Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (ERQ)

Abstract

The Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (ERQ), developed by James J. Gross and Oliver P. John in 2003, is a premier psychometric instrument designed to assess individual differences in the habitual utilization of two distinct emotion regulation strategies: Cognitive Reappraisal and Expressive Suppression. Rooted in Gross’s influential Process Model of Emotion Regulation, the ERQ conceptualizes emotion regulation as an evolving temporal sequence, operationalizing cognitive reappraisal as an antecedent-focused strategy that reframes emotionally charged stimuli prior to full affective elicitation, and expressive suppression as a response-focused strategy aimed at inhibiting behavioral and facial displays of emotion after affective responses have already been triggered. Comprising 10 rationally derived items, the scale yields two continuous, non-overlapping subscale scores: a 6-item Cognitive Reappraisal facet and a 4-item Expressive Suppression facet, each evaluated via an authentic 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).

Across extensive international empirical validation studies, the ERQ demonstrates robust psychometric integrity. Internal consistency reliabilities typically average Cronbach’s α = .79 for Cognitive Reappraisal and α = .73 for Expressive Suppression, alongside sound test–retest stability over multi-month intervals (r ≈ .69). Confirmatory factor analyses consistently substantiate an orthogonal or minimally correlated two-factor latent structure, which holds across diverse developmental cohorts, clinical populations, and multicultural environments. Extensive construct, convergent, and discriminant validity investigations confirm that habitual reappraisal strongly correlates with heightened positive affect, adaptive interpersonal functioning, elevated psychological well-being, and resilience against affective psychopathology. Conversely, habitual suppression systematically corresponds with negative affectivity, depressive symptomatology, interpersonal avoidance, somatic strain, and elevated sympathetic nervous system arousal. Today, the ERQ stands as a gold standard in affective science, cognitive-behavioral clinical trials, neuroimaging research, and organizational psychometrics.

Keywords

Emotion Regulation Questionnaire, ERQ, cognitive reappraisal, expressive suppression, process model of emotion regulation, affective science, emotional expression, coping strategies, psychometrics, psychological well-being, factor structure

Authors

The Emotion Regulation Questionnaire was authored by two prominent figures in contemporary personality psychology and affective science:

• James J. Gross, Ph.D. — Professor of Psychology at Stanford University and Director of the Stanford Psychophysiology Laboratory. Dr. Gross is an internationally renowned pioneer in affective neuroscience and the architecture of emotion regulation. His foundational scholarship delineates how human beings consciously and non-consciously modulate emotional valence, magnitude, and latency across physiological, experiential, and behavioral response channels. (Institutional Contact: Department of Psychology, Stanford University, 450 Jane Stanford Way, Building 420, Stanford, CA 94305; Email: [email protected]).
• Oliver P. John, Ph.D. — Professor of Psychology at the University of California, Berkeley and Senior Research Scientist at the Institute of Personality and Social Research (IPSR). Dr. John is widely celebrated for his seminal contributions to personality taxonomy (notably the Big Five Inventory / BFI), test construction methodology, and the longitudinal examination of personality dynamics across the lifespan. (Institutional Contact: Department of Psychology, UC Berkeley, 2121 Berkeley Way, Berkeley, CA 94720; Email: [email protected]).

Purpose

The fundamental purpose of the Emotion Regulation Questionnaire is to quantify stable, trait-like individual differences in the habitual implementation of two central emotion regulation strategies: cognitive reappraisal and expressive suppression. Historically, emotions were predominantly conceptualized within psychological discourse as spontaneous, involuntary passions that overcome individuals without substantial deliberative agency (Solomon, 1976). However, the affective revolution of the late 20th century established that people systematically exercise active regulatory control over their emotional life, modulating which emotions they experience, the temporal onset of these states, their subjective intensity, and the behavioral manifestations through which they are communicated (Gross, 1998).

To capture these distinct psychological mechanisms without introducing confounding artifacts, Gross and John (2003) designed the ERQ around a rigorous rational-construction paradigm. Many earlier coping inventories conflated regulatory strategies with their functional or clinical consequences—frequently embedding items that explicitly referenced emotional distress alleviation, successful interpersonal outcomes, or psychiatric symptom reduction. The ERQ was explicitly architected to overcome this confound. Every item measures exclusively the mechanical process of regulatory deployment (e.g., “I control my emotions by changing the way I think about the situation I’m in” or “I control my emotions by not expressing them”) without presupposing whether the strategy achieves subjective relief, social harmony, or pathological maladaptation.

In clinical and psychiatric contexts, the ERQ is utilized extensively to clarify the etiology and maintenance of transdiagnostic emotional disturbances. Deficits in cognitive reappraisal coupled with rigid over-reliance on expressive suppression represent pervasive vulnerability markers for major depressive disorder (MDD), generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and borderline personality disorder (BPD). Clinicians deploy the instrument at baseline intake, throughout evidence-based cognitive-behavioral therapies (CBT), Dialectical Behavior Therapy (DBT), and Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT), and at post-treatment follow-up to monitor therapeutic shifts from maladaptive expressive inhibition toward flexible cognitive reframing.

In basic affective neuroscience and social psychology, the ERQ serves as a critical baseline measure for experimental investigations. Researchers correlate ERQ subscale scores with continuous psychophysiological indices (e.g., heart rate variability, skin conductance response, vagal tone) and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) metrics, particularly prefrontal cortex (PFC) down-regulation of the amygdala and insular circuitry. Furthermore, within organizational psychology, the ERQ is widely utilized to assess occupational burnout, emotional labor, customer-service burnout, and executive stress resiliency.

Psychological Construct

The ERQ evaluates two orthogonal, strategically contrasted constructs within the broader domain of emotional competence: Cognitive Reappraisal and Expressive Suppression. Rather than viewing emotion regulation as a unitary capacity, Gross and John’s paradigm operationalizes these dimensions as distinct cognitive and behavioral operations situated at opposing chronological stages of the emotion-generative process.

1. Cognitive Reappraisal

Cognitive reappraisal is an antecedent-focused strategy that operates early in the emotion trajectory, prior to the full crystallization and subjective consolidation of an emotional response. It involves cognitively reconstructing, reframing, or reinterpreting an emotionally provocative situation so as to alter its psychological meaning and emotional impact. Because reappraisal intervenes before affective tendencies have fully activated autonomic, somatic, and behavioral cascades, it effectively transforms the trajectory of the response at low metabolic and subjective cost.

The ERQ measures reappraisal across multiple valences and situational contexts. Rather than limiting the construct to negative affect mitigation, the 6-item subscale incorporates items targeting:

• Down-regulation of negative emotion: Altering cognitive interpretations to mitigate feelings such as sadness, fear, or anger (e.g., Item 3: “When I want to feel less negative emotion (such as sadness or anger), I change what I’m thinking about”; Item 10: “When I want to feel less negative emotion, I change the way I’m thinking about the situation”).
• Up-regulation of positive emotion: Strategically adopting cognitive vantage points that amplify joy, amusement, gratitude, or pride (e.g., Item 1: “When I want to feel more positive emotion (such as joy or amusement), I change what I’m thinking about”; Item 7: “When I want to feel more positive emotion, I change the way I’m thinking about the situation”).
• Situational stress management: Actively reframing crises and environmental threats to maintain equanimity and functional clarity (e.g., Item 5: “When I’m faced with a stressful situation, I make myself think about it in a way that helps me stay calm”; Item 8: “I control my emotions by changing the way I think about the situation I’m in”).

2. Expressive Suppression

Expressive suppression is a response-focused strategy that acts late in the emotion-generative sequence, after emotional appraisals have already generated visceral experiential, neurobiological, and expressive inclinations. Suppression consists of the deliberate, effortful inhibition or masking of ongoing emotionally expressive behaviors—such as facial mimicry, vocal prosody, somatic gestures, and behavioral impulses.

Critically, expressive suppression fails to extinguish internal emotional feeling states; instead, it establishes a functional decoupling between subjective experience and outward expression. The 4-item subscale captures this behavioral concealment across both positive and negative experiential registers:

• Concealment of internal states: Maintaining an outward façade of detachment or neutrality (e.g., Item 2: “I keep my emotions to myself”; Item 6: “I control my emotions by not expressing them”).
• Suppression of positive expression: Deliberately inhibiting smiles, laughter, or exuberance in social or professional settings (e.g., Item 4: “When I am feeling positive emotions, I am careful not to express them”).
• Suppression of negative expression: Masking distress, rage, or sorrow to project stoicism or avoid vulnerability (e.g., Item 9: “When I am feeling negative emotions, I make sure not to express them”).

Because the emotional impulse persists while behavioral expression is vigorously thwarted, expressive suppression creates physiological friction. Empirical psychophysiology confirms that suppression demands continuous executive monitoring, leading to sustained sympathetic nervous system activation (e.g., elevated blood pressure, vasoconstriction) and cognitive depletion without mitigating subjective distress.

Theoretical Framework

The theoretical bedrock of the ERQ is Gross’s Process Model of Emotion Regulation (Gross, 1998, 2001, 2014, 2015). The model originates from the Modal Model of Emotion, which posits that an emotion is generated through a predictable, recursively unfolding sequence of psychological events:

1. Situation: The individual encounters an internal or external, emotionally salient situation.
2. Attention: The individual directs attention toward specific aspects of that situation.
3. Appraisal: The individual evaluates the situational cues against current goals, needs, and survival values.
4. Response: The appraisal triggers a coordinated cascade of experiential, behavioral, and neurobiological response tendencies.

Within this temporal trajectory, Gross delineated five distinct families of emotion regulatory processes grouped into two overarching temporal classifications:

• Antecedent-Focused Regulation: Strategies implemented before the emotion response tendencies have become fully enacted. This domain encompasses:
  • Situation Selection: Choosing to enter or avoid circumstances based on their emotional probabilities.
  • Situation Modification: Directly tailoring environmental conditions to alter emotional triggers.
  • Attentional Deployment: Directing attention via distraction or concentration.
  • Cognitive Change (Cognitive Reappraisal): Selecting which of many possible meanings will be attached to the situation.
• Response-Focused Regulation: Strategies deployed after an emotion is already underway and response tendencies have emerged across experiential, autonomic, and behavioral systems. This domain is exemplified by:
  • Response Modulation (Expressive Suppression): Directly targeting the physiological, experiential, or behavioral output of the emotion, such as actively holding back tears, maintaining a poker face, or repressing vocal tremor.

The Process Model hypothesizes profound asymmetrical consequences between antecedent-focused reappraisal and response-focused suppression:

Differential Cognitive Costs: Reappraisal occurs early, transforming the primary appraisal before emotional impulses tax executive resources. Consequently, reappraisal operates with high cognitive efficiency, preserving long-term memory encoding and working memory bandwidth. Conversely, suppression requires relentless, effortful self-monitoring throughout the entire duration of the emotional episode. This self-regulatory taxation systematically impairs cognitive processing, producing deficits in explicit memory for social information encountered while suppressing (Richards & Gross, 2000).

Differential Affective and Physiological Trajectories: Reappraisal effectively blunts or enhances both the experiential and autonomic components of the emotional response simultaneously. fMRI studies reveal that reappraisal enlists frontoparietal control networks—including the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (dlPFC), ventrolateral prefrontal cortex (vlPFC), and dorsal anterior cingulate cortex (dACC)—which modulate ventral affective circuitry, yielding a direct reduction in amygdala activation. In contrast, suppression successfully dampens only visible muscular expression while leaving amygdala and insular hyper-reactivity unchecked, simultaneously triggering elevated cardiovascular and electrodermal arousal due to the metabolic load of continuous behavioral restraint.

Interpersonal Consequences: Reappraisers exhibit open, authentic emotional displays that provide clear communicative signals to peers, fostering mutual disclosure, trust, and intimacy. In contrast, individuals relying heavily on suppression project ambiguous, emotionally muted cues. Interaction partners detect this communicative incongruence, experiencing heightened physiological tension, feeling less close to suppressors, and rating interactions as less satisfying (Butler et al., 2003).

Validity

The ERQ has undergone exhaustive psychometric evaluation across diverse populations, establishing strong construct, convergent, discriminant, and predictive validity.

Construct and Factorial Validity

In the seminal validation study by Gross and John (2003), spanning four independent university samples (totaling over 1,400 participants), confirmatory factor analyses verified that a two-factor latent model provided exceptional fit to the data, decisively outperforming single-factor or alternative hierarchical models. The two latent dimensions emerged as virtually orthogonal (r values ranging between −.14 and .06 in initial cohorts), confirming that the habitual use of cognitive reappraisal operates independently from the habitual use of expressive suppression. An individual may be high on both, low on both, or prioritize one over the other.

Convergent and Concurrent Validity

The convergent validity of the ERQ is substantiated by extensive correlations with standardized indicators of affective well-being, psychopathology, and personality:

• Cognitive Reappraisal Convergences: Consistently correlates positively with psychological resilience, optimism (LOT-R), self-esteem (Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale), life satisfaction (SWLS; r ≈ .30 to .40), positive affectivity (PANAS PA; r ≈ .35 to .42), and Ryff’s environmental mastery and personal growth dimensions. Reappraisal exhibits robust negative correlations with depressive symptoms (BDI, CES-D; r ≈ −.25 to −.35) and trait anxiety (STAI).
• Expressive Suppression Convergences: Systematically correlates with elevated depressive symptomatology (r ≈ .25 to .35), negative affectivity (PANAS NA), social anxiety, attachment avoidance, loneliness, and feelings of inauthenticity (r ≈ −.35 to −.45 with self-authenticity scales). Furthermore, habitual suppressors report substantially lower peer social support and relationship satisfaction.

Discriminant Validity

The ERQ maintains clear divergence from potential confounding personality traits and response styles. When correlated against the Big Five Personality Dimensions (Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness), reappraisal exhibits modest associations with Extraversion (r ≈ .20) and low-to-moderate negative associations with Neuroticism (r ≈ −.24), while suppression correlates moderately negatively with Extraversion (r ≈ −.33) and Agreeableness (r ≈ −.18). Crucially, neither subscale correlates substantially with Marlowe–Crowne social desirability scales (r < .15), proving that self-reported regulatory habits do not merely reflect tendencies toward socially sanctioned responding. Furthermore, the ERQ diverges cleanly from general cognitive ability, IQ metrics, and verbal fluency.

Predictive and Ecological Validity

In prospective and laboratory paradigms, baseline ERQ scores reliably predict objective emotional outcomes:

• Laboratory Provocation Studies: Individuals with high baseline reappraisal display significantly attenuated autonomic reactivity (lower skin conductance spikes, quicker heart rate normalization) when exposed to aversive cinematic stimuli (e.g., surgical or horror footage), alongside superior post-stimulus recall memory.
• Longitudinal Adjustment: In multi-wave studies tracking college freshmen and military recruits during stressful life transitions, high ERQ reappraisal predicted lower onset rates of clinical depression, whereas high suppression predicted heightened distress, loneliness, and clinical dropouts.

Reliability

The psychometric reliability of the ERQ has been established across hundreds of empirical investigations internationally, demonstrating solid internal consistency and temporal stability.

Internal Consistency

In the foundational Gross and John (2003) investigation:

• Cognitive Reappraisal (6 items): Cronbach’s alpha coefficients averaged α = .79 across extensive student and adult community samples.
• Expressive Suppression (4 items): Cronbach’s alpha coefficients averaged α = .73.

Subsequent psychometric adaptations worldwide have replicated these benchmarks with high fidelity:

• European Validations: Spanish version (Cabello et al., 2013: α = .79 for Reappraisal, α = .75 for Suppression); Italian version (Balzarotti et al., 2010: α = .82 for Reappraisal, α = .74 for Suppression); German version (Abler & Kessler, 2009: α = .76 for Reappraisal, α = .74 for Suppression); French version (Christophe et al., 2009: α = .77 for Reappraisal, α = .73 for Suppression).
• East Asian and Global Adaptations: Chinese translation (Wang et al., 2007: α = .85 for Reappraisal, α = .77 for Suppression); Japanese version (Yoshizu et al., 2013: α = .78 for Reappraisal, α = .76 for Suppression); Australian population studies (Spaapen et al., 2014: α = .86 for Reappraisal, α = .79 for Suppression).
• Composite Reliability: Studies evaluating McDonald’s omega (ω) and composite reliability (CR) typically report values exceeding .80 for Reappraisal and .75 for Suppression, confirming that internal consistency does not solely rely on the restrictive tau-equivalence assumptions of Cronbach’s alpha.

Test–Retest Reliability

The ERQ was designed to measure enduring trait-level tendencies rather than transient emotional states. Longitudinal assessments confirm the temporal stability of both subscales:

• In Gross and John’s (2003) initial 3-month test–retest analysis, stability coefficients reached r = .69 for Cognitive Reappraisal and r = .69 for Expressive Suppression, demonstrating solid stability over time.
• Multi-wave longitudinal tracking spanning 6 to 12 months in adult cohorts has yielded test–retest correlations ranging between r = .65 and r = .74, indicating that habitual emotion regulation styles remain remarkably stable across time while preserving sufficient flexibility to detect therapeutic modifications induced by clinical interventions.

Factor Analysis

The structural composition of the ERQ has been extensively scrutinized utilizing both Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), along with advanced Item Response Theory (IRT) modeling.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

During initial scale development, Gross and John subjected extensive pools of rationally derived candidate items to principal component and principal axis factoring with both orthogonal (Varimax) and oblique (Promax) rotations. Across iterative analyses, a clean two-factor solution consistently emerged, defined by eigenvalues well above 1.0 (scree plot analysis revealed a distinct elbow after the second factor). Factor 1 consistently comprised items related to cognitive reframing (Cognitive Reappraisal), accounting for roughly 30–35% of total variance, while Factor 2 captured items measuring expressive inhibition (Expressive Suppression), accounting for roughly 18–22% of total variance.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

Subsequent CFA investigations across massive datasets have repeatedly verified that the theoretical two-factor model provides superior fit over one-factor unidimensional models or competing multi-factor specifications. Structural equation modeling metrics universally meet or exceed standard psychometric thresholds:

• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): Routinely > .95 (frequently .96 to .99).
• Tucker–Lewis Index (TLI): Routinely > .94 (frequently .95 to .98).
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): Consistently ≤ .05 to .06 (with 90% confidence intervals between .03 and .07).
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): Typically ≤ .04 to .05.

Factor Loadings and Parameter Estimates

Standardized factor loadings across diverse international studies illustrate strong construct saturation:

• Cognitive Reappraisal Factor: Standardized loadings range from .56 to .82. Items 7, 8, and 10 consistently emerge as core indicators of the construct, demonstrating the highest standardized loadings (≥ .72).
• Expressive Suppression Factor: Standardized loadings range from .60 to .81. Items 2 and 6 exhibit the strongest factor loadings (≥ .75), representing pure markers of motor and vocal expressive inhibition.
• Factor Cross-Loadings: Cross-loadings of reappraisal items on the suppression latent factor (and vice versa) are routinely negligible (typically λ < .15), providing rigorous proof of structural independence. The latent correlation between the two factors across Western samples oscillates around zero (r = −.06 to .12).

Measurement Invariance

Multigroup Confirmatory Factor Analysis (MGCFA) confirms robust measurement invariance across demographic and cultural variables:

• Sex and Gender Invariance: Full configural, metric (weak), and scalar (strong) invariance is sustained across male and female respondents. Latent mean comparisons consistently indicate that men score significantly higher on Expressive Suppression than women (Cohen’s d ≈ .30 to .50), reflecting socioculturally reinforced gender display rules that discourage emotional vulnerability in men. Reappraisal scores generally display no meaningful gender disparities.
• Cross-Cultural Invariance: The two-factor structure exhibits metric and scalar invariance across Western individualistic societies (e.g., United States, Western Europe) and Eastern collectivistic cultures (e.g., China, Japan, Korea). However, cultural norms meaningfully modulate the interpersonal outcomes of suppression: in collectivistic environments where interpersonal harmony and group cohesion predominate, suppression is practiced more frequently and does not carry the same degree of social and psychological pathology observed in individualistic contexts (Butler et al., 2007; Matsumoto et al., 2008).
• Developmental Invariance: The ERQ demonstrates structural invariance across college students, community-dwelling working adults, and older adult populations. Specialized adaptations, such as the ERQ for Children and Adolescents (ERQ-CA; Gullone & Taffe, 2012), demonstrate comparable two-factor psychometrics down to age 10.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Full Instrument Name: Emotion Regulation Questionnaire
• Acronym: ERQ
• Authors: James J. Gross, Ph.D., and Oliver P. John, Ph.D.
• Year of Publication: 2003
• Instrument Type: Self-report psychometric rating scale
• Target Population: Adolescents (ages 12+) and adults; specialized ERQ-CA version available for children ages 10–18
• Administration Format: Individual or group; paper-and-pencil, computerized, or online assessment
• Completion Time: Approximately 3 to 5 minutes
• Total Item Count: 10 items
• Subscale Breakdown:
  • Cognitive Reappraisal Subscale (6 items): Items 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, and 10
  • Expressive Suppression Subscale (4 items): Items 2, 4, 6, and 9
• Response Scale (Authentic 7-point Likert scale):
  • 1 = Strongly disagree
  • 2 = Disagree
  • 3 = Somewhat disagree
  • 4 = Neutral (neither agree nor disagree)
  • 5 = Somewhat agree
  • 6 = Agree
  • 7 = Strongly agree
• Scoring Protocol:
  • Reverse Scoring: None. No items on the ERQ are reverse-coded.
  • Cognitive Reappraisal Score: Calculated by summing or averaging items 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, and 10 (Sum range: 6 to 42; Mean range: 1.0 to 7.0).
  • Expressive Suppression Score: Calculated by summing or averaging items 2, 4, 6, and 9 (Sum range: 4 to 28; Mean range: 1.0 to 7.0).
  • Item Presentation Rule: Do not change item order, as items 1 and 3 define the anchor terms “positive emotion” and “negative emotion” for subsequent items.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Emotion Regulation Questionnaire was formally published in 2003 in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology by the American Psychological Association (APA). The copyright is held jointly by the authors (James J. Gross and Oliver P. John) and the APA.

Licensing and Academic Use: The authors have made the ERQ openly available for non-commercial academic research, clinical education, and empirical scientific investigations. Qualified researchers, clinicians, and educators may utilize the ERQ free of financial cost and without formal written permission, provided that the questionnaire is administered in its validated format and the seminal publication (Gross & John, 2003) is properly cited. Any commercial exploitation, incorporation into proprietary digital software platforms, paid clinical assessment packages, or organizational consulting diagnostics requires formal licensing agreements and permissions from the copyright holders.

References

• Abler, B., & Kessler, H. (2009). Emotion Regulation Questionnaire—Eine deutschsprachige Fassung des ERQ von Gross und John. Diagnostica, 55(3), 144–152. https://doi.org/10.1026/0012-1924.55.3.144
• Balzarotti, S., John, O. P., & Gross, J. J. (2010). An Italian adaptation of the Emotion Regulation Questionnaire. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 26(1), 61–67. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000009
• Butler, E. A., Egloff, B., Wlhelm, F. H., Smith, N. C., Erickson, E. A., & Gross, J. J. (2003). The social consequences of expressive suppression. Emotion, 3(1), 48–67. https://doi.org/10.1037/1528-3542.3.1.48
• Butler, E. A., Lee, T. L., & Gross, J. J. (2007). Emotion regulation and culture: Are the social consequences of emotion suppression culture-specific? Emotion, 7(1), 30–46. https://doi.org/10.1037/1528-3542.7.1.30
• Cabello, R., Salguero, J. M., Fernández-Berrocal, P., & Gross, J. J. (2013). A Spanish adaptation of the Emotion Regulation Questionnaire. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 29(4), 234–240. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000150
• Christophe, V., Antoine, P., Nandrino, J. L., & Delelis, G. (2009). Assessment of emotion regulation processes: French validation of the Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (ERQ). Revue Européenne de Psychologie Appliquée, 59(1), 59–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erap.2008.07.001
• Gross, J. J. (1998). The emerging field of emotion regulation: An integrative review. Review of General Psychology, 2(3), 271–299. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.2.3.271
• Gross, J. J. (2001). Emotion regulation in adulthood: Timing is everything. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 10(6), 214–219. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00152
• Gross, J. J. (2014). Emotion regulation: Conceptual and empirical foundations. In J. J. Gross (Ed.), Handbook of emotion regulation (2nd ed., pp. 3–20). The Guilford Press.
• 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
• Gross, J. J., & Levenson, R. W. (1993). Emotional suppression: Physiology, self-report, and expressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(6), 970–986. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.64.6.970
• Gross, J. J., & Levenson, R. W. (1997). Hiding feelings: The acute effects of inhibiting negative and positive emotion. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 106(1), 95–103. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.106.1.95
• Gullone, E., & Taffe, J. (2012). The Emotion Regulation Questionnaire for Children and Adolescents (ERQ-CA): A psychometric evaluation. Psychological Assessment, 24(2), 409–417. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025777
• Matsumoto, D., Yoo, S. H., & Nakagawa, S. (2008). Culture, emotion regulation, and adjustment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(6), 925–937. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.94.6.925
• McRae, K., Jacobs, S. E., Ray, R. D., John, O. P., & Gross, J. J. (2012). Individual differences in reappraisal ability: Links to reappraisal frequency, well-being, and cognitive control. Journal of Research in Personality, 46(1), 2–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2011.10.003
• Richards, J. M., & Gross, J. J. (2000). Emotion regulation and memory: The cognitive costs of keeping one’s cool. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(3), 410–424. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.79.3.410
• Solomon, R. C. (1976). The passions: Emotions and the meaning of life. Anchor Press/Doubleday.
• Spaapen, D. L., Waters, F., Brummer, L., Stopa, L., & Bucks, R. S. (2014). The Emotion Regulation Questionnaire: Validation of the construct and its relationship to psychological distress in an Australian sample. Australian Journal of Psychology, 66(2), 90–98. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajpy.12043
• Wang, L., Liu, H., Li, Z., & Du, W. (2007). Reliability and validity of Emotion Regulation Questionnaire Chinese version in adult research. Chinese Mental Health Journal, 21(4), 217–220.
• Yoshizu, J., Sekiguchi, R., & Amemiya, T. (2013). Development of a Japanese version of the Emotion Regulation Questionnaire. Japanese Journal of Research on Emotions, 20(2), 56–62. https://doi.org/10.4092/jsre.20.56

Items of the Scale