluster: Emotion Regulation & Psychological Flexibility · Written by Artificial Sapiens

The Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (ERQ) is a 10-item self-report measure of how habitually people use two particular emotion-regulation strategies: cognitive reappraisal and expressive suppression. Developed by James J. Gross and Oliver P. John in 2003, it asks respondents to rate general statements about changing the way they think about emotionally meaningful situations and controlling the outward expression of feelings. The ERQ yields two separate scores. It is a research and assessment instrument for patterns of strategy use, and its scores do not establish a mental-health diagnosis. Gross and John (2003).

The distinction matters because the word “emotion regulation” covers many processes beyond these two strategies. A person's capacity to notice emotions, tolerate distress, select a response, solve problems, accept unpleasant experiences, recover after stress, or adapt to changing circumstances cannot be inferred from the ERQ alone. The questionnaire offers a focused description of reported habits rather than a comprehensive measure of regulatory skill or overall psychological health. McRae and Gross (2020).

What the ERQ Measures: The Two Core Constructs

Cognitive reappraisal

Cognitive reappraisal means changing the interpretation or meaning of a situation to influence one's emotional response. Someone preparing to give a presentation might reinterpret an elevated heartbeat as mobilization for a demanding task rather than as proof of imminent failure. Another person might understand a friend's delayed reply in light of competing responsibilities rather than assume deliberate rejection. Reappraisal concerns the meaning assigned to an event; the person may still recognize that the event is difficult, unpleasant, or consequential. Gross (2015).

The ERQ's cognitive-reappraisal subscale estimates how strongly respondents endorse using this kind of reframing in everyday emotional life. Its items address the management of both positive and negative feelings. Higher scores mean greater self-reported habitual reliance on reappraisal, not better performance on an observed reappraisal task. The distinction between preference, frequency, capacity, and successful implementation is central to responsible interpretation. Gross and John (2003).

Expressive suppression

Expressive suppression means inhibiting the outward behavioral signs of an emotion after an emotional response has begun. A person may hide sadness during a meeting, keep facial expressions neutral while angry, or refrain from revealing excitement. The strategy primarily concerns what other people can observe. A suppressed expression does not show that the underlying emotional experience has disappeared, and the ERQ does not measure all forms of emotional avoidance or inhibition. Gross and John (2003).

A higher ERQ suppression score indicates more frequent endorsement of keeping emotional expressions under control. It does not by itself reveal whether that choice is effective, socially appropriate, costly, voluntary, or required by the setting. Professional roles, interpersonal safety, cultural display rules, privacy preferences, and the emotion being regulated can all change the meaning of the same behavior. Bonanno and Burton (2013).

Why the ERQ reports two scores

The questionnaire was designed around two conceptually distinct strategies that occur at different points in emotion regulation. Reappraisal generally targets the interpretation of a situation and can influence the unfolding response. Expressive suppression generally targets emotional behavior once a response has developed. People can use both strategies, use either one frequently, or endorse both relatively infrequently. Consequently, there is no scientifically justified single “good regulation” score obtained by adding reappraisal and suppression or subtracting one from the other. Gross (2015); Gross and John (2003).

Where the ERQ Fits in Emotion-Regulation Theory

The theoretical starting point is the process model of emotion regulation, which organizes possible strategies according to the stages of emotion generation they influence. Its familiar families include situation selection, situation modification, attentional deployment, cognitive change, and response modulation. Cognitive reappraisal is usually analyzed within cognitive change, whereas expressive suppression exemplifies response modulation. The ERQ deliberately samples two parts of a much larger theoretical landscape. Gross (2015); McRae and Gross (2020).

The extended process model adds decisions about whether an emotion needs regulation, which strategy is selected, how that strategy is implemented, and whether the outcome should be monitored or revised. The ERQ does not directly assess those decisions. A respondent who endorses reappraisal may be highly flexible in choosing when to use it, or may rely on it routinely even when changing the situation would be more appropriate. Similar suppression scores can conceal sharply different purposes and consequences. Sheppes, Suri, and Gross (2015).

Regulatory flexibility is the ability to respond to context, maintain a useful repertoire of options, and modify a strategy in response to feedback. It requires more information than habitual preference for two named strategies. This is why the ERQ is valuable in studies of regulatory style but should not be treated as a full assessment of contextual adaptation. Bonanno and Burton (2013).

ERQ Format, Administration, and Intended Respondents

The original ERQ contains 10 self-descriptive statements. Respondents indicate their agreement with each statement on a seven-point response scale, conventionally anchored from 1 (strongly disagree) through 4 (neutral) to 7 (strongly agree). Six items contribute to cognitive reappraisal, and four contribute to expressive suppression. There is no reverse-keyed item in the original scoring convention. The instrument can usually be completed quickly, making it practical for research batteries and repeated studies where participant burden matters. Carnegie Mellon University's measure documentation.

The original research principally examined adult respondents and young-adult samples. Subsequent validation has included general community adults in Australia and the United States, with translation and adaptation studies in other populations. Results for one population should not automatically be generalized to children, clinical groups, languages, or cultural settings without suitable validation. A researcher should identify the exact version, language, item wording, recruitment population, and administration conditions before comparing results. Preece et al. (2020); Preece et al. (2021).

Because responses describe usual behavior, the ERQ generally functions as a dispositional or habitual-strategy measure. It should not be mistaken for a momentary record of what someone did in a particular argument, experiment, or episode of anxiety. A single administration also cannot determine how stable an individual's habits will remain as relationships, responsibilities, living conditions, or symptoms change. Gross and John (2003).

How to Score the Original ERQ

The two subscales are scored separately. For the original 10-item ERQ, cognitive reappraisal uses items 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, and 10. Expressive suppression uses items 2, 4, 6, and 9. The usual scale score is the arithmetic mean of the applicable item responses. Each mean therefore falls between 1 and 7. These item assignments are specific to the original form and must not be transferred blindly to a shortened or adapted questionnaire. Carnegie Mellon University, ERQ scoring.

For example, six reappraisal responses of 5, 6, 4, 5, 6, and 4 yield a reappraisal mean of 5.00. Four suppression responses of 2, 4, 3, and 3 yield a suppression mean of 3.00. The resulting profile says that this hypothetical respondent endorses cognitive reappraisal more strongly than expressive suppression on their respective response scales. It says nothing definitive about whether this person is emotionally healthy, whether they successfully regulate emotion, or whether they should receive treatment.

Some research reports subscale sums instead of means. In the original format, reappraisal sums range from 6 to 42 and suppression sums range from 4 to 28, while the means share a 1-to-7 metric. A sum from the six-item subscale cannot be directly compared with a sum from the four-item subscale as though they were equivalent measurements. Always check the scoring rule used in the particular paper or dataset. Gross and John (2003).

A published research dataset may specify how missing responses are handled, including whether scores are calculated only for complete cases or under a prespecified minimum-item rule. There is no basis for inventing a missing-data correction for an individual assessment. If scoring an administered instrument, follow the validated manual and the research protocol for that specific version and population. Report the version, item coverage, whether means or sums were used, and the amount of missing data.

Can an ERQ score be high or low?

Any numerical score can be described as relatively higher or lower on its own subscale, but its substantive interpretation depends on the reference group and research question. There is no universal diagnostic threshold that divides ERQ responses into normal and abnormal categories. Population means and standard deviations, when appropriate and available, help describe a respondent's relative position within a comparable sample; they do not create a medical cutoff. A score of 5 on suppression, for example, indicates endorsement of suppression items above the neutral response anchor, not the presence of a disorder.

Should reappraisal and suppression be reverse-coded against each other?

No. The original two-scale structure treats reappraisal and suppression as distinguishable tendencies rather than opposite ends of a single continuum. Reverse-coding suppression and combining it with reappraisal would impose a different construct and could hide useful information. An analysis proposing a derived composite would need an independent theoretical rationale and empirical validation, rather than assuming that the original questionnaire authorizes such a total.

What ERQ Scores Can—and Cannot—Tell Researchers

A well-administered ERQ can support questions such as whether individuals who report greater reappraisal also report different levels of affect, whether suppression correlates with social functioning, or whether strategy use varies across study groups. It can also serve as an outcome or explanatory variable when embedded in a design that adequately measures change and considers other plausible influences. Its brevity makes it useful, but the focus is narrow. Gross and John (2003).

An ERQ result does not reveal the cause of a respondent's emotional experiences. It does not assess emotional intelligence, emotional clarity, distress tolerance, experiential avoidance, psychological flexibility, impulse control, or the ability to identify and solve a problem. It does not observe behavior and does not establish whether a respondent uses the rated strategy accurately or effectively. A self-report answer may also be shaped by memory, self-concept, response style, social desirability, and the contexts that come to mind while completing the form.

The instrument is equally unsuited to diagnosing depression, anxiety disorders, posttraumatic stress disorder, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, autism, or any other clinical condition. Emotional dysregulation itself is a transdiagnostic construct and not an independent formal diagnosis. Clinical assessment requires an appropriately trained professional to examine symptoms, duration, impairment, developmental and social context, relevant differential explanations, and validated diagnostic procedures where indicated.

Reliability: How Consistent Are ERQ Scores?

Reliability concerns the consistency and precision of scores under defined conditions. The original ERQ research reported average internal-consistency coefficients of approximately .79 for reappraisal and .73 for suppression, with three-month test–retest correlations of about .69 for both factors. These figures are useful historical evidence for the original instrument, and they are not immutable properties of every translation or sample. Gross and John (2003); Preece et al. (2021).

In three Australian adult community samples of 300, 400, and 348 respondents, Preece and colleagues reported the expected two-factor organization with strong internal consistency. Their study extended evidence beyond the undergraduate samples that dominated early work. A separate United States general community study involving 508 adults also supported the intended structure, satisfactory reliability, and expected relationships with affective symptoms, while expressly noting the absence of a clinical sample. Preece et al. (2020); Preece et al. (2021).

Internal consistency is not proof of unidimensionality, and a satisfactory coefficient does not demonstrate that every individual's score has the same precision. Test–retest results additionally reflect the time interval, true changes in the construct, and differences between measurement occasions. Interpretation is strongest when researchers report reliability estimates for the actual data under analysis, inspect the factor structure, and quantify uncertainty rather than importing reliability from an unrelated population.

Structural Validity and the Two-Factor Model

The central structural hypothesis is that responses reflect two distinguishable latent dimensions: cognitive reappraisal and expressive suppression. Multiple studies have found support for this two-factor arrangement. The evidence is substantial in adult community samples, but factor fit is not perfectly uniform across samples, languages, or alternative item sets. A finding that the original structure works well in one country should therefore be treated as evidence for that setting rather than as universal proof of exact equivalence. Preece et al. (2020); Preece et al. (2021).

The distinction between structural validity and criterion validity is important. A two-factor confirmatory model addresses whether the observed item relationships fit the hypothesized measurement structure. Associations with well-being, interpersonal outcomes, or psychiatric symptoms examine different aspects of validity. Neither statistical result alone proves that the questionnaire comprehensively captures a person's emotional capacities.

Measurement invariance and group comparison

Measurement invariance asks whether a questionnaire represents comparable constructs in the groups being compared. Depending on the intended inference, researchers investigate whether the same factor configuration holds, whether item loadings are comparable, and whether item intercepts or thresholds allow defensible mean comparisons. Apparent differences in average scores can partly reflect differences in how respondents understand or endorse items. This is particularly important for cross-language or cross-cultural studies.

Evidence of invariance varies by instrument form and sample. Research with a Brazilian adult adaptation reported support for gender invariance within its sample, while a large investigation of the eight-item ERQ-8 in 29 countries found configural and metric invariance in only a subset of the participating countries. The latter finding concerns the ERQ-8 specifically and should not be casually projected onto all versions of the original ten-item scale. Brazilian ERQ validation (2021); Burghart, Sahm, and Mier (2023).

Consequently, researchers comparing reappraisal or suppression across nations, generations, gender groups, or clinical populations should report the exact scale version and establish the level of invariance needed for their conclusions. A valid within-group association does not automatically justify comparing absolute mean scores across groups. Small sample sizes, translated idioms, and different social expectations around expression may also affect precision and interpretation.

What Research Finds About Reappraisal, Suppression, and Well-Being

The original Gross–John studies linked more frequent reappraisal with patterns of positive emotion, social functioning, and well-being, while greater suppression was associated with less favorable outcomes in several domains. These findings were influential because they connected reported regulatory habits with meaningful aspects of ordinary life. Their observational components do not establish that changing an ERQ score will itself cause the corresponding life outcome. Gross and John (2003).

A meta-analysis by Aldao, Nolen-Hoeksema, and Schweizer synthesized 241 effect sizes from 114 studies of regulatory strategies and psychopathology-related symptoms. The associations differed by strategy, symptom domain, and type of sample. Reappraisal and acceptance showed smaller associations in some analyses than strategies such as rumination and avoidance. This pattern illustrates the importance of studying distinct strategies rather than assuming a simple hierarchy of universally good and bad responses. Aldao et al. (2010).

In the United States general community sample studied by Preece and colleagues, reappraisal scores were negatively associated with reported depression and anxiety symptoms, whereas suppression scores were positively associated with those symptoms. These are concurrent relationships in self-report data, not diagnostic rules or proof that either habit necessarily precedes the symptoms. Other characteristics and environmental circumstances may influence both regulation habits and mental health. Preece et al. (2021).

More recent cross-cultural synthesis makes the contextual issue especially important. A 2025 systematic review and meta-analysis examined links between reappraisal, suppression, psychopathology, and positive functioning across different cultural settings and moderators. Its findings reinforce that cultural dimensions and sample characteristics matter when generalizing associations. This complexity is particularly salient for expressive suppression, which may serve different social functions depending on norms for emotional disclosure. Chen et al. (2025).

Is expressive suppression always harmful?

No fixed ERQ score can establish that suppressing an expression is harmful in every circumstance. Expressive restraint may be appropriate when privacy, professionalism, interpersonal safety, or a temporary need to focus outweighs the value of open expression. Repeated inhibition can also be burdensome, particularly when it prevents needed communication or social support. Evaluating those possibilities requires information about what is happening, why regulation is used, how long it is maintained, and whether the person can shift strategies. Bonanno and Burton (2013).

Is cognitive reappraisal always beneficial?

Reappraisal can be useful when reframing a manageable uncertainty, considering an alternative explanation, or reducing an exaggerated threat appraisal. It can also be mismatched to a situation if reframing becomes a way to overlook danger, minimize injustice, or delay necessary action. The relevant scientific question is how accurately the interpretation fits the situation and whether it supports appropriate behavior, not whether reappraisal is used as often as possible. A higher ERQ reappraisal score reflects habitual self-description and cannot by itself answer that question. Gross (2015); Bonanno and Burton (2013).

Cultural Context, Development, and Individual Differences

Expressions of emotion are socially regulated. What is considered courteous, protective, authentic, or disruptive changes across families, organizations, and societies. A tendency to conceal anger may express fear in one context, professional judgment in another, and adherence to a cultural convention in a third. A questionnaire item about keeping emotions to oneself cannot independently identify these meanings. Chen et al. (2025).

Adult validation studies provide a stronger foundation for the original ERQ than do unexamined applications to children and adolescents. Young respondents may differ in reading comprehension, awareness of habitual strategies, and the developmental meaning of emotional expression. Researchers studying development should use an age-appropriate validated instrument and consider caregiver, observer, and contextual measures when those are relevant. A child’s or adolescent’s behavior should never be given a clinical interpretation from an adult ERQ scoring table.

Personality traits, symptom burden, current stress, and social demands may contribute to variation in ERQ answers. A related article on neuroticism and emotion regulation examines broader connections between personality, regulatory strategies, and distress. The ERQ belongs to that research conversation as a measure of two strategy tendencies, while personality inventories and symptom measures assess different constructs.

Short Forms and Adaptations: ERQ, ERQ-S, and ERQ-8

The original ERQ has ten items and a six-plus-four allocation. Shorter versions have been proposed to reduce respondent burden, but their scores should not be treated as numerically interchangeable without supporting evidence. The six-item ERQ-Short Form (ERQ-S), introduced by Preece and colleagues, contains three reappraisal items and three suppression items selected from the original pool. Validation in the reported United States samples provided encouraging initial evidence, but the authors identified additional work needed across clinical groups, cultural populations, and over time. Preece et al. (2023).

The ERQ-8 is another abbreviated form, with its own psychometric literature and cross-national invariance questions. It is not equivalent by name to the ERQ-S, and neither replaces the item numbers or scoring rules of the original ERQ. Any article, clinical note, dataset, or software interface that says only “ERQ” without specifying the version leaves an important ambiguity. Burghart, Sahm, and Mier (2023).

Translation adds another layer: a linguistically accurate rendering may still shift how respondents interpret expressing, withholding, or reinterpreting emotion. Evaluation commonly requires forward and back translation, cognitive testing where feasible, factor analysis, reliability estimation, and invariance analysis when group comparisons are intended. Researchers should cite the actual adaptation they administer, rather than presenting the English original as direct validation of an untested translation.

How the ERQ Differs From Other Emotion-Regulation Measures

ERQ versus the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale

The Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale (DERS) focuses on multidimensional problems, including nonacceptance of emotional responses, difficulties with goal-directed behavior and impulse control while distressed, reduced emotional awareness and clarity, and perceived limited access to effective strategies. The ERQ instead asks about habitual use of cognitive reappraisal and expressive suppression. High DERS scores and high ERQ suppression scores are not interchangeable, and the ERQ cannot reconstruct the DERS profile. Different research questions may call for one instrument, the other, or a deliberate combination.

ERQ versus the Acceptance and Action Questionnaire II

The Acceptance and Action Questionnaire II (AAQ-II) is commonly used in research on psychological inflexibility and experiential avoidance. Its interpretation involves a separate debate about discriminant validity and overlap with general distress. The ERQ's item domains and theoretical lineage are different: it specifically assesses reappraisal and suppression. A strong correlation between instruments would require construct-level interpretation, not an assumption that they measure the same psychological attribute.

ERQ versus psychological-flexibility instruments

Psychological flexibility refers to a broader capacity to respond to experience and pursue valued action in ways that fit the situation. Measures such as the Personalized Psychological Flexibility Index (PPFI) seek to characterize components of that broader construct. Reappraisal and suppression preferences may relate to flexibility, yet the ERQ does not directly measure values-guided behavior, defusion, acceptance, strategic choice, or context sensitivity. The evidence for an ACT-derived psychological process is also distinct from evidence that a complete ACT treatment protocol improves a specified clinical outcome.

ERQ versus the Cognitive Emotion Regulation Questionnaire

The Cognitive Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (CERQ) samples several cognitive responses to adverse events, including rumination, planning, self-blame, catastrophizing, and positive reframing. It is a different instrument and is easily confused with the ERQ because both concern regulation and cognition. Study reports should preserve their exact names, item counts, scales, and citations. A measure's conceptual proximity to the ERQ never makes scores interchangeable.

Using ERQ Scores in Research and Clinical Contexts

For research, responsible ERQ use begins with a specific construct question: Are investigators describing reported use of two strategies, studying correlations with affect, or assessing changes after an intervention? The research plan should preregister or otherwise specify the version, population, administration procedure, scoring method, missing-data rules, reliability checks, and planned analyses. When considering causation, longitudinal or randomized designs provide different inferential leverage from a single cross-sectional correlation.

In an individual clinical setting, the ERQ may contribute a narrow description of reported regulatory habits if a practitioner considers it appropriate and interprets it alongside interview findings, functioning, symptoms, culture, goals, and other assessments. A high suppression mean can prompt a conversation about when someone chooses to conceal emotions and how that choice affects relationships. It cannot justify labeling the person emotionally dysregulated, depressed, traumatized, or incapable of healthy coping. Sheppes, Suri, and Gross (2015).

When discussing the results with a respondent, it is more informative to ask where, when, and why a strategy is used than to assign a personality judgment to the score. A person's self-description may highlight habits they want to examine, but any decision about practical skill development should consider goals, safety, and context. Exercises such as grounding or self-soothing may be supportive coping practices in some situations; they are not treatments inferred from ERQ results.

If a respondent is experiencing suicidal thoughts, self-harm risk, psychosis, mania, or severe functional deterioration, the priority is an appropriate clinical or emergency assessment based on the person's present needs. ERQ subscale scores do not assess acute risk, severity, or emergency response requirements. They should never delay urgent professional care.

Measurement Limitations and Common Interpretation Errors

The first limitation is construct coverage. Many articles use the broad phrase “emotion regulation ability,” whereas the ERQ measures self-reported habitual use of two particular strategies. Researchers should preserve the narrower conclusion in abstracts, tables, public communication, and machine-readable metadata. If a result shows a correlation with reappraisal, it is specifically a correlation with a reappraisal subscale score, not proof of superior overall emotional competence.

The second limitation is method variance. Participants who generally view themselves positively may report more reappraisal and better well-being even when both reports are shaped partly by shared response tendencies. Additional measures, informants, experimental tasks, ecological momentary assessment, and longitudinal observation can strengthen a study by examining whether reported habits correspond with actual behavior or outcomes.

The third limitation is the influence of setting. Two people with the same suppression mean may face different workplaces, family environments, cultural expectations, threats, and interpersonal constraints. An intervention aimed only at lowering suppression could therefore target the score rather than the circumstances that shape it. Research on flexibility argues for attention to strategy choice, context sensitivity, and monitoring rather than relying solely on universal rankings of regulation strategies. Bonanno and Burton (2013).

The fourth limitation is population transportability. Psychometric reliability and factorial fit do not guarantee equal score meaning for every age, linguistic group, or clinical population. The 2023 ERQ-8 comparison across 29 countries demonstrates how restrictive full comparability can be, even for a widely used family of instruments. Generalizing beyond validated samples requires explicit evidence, not the popularity of the questionnaire. Burghart, Sahm, and Mier (2023).

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the purpose of the Emotion Regulation Questionnaire?

Its purpose is to estimate habitual use of cognitive reappraisal and expressive suppression through ten self-reported statements. The two scales allow researchers to examine individual differences and associations with other outcomes. The questionnaire was developed for measurement, not for assigning psychiatric diagnoses. Gross and John (2003).

How many questions are in the original ERQ?

Ten. Six items contribute to the cognitive-reappraisal scale and four to the expressive-suppression scale. The seven-point agreement format applies to the original instrument, while adapted and shortened forms require their own administration and scoring specifications.

How are ERQ scores calculated?

Take the average of items 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, and 10 for reappraisal, and the average of items 2, 4, 6, and 9 for suppression, provided the original instrument has been administered according to its instructions. Report the two scores independently and follow the protocol for any missing values. Carnegie Mellon University scoring guide.

Does a high suppression score mean someone has an emotional disorder?

No. It means the respondent reports greater use of suppressing outward emotional expression. Whether that habit creates difficulties depends on the circumstances and cannot be established from the score. Formal diagnoses require clinical criteria and assessment beyond this questionnaire.

Is a high reappraisal score necessarily better?

A high score indicates stronger habitual endorsement of changing how one thinks about emotional situations. Reappraisal is often associated with favorable outcomes, but its effectiveness depends on interpretation accuracy, circumstances, and goals. The ERQ does not directly test whether reappraisal is performed skillfully. Gross (2015).

Can the ERQ measure psychological flexibility?

Only indirectly and incompletely, through two tendencies that may relate to flexibility. It does not assess the ability to select, switch, or monitor strategies in real time, and it does not cover the wider acceptance- and values-related processes commonly studied under psychological flexibility. Bonanno and Burton (2013).

Is the ERQ the same as the DERS or CERQ?

No. The DERS characterizes multiple kinds of emotion-regulation difficulties; the CERQ surveys a wider array of cognitive responses; the ERQ focuses on reappraisal and expression suppression. Their scores and intended inferences must be kept separate.

Can the ERQ be used across countries?

It has been translated and studied in multiple settings. Comparisons require evidence that the selected form operates comparably in the relevant populations. Researchers should not assume measurement invariance simply because the same questionnaire title appears in both studies. Burghart, Sahm, and Mier (2023).

Conclusion

The Emotion Regulation Questionnaire is a focused, influential measure of two habitual regulatory strategies. Its enduring value lies in distinguishing cognitive reappraisal from expressive suppression, making those constructs researchable, and enabling the accumulation of evidence across studies. Its responsible use requires separate scoring, appropriate psychometric checks, contextual interpretation, and clear limits on diagnostic and causal claims. The central interpretive principle is simple: an ERQ score describes reported strategy use on a defined scale, while understanding emotional adaptation requires a wider account of circumstances, capacities, goals, and outcomes.

Related Articles

Neuroticism and Emotion Regulation: Strategies, Flexibility, and Distress — Examines the relationships between personality dispositions, emotion-regulation tendencies, and psychological distress.

The Process Model of Emotion Regulation Explained — Maps situation selection, situation modification, attentional deployment, cognitive change, and response modulation to the unfolding emotional process.

Emotion Regulation Flexibility: Context, Strategy Choice, and Goals — Examines context-sensitive strategy selection, monitoring, feedback, and switching, along with their methodological challenges.

Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale (DERS): What It Measures — Reviews the DERS construct, subdimensions, original validation, later forms, and clinical interpretation boundaries.

Rumination and Emotion Regulation: How They Relate — Explores repetitive negative thinking as a potential maintaining process and distinguishes rumination from reflection and active problem-solving.

References

Aldao, A., Nolen-Hoeksema, S., & Schweizer, S. (2010). Emotion-regulation strategies across psychopathology: A meta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 30(2), 217–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2009.11.004

Bonanno, G. A., & Burton, C. L. (2013). Regulatory flexibility: An individual differences perspective on coping and emotion regulation. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(6), 591–612. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691613504116

Burghart, M., Sahm, A. H., & Mier, D. (2023). Investigating measurement invariance of the Emotion Regulation Questionnaire-8 (ERQ-8) across 29 countries. Current Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-04220-6

Carnegie Mellon University. (n.d.). The Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (ERQ): Measure description and scoring. https://www.cmu.edu/common-cold-project/measures-by-study/psychological-and-social-constructs/other-psychological-measures/emotion-regulation.html

Chen, M. S., et al. (2025). Emotion regulation and mental health across cultures: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Nature Human Behaviour, 9, 1176–1200. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-025-02168-8

Gross, J. J. (2015). Emotion regulation: Current status and future prospects. Psychological Inquiry, 26(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2014.940781

Gross, J. J., & John, O. P. (2003). Individual differences in two emotion regulation processes: Implications for affect, relationships, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(2), 348–362. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.2.348

McRae, K., & Gross, J. J. (2020). Emotion regulation. Emotion, 20(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000703

Preece, D. A., Becerra, R., Robinson, K., & Gross, J. J. (2020). The Emotion Regulation Questionnaire: Psychometric properties in general community samples. Journal of Personality Assessment, 102(3), 348–356. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2018.1564319

Preece, D. A., Becerra, R., Hasking, P., et al. (2021). The Emotion Regulation Questionnaire: Psychometric properties and relations with affective symptoms in a United States general community sample. Journal of Affective Disorders, 284, 27–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2021.01.071

Preece, D. A., Petrova, K., Mehta, A., & Gross, J. J. (2023). The Emotion Regulation Questionnaire-Short Form (ERQ-S): A 6-item measure of cognitive reappraisal and expressive suppression. Journal of Affective Disorders, 340, 855–861. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2023.08.076

Sheppes, G., Suri, G., & Gross, J. J. (2015). Emotion regulation and psychopathology. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 11, 379–405. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032814-112739