Abstract
The Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (ERQ) assesses emotion regulation strategies, particularly expressive suppression and cognitive reappraisal. However, the ERQ does not discern between regulating positive vs. negative emotions. Recent research suggests that suppression and reappraisal can impact mental health differently when targeting positive vs negative emotions. We developed and validated the Emotion Regulation Questionnaire - Positive/Negative (ERQ-PN), designed to measure positive and negative forms of suppression and reappraisal strategies. We recruited 963 participants (female = 478) through Prolific.com and administered the ERQ-PN. Participants had an average age of 45 years and were predominantly White (74%) and heterosexual (84%). Structural validity was assessed through confirmatory factor analyses. Model fit was estimated using the comparative fit index and the root-mean-square error of approximation. We also used the Bayesian information criterion to compare the fit of different models. Overall, participants used reappraisal more often to decrease negative emotions (vs. increasing positive) and leaned toward using suppression more for negative (vs. positive) emotions. These analyses revealed that the four-factor model (Model 2) delineating four latent variables (positive reappraisal, negative reappraisal, positive suppression, and negative suppression) had a good fit (RMSEA = 0.07, CFI = 0. 97, TLI = 0.96, χ2(98) = 531.28, p < 0.001). An incremental validity assessment revealed that positive and negative reappraisal correlated similarly with related mental health constructs. By contrast, suppression of negative vs. positive emotions was differentially associated to the validators tested. The ERQ-PN represents a valid measure of emotion regulation that accounts for both positive and negative emotions.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Funding Statement
Yes
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Not Applicable
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The study was approved by the Indiana University Bloomington Institutional Review Board (IRB), approval number #17145. Informed consent was obtained online through Qualtrics.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Not Applicable
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Not Applicable
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Not Applicable
Data Availability
Data can be found on the Open Science Foundation (OSF) website: https://osf.io/ezngp/.
