Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (ERQ-D-FK)

Abstract

The Emotion Regulation Questionnaire – German Version for Leaders (ERQ-D-FK; Fragebogen zur Emotionsregulation für Führungskräfte) is a standardized self-report psychometric instrument designed to assess individual differences in habitual emotion regulation strategies among executive personnel, organizational managers, and corporate leaders. Adapted from the widely utilized ten-item Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (ERQ) formulated by James J. Gross and Oliver P. John (2003), the ERQ-D-FK operationalizes two distinct emotion regulation mechanisms grounded in Gross’s process model of emotion regulation: Cognitive Reappraisal (Neubewerten), an antecedent-focused, condition-centered cognitive strategy wherein an individual reframes the meaning of an emotionally evocative stimulus prior to the complete activation of emotional response tendencies; and Expressive Suppression (Unterdrücken), a response-focused behavioral strategy that involves the deliberate inhibition of ongoing outward emotional expressive behavior once physiological and experiential reactions have emerged.

The scale consists of 10 items evaluated on a 7-point Likert-type response scale ranging from 1 (“strongly disagree” / stimme überhaupt nicht zu) to 7 (“strongly agree” / stimme vollkommen zu), with a neutral midpoint at 4 (“neutral”). Psychometric evaluations conducted across cross-industry samples of German business executives and service professionals demonstrate robust construct validity and factorial integrity that mirrors the dual-factor architecture of the original English ERQ. Principal component analyses with Varimax rotation and parallel analysis confirm two orthogonal dimensions accounting for 30.5% (Cognitive Reappraisal) and 23.7% (Expressive Suppression) of the total variance. The internal consistency of the scales is satisfactory, demonstrating a Cronbach’s alpha of .79 for Cognitive Reappraisal—which increases to .83 upon the removal of the psychometrically idiosyncratic Item R3—and .73 for Expressive Suppression. Convergent and discriminant validity analyses substantiate meaningful nomological linkages: Cognitive Reappraisal correlates positively with transformational leadership, conscientiousness, and openness to experience, whereas Expressive Suppression correlates positively with surface acting and negatively with extraversion, openness, action orientation, and transformational leadership. Unaffected by social desirability or other-deceptive response sets, the ERQ-D-FK constitutes an empirically rigorous diagnostic and research tool for organizational psychology, managerial coaching, leadership selection, and occupational health research.

Keywords

emotion regulation, leadership behavior, cognitive reappraisal, expressive suppression, emotional labor, organizational psychology, executive assessment, psychometrics, ERQ, process model of emotion regulation

Authors

The German adaptation and psychometric validation of the Emotion Regulation Questionnaire for Leaders (ERQ-D-FK) was conducted by:

• Ulrich W. Stadelmaier, Dipl.-Psych., Organizational and Diagnostic Psychologist. Corresponding E-Mail: [email protected]. Primary investigator responsible for the semantic adaptation, leadership cohort validation, and psychometric operationalization (Stadelmaier, 2008).
• Neubert (2007), Contributing Psychometrician and Researcher, who provided comparative empirical validation data across leadership and service sector cohorts.
• James J. Gross, Ph.D., Department of Psychology, Stanford University, developer of the process model of emotion regulation and co-creator of the foundational English ERQ (Gross, 1998a, 1998b; Gross & John, 2003).
• Oliver P. John, Ph.D., Department of Psychology, University of California, Berkeley, co-creator of the foundational English ERQ and authority on personality structure (Gross & John, 2003; John & Gross, 2004).

Purpose

Effective management and managerial performance rely heavily on emotional dynamics. In high-stakes organizational environments, leaders are constantly confronted with interpersonal conflicts, performance pressures, strategic uncertainties, organizational change, and relational stress. The primary purpose of the ERQ-D-FK is to provide an empirically substantiated, psychometrically sound measurement instrument to quantify dispositional emotion regulation strategies among managerial personnel and organizational executives. While the original English Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (Gross & John, 2003) was largely developed and normed on university undergraduate student cohorts, leaders operate under distinctive systemic constraints, power differentials, and institutional display rules. The ERQ-D-FK was systematically developed to bridge this gap, offering German-speaking researchers, industrial-organizational psychologists, executive coaches, and human resource professionals an instrument calibrated for corporate leadership contexts.

From an applied perspective, the measurement of emotion regulation within corporate hierarchies serves crucial clinical, developmental, and organizational functions. In executive coaching and leadership development programs, identifying an individual’s reliance on cognitive reappraisal versus expressive suppression enables targeted interventions. Leaders who excessively utilize expressive suppression frequently suffer from elevated physiological stress, accelerated burnout, emotional exhaustion, and compromised relational trust among subordinates. Because expressive suppression dampens overt facial and vocal expression without reducing the internal emotional or autonomic sympathetic activation, executives relying heavily on this response-focused mechanism often present an inauthentic, opaque emotional demeanor. This, in turn, undermines follower motivation, psychological safety, and collective organizational commitment. Conversely, leaders who utilize cognitive reappraisal demonstrate greater cognitive flexibility, psychological resilience, and constructive coping when confronted with workplace crises.

In research contexts, the ERQ-D-FK facilitates empirical inquiry into how leaders’ intrapsychic emotional self-regulation impacts systemic organizational variables, such as employee engagement, organizational citizenship behaviors, team climate, and leadership efficacy. Specifically, the scale permits researchers to explore how an executive’s internal regulatory tendencies translate into external managerial behaviors, such as transformational leadership versus transactional or laissez-faire styles. Moreover, the ERQ-D-FK enables cross-occupational research into emotional labor, distinguishing the cognitive reframing characteristic of “deep acting” from the behavioral masking and suppression characteristic of “surface acting.” Ultimately, the scale provides a quantitative metric capable of elucidating how leaders modulate both positive and negative emotional states to maintain professional efficacy, psychological well-being, and social alignment.

Psychological Construct

The construct operationalized by the ERQ-D-FK is dispositional emotion regulation, defined as the stable, trait-like tendencies through which individuals manage the timing, intensity, duration, subjective experience, and behavioral manifestation of their emotions. The instrument explicitly differentiates between two fundamental, structurally independent dimensions:

1. Cognitive Reappraisal (Neubewerten)

Cognitive Reappraisal is conceptualized as an antecedent-focused, condition-centered cognitive strategy. It operates early in the emotional generative process, occurring before emotional response tendencies have been completely mobilized across psychological, experiential, and neurovegetative systems. Through cognitive reappraisal, an individual deliberately alters their mental representation, cognitive evaluation, or subjective appraisal of a situation to modulate its emotional impact. This process involves viewing an adverse, stressful, or provocative event from an alternate perspective, thereby altering its subjective meaning and transforming the subsequent emotional trajectory.

Within the ERQ-D-FK, Cognitive Reappraisal encompasses the strategic up-regulation or down-regulation of both valence domains:

• Down-Regulation of Negative Affect: Modifying cognitive appraisals to diminish subjective feelings of distress, wrath, frustration, anxiety, or grief (e.g., Item R2: “Wenn ich weniger negative Emotionen empfinden möchte, dann ändere ich meine Denkweise”; Item R6: “Wenn ich weniger negative Emotionen empfinden möchte, dann ändere ich, wie ich über die Situation denke”). In a leadership environment, this is demonstrated when an executive interprets an unexpected project cancellation not as a humiliating defeat, but as a valuable learning opportunity and an occasion to reallocate capital into high-growth ventures.
• Up-Regulation of Positive Affect: Intentionally reframing circumstances to amplify positive emotional experiences such as enthusiasm, optimism, professional pride, and joy (e.g., Item R1: “Wenn ich mehr positive Emotionen empfinden möchte, dann ändere ich meine Denkweise”; Item R4: “Wenn ich mehr positive Emotionen empfinden möchte, dann ändere ich, wie ich über die Situation denke”). An executive may amplify enthusiasm regarding an upcoming restructuring by focusing on the developmental opportunities it provides to the team.

Because cognitive reappraisal alters the initial affective evaluation before full autonomic activation occurs, it effectively mitigates subjective distress without requiring sustained, metabolically demanding self-regulatory effort or inducing physiological cardiovascular strain.

2. Expressive Suppression (Unterdrücken)

Expressive Suppression is conceptualized as a response-focused, reaction-centered regulatory strategy. It intervenes late in the emotion-generative process, well after emotional responses have been initiated and subjective feeling states, central physiological reactions, and motor impulses have manifested. Rather than modifying how a situation is perceived or interpreted, expressive suppression involves the active, effortful inhibition of outward emotional expression, verbalization, facial movement, and behavioral signaling.

The ERQ-D-FK evaluates the systematic inhibition of both positive and negative emotional manifestations:

• Suppression of Outward Display: Restraining emotional behavior regardless of inner turmoil or excitement (e.g., Item S1: “Ich behalte meine Emotionen für mich”; Item S3: “Ich kontrolliere meine Emotionen dadurch, dass ich sie nicht zeige”). This is commonly exemplified by adopting an impassive “poker face” during critical corporate negotiations or high-conflict executive committee meetings.
• Targeted Valence Masking: Explicitly concealing negative emotions (Item S4: “Wenn ich negative Emotionen empfinde, dann stelle ich sicher, dass ich sie nicht zeige”) or concealing positive affect (Item S2: “Wenn ich positive Emotionen empfinde, achte ich darauf, sie nicht zu zeigen”). For instance, a leader may deliberately mask satisfaction when outmaneuvering a rival department head, or conceal fear during an institutional solvency crisis.

Unlike reappraisal, expressive suppression does not extinguish the internal subjective emotional state. Substantial experimental and psychophysiological literature confirms that suppressing emotional displays fails to alleviate inner emotional distress and paradoxically elevates sympathetic nervous system activation, impairs episodic memory performance, and engenders feelings of inauthenticity and social alienation.

Theoretical Framework

The architectural foundation of the ERQ-D-FK is rooted in the Process Model of Emotion Regulation formulated by James J. Gross (1998a, 1998b, 2001). Gross posits that emotions do not emerge instantaneously as monolithic entities; rather, they unfold over time through a dynamic, recursive sequence of stages known as the modal model of emotion. This sequence consists of: [Situation] → [Attention] → [Appraisal] → [Response].

According to this theoretical paradigm, an emotionally evocative external or internal situation triggers directed attention, which yields an appraisal of personal significance and meaning relative to active goals. This cognitive appraisal subsequently initiates a multi-componential emotional response tendency encompassing subjective experiential states, neurobiological and cardiovascular autonomic shifts, and observable behavioral expressions. Emotion regulation refers to the processes by which individuals influence which emotions they have, when they have them, and how they experience and express these emotions.

Gross categorizes regulatory interventions into two broad temporal classifications based upon the point in time at which they are deployed:

1. Antecedent-Focused Strategies (Bedingungs-fokussierte Strategien)

These strategies intervene early, before emotional response tendencies have been completely generated and crystallized. Within this class, Gross (1998b) delineated four distinct temporal nodes:

1. Situation Selection (Situationsselektion): Approaching or avoiding certain people, places, or contexts to modulate emotional exposure (e.g., choosing whether to enter an environment S1 or avoid environment S2).
2. Situation Modification (Situationsmodifikation): Directly modifying an external physical or social environment to alter its emotional impact (e.g., restructuring meeting agendas to mitigate interpersonal friction).
3. Attentional Deployment (Verlagerung der Aufmerksamkeit): Directing attentional focus within a given situation, such as using distraction or selective concentration (e.g., focusing on objective spreadsheets rather than a colleague’s provocative body language).
4. Cognitive Change (Kognitive Veränderung): Selecting which of many possible meanings is attached to a situation, or reinterpreting the situational meaning to alter emotional impact. Cognitive Reappraisal represents the primary dispositional instantiation of cognitive change captured by psychometric assessment.

2. Response-Focused Strategies (Reaktions-fokussierte Strategien)

These strategies occur late in the emotion-generative process, after response tendencies have already been fully triggered at physiological, neural, and experiential levels. The primary mechanism in this category is Response Modulation (Reaktionsmodulation), which refers to active attempts to influence physiological, experiential, or behavioral response systems directly. Expressive Suppression constitutes the quintessential form of response modulation, targeting the outward behavioral display of emotion.

A critical theoretical tenet articulated by Gross and John (2003) is that while the colloquial term “strategy” might imply purely deliberate, conscious, and effortful self-control, emotion regulation processes operate along a continuum from fully conscious and controlled to highly automated and implicit. Over time, individuals develop crystallized dispositional profiles, leaning consistently toward antecedent-focused reappraisal, response-focused suppression, or unique combinations thereof. In leadership paradigms, these regulatory tendencies dictate whether executives address the structural interpretation of corporate challenges (reappraisal) or merely suppress visible signs of strain while inner turmoil continues unattenuated (suppression).

Validity

The construct, convergent, discriminant, and criterion-related validity of the ERQ-D-FK has been established across empirical investigations involving corporate leaders and service professionals (Neubert, 2007; Stadelmaier, 2008).

1. Factorial and Structural Validity

Factor analyses confirm that Cognitive Reappraisal and Expressive Suppression represent two orthogonal, psychometrically independent constructs. This replicates the structural properties established by Gross and John (2003) in North American cohorts. Crucially, the factor structure in the German leadership adaptation is determined strictly by the regulatory strategy employed rather than by affective valence. Items assessing positive and negative emotional reframing load unambiguously on the Reappraisal factor, while items assessing positive and negative behavioral masking load cleanly onto the Suppression factor.

2. Convergent and Criterion Validity

The nomological network was validated through Spearman rank-order correlations against theoretically proximal and distal psychological constructs in an executive cohort of (N = 94) leaders across 23 commercial industries (Stadelmaier, 2008):

• Emotional Labor Facets: Grounded in the emotional labor paradigms established by Grandey and Hochschild, the ERQ-D-FK demonstrated expected convergent associations with surface acting. Expressive Suppression correlated significantly and positively with Surface Acting ((r_s = .28, p < .05)), demonstrating that leaders with a dispositional reliance on suppression engage more heavily in inauthentic surface displays in the workplace. Contrary to preliminary hypotheses, Cognitive Reappraisal did not correlate significantly with Deep Acting ((r_s = .13, p = text{n.s.})), indicating that intrapsychic reappraisal of personal emotions does not automatically mirror organizational deep acting aimed at institutional display rules.
• Leadership Styles: Significant divergent patterns emerged concerning transformational leadership (assessed via Felfe & Goihl, 2006). Cognitive Reappraisal was positively associated with transformational leadership behavior ((r_s = .23, p < .05)), whereas Expressive Suppression correlated negatively with transformational leadership ((r_s = -.25, p < .05)). Leaders who suppress their emotions are perceived as less inspirational, charismatic, and emotionally supportive.
• Emotional Influence: Emotional influence on subordinates (Paul, 2006) was not significantly related to either Reappraisal ((r_s = .19)) or Suppression ((r_s = -.06)), demonstrating that personal emotion regulation dispositions are distinct from intentional strategies of external interpersonal manipulation.

3. Nomological Validity with Big Five Personality Dimensions

Evaluation against the Big Five personality dimensions (Rammstedt & John, 2005) corroborated theoretical expectations:

• Extraversion: Strongly and negatively correlated with Expressive Suppression ((r_s = -.48, p < .01)), while displaying no association with Reappraisal ((r_s = .07)). Extraverted leaders express emotions openly, rendering suppression counter-dispositional.
• Conscientiousness: Significantly and positively associated with Cognitive Reappraisal ((r_s = .25, p < .05)), but unrelated to Suppression ((r_s = -.05)), indicating that goal-oriented, diligent executives utilize cognitive reframing to sustain functional task performance.
• Openness to Experience: Correlated positively with Cognitive Reappraisal ((r_s = .26, p < .05)) and negatively with Expressive Suppression ((r_s = -.25, p < .05)). Cognitive flexibility and curiosity facilitate perspective-taking while diminishing rigid behavioral inhibition.
• Neuroticism & Agreeableness: Neither dimension correlated significantly with Reappraisal or Suppression, demonstrating that the ERQ-D-FK does not merely reflect neurotic distress or interpersonal compliance.

4. Action vs. State Orientation and Social Desirability

Assessing Action versus State Orientation (Kuhl, 1994), Expressive Suppression correlated negatively with action orientation during task execution ((r_s = -.28, p < .01)). Action-oriented leaders regulate affect rapidly, reducing the need for late-stage suppression. Finally, correlations with other-deception (Fremdtäuschung; Musch et al., 2002) yielded negligible coefficients for Reappraisal ((r_s = .09)) and Suppression ((r_s = .02)), demonstrating that the ERQ-D-FK is robust against social desirability biases.

5. Known-Group and Demographic Differences

Comparative analyses revealed that service employees exhibited significantly higher Expressive Suppression than corporate leaders ((F(1, 183) = 13.17, p < .001, d = .40)). Service personnel face strict customer display rules that necessitate behavioral masking, whereas leaders possess greater autonomy. Age and gender exerted no significant main effects on Reappraisal or Suppression in this leadership sample, diverging from general population findings where males consistently report higher suppression.

Reliability

The reliability of the ERQ-D-FK has been evaluated in terms of internal consistency using Cronbach’s alpha coefficients and corrected item-total correlations across leadership and mixed occupational cohorts ((N = 185)).

Internal Consistency Coefficients

• Cognitive Reappraisal Subscale (Full 6 items): Demonstrates an acceptable internal consistency of (alpha = .79). This value aligns with the internal consistency reported by Gross and John (2003) for the original English scale ((alpha = .79)).
• Cognitive Reappraisal Subscale (Optimized 5 items, excluding Item R3): Removing Item R3 increases the Cronbach’s alpha to (alpha = .83), reflecting high internal reliability suitable for diagnostic and comparative leadership research.
• Expressive Suppression Subscale (4 items): Demonstrates an acceptable internal consistency of (alpha = .73), mirroring the reliability coefficient obtained in the original North American standardizations ((alpha = .73)).

Item Discrimination and Homogeneity

Item-total correlations (discrimination indices) and alpha-if-item-deleted statistics confirm high internal homogeneity across nine of the ten items:

• Cognitive Reappraisal: The mean item discrimination index is (r_{it} = .56) (mean Fisher’s (Z = .63)). When Item R3 is excluded, the mean discrimination index rises to (r_{it} = .61). Items R1, R2, R4, R5, and R6 exhibit item-total correlations ranging from .57 to .64. Item R3 exhibits an inadequate discrimination index of (r_{it} = .20), which justifies its removal from composite scoring.
• Expressive Suppression: The mean item discrimination index across the four suppression items is (r_{it} = .53) (mean Fisher’s (Z = .59)). Individual item-total correlations are .57 (Item S1), .53 (Item S2), .63 (Item S3), and .37 (Item S4).

Factor Analysis

To evaluate the dimensionality and latent factor structure of the ERQ-D-FK, the pooled sample of (N = 185) respondents (comprising 135 executives and 50 service professionals) was subjected to exploratory Principal Component Analysis (PCA) with orthogonal Varimax rotation. The empirical retention of extracted factors was verified using parallel analysis based on O’Connor’s (2000) permutation algorithm.

Factor Extraction and Variance Explained

Parallel analysis and eigenvalue inspection supported a two-factor solution, replicating the theoretical architecture of the original instrument:

• Factor 1: Cognitive Reappraisal (Neubewerten): Initial eigenvalue of (3.1), accounting for (30.5%) of total variance. This substantially exceeded the 95th percentile eigenvalue from the parallel-generated random data matrix ((lambda_{text{random}} = 1.4)).
• Factor 2: Expressive Suppression (Unterdrücken): Initial eigenvalue of (2.4), accounting for (23.7%) of total variance. This likewise exceeded the second-rank parallel-generated random eigenvalue ((lambda_{text{random}} = 1.3)).

Together, the two orthogonal factors account for (54.2%) of the total item variance.

Factor Loadings and Psychometric Characteristics

The rotated component loadings, means, standard deviations, corrected item-total correlations, and alpha-if-item-deleted values for the pooled sample are presented below:

Item	Mean ((M))	(SD)	Discrim. ((r_{it}))	(alpha) if Deleted	Loading: Reappraisal	Loading: Suppression
R1	3.96	1.82	.57	.75	.75	< .20
R2	4.11	1.72	.61	.74	.78	< .20
R3*	4.93	1.57	.20	.83	.26	.39
R4	3.84	1.73	.64	.73	.77	< .20
R5	4.50	1.48	.59	.75	.74	< .20
R6	4.17	1.71	.64	.73	.79	< .20
S1	3.29	1.61	.57	.64	< .20	.78
S2	2.12	1.41	.53	.67	< .20	.74
S3	3.05	1.65	.63	.60	< .20	.83
S4	3.82	1.56	.37	.75	< .20	.57

Notes: (N = 185). Factor loadings < .20 are suppressed. *Item R3 displays an empirical cross-loading onto Expressive Suppression and poor primary loading, prompting the procedural recommendation to exclude it from composite score calculations.

Psychometric Anomaly of Item R3

Item R3 (“Wenn ich mich in einer stressigen Situation befinde, dann denke ich so darüber, dass ich ruhig bleibe” / “When I’m faced with a stressful situation, I make myself think about it in a way that helps me stay calm”) exhibited marked psychometric cross-loading. Rather than loading on its theoretical construct (Cognitive Reappraisal, loading = .26), it exhibited a higher cross-loading on Expressive Suppression (.39). Qualitative and contextual evaluations suggest that in corporate leadership cultures, the explicit mention of a “stressful situation” triggers behavioral connotations of maintaining outward composure, emotional self-control, and behavioral containment rather than purely cognitive reframing. Consequently, the scale author explicitly advises researchers and diagnostic practitioners to exclude Item R3 when computing Cognitive Reappraisal composite scores.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The ERQ-D-FK is structured as follows:

• Diagnostic Classification: Standardized self-report psychometric rating scale / trait questionnaire.
• Target Population: Executive personnel, organizational managers, corporate leaders, and employees in high-responsibility occupational settings.
• Total Number of Items: 10 items (6 Cognitive Reappraisal items, 4 Expressive Suppression items).
• Optimized Scoring Architecture: 9-item model (5 Cognitive Reappraisal items [R1, R2, R4, R5, R6] and 4 Expressive Suppression items [S1, S2, S3, S4]). Item R3 is retained in test administration to maintain structural fidelity, but omitted from subscale computation.
• Response Format: Symmetrical 7-point Likert rating scale anchored as follows:
  • 1: stimme überhaupt nicht zu (strongly disagree)
  • 2: [unlabeled intermediate category]
  • 3: [unlabeled intermediate category]
  • 4: neutral (neutral)
  • 5: [unlabeled intermediate category]
  • 6: [unlabeled intermediate category]
  • 7: stimme vollkommen zu (strongly agree)
• Subscale Allocation:
  • Cognitive Reappraisal (Neubewerten): Items R1, R2, (R3), R4, R5, R6.
  • Expressive Suppression (Unterdrücken): Items S1, S2, S3, S4.
• Scoring and Quantification Rules:
  • No items are reverse-coded.
  • Subscale scores may be computed either as sum scores (raw summation) or mean scores (averaging item responses to preserve the original 1 to 7 metric).
  • Recommended Cognitive Reappraisal Mean: Sum of (R1 + R2 + R4 + R5 + R6) divided by 5.
  • Expressive Suppression Mean: Sum of (S1 + S2 + S3 + S4) divided by 4.
• Administration Duration: Approximately 3 to 5 minutes.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Emotion Regulation Questionnaire – German Version for Leaders (ERQ-D-FK) was formulated and psychometrically published in 2008 by Ulrich W. Stadelmaier, building upon the theoretical adaptation work of Neubert (2007) and the original 2003 English scale by James J. Gross and Oliver P. John.

The scale documentation and items are made available for non-commercial scientific research, academic inquiry, higher education, and corporate psychological study without licensing fees. Researchers employing the scale are encouraged to contact the author (Ulrich W. Stadelmaier; E-Mail: [email protected]) to provide normative reference data from additional managerial cohorts and contribute to ongoing item optimization initiatives (specifically regarding modifications to Item R3). Commercial deployment in fee-based corporate assessment platforms, proprietary diagnostic packages, or automated commercial benchmarking may require prior authorization from the adaptation authors and the original copyright holders of the ERQ.

References

• Borg, I. (2003). Führungskräftebefragungen: Methoden, Anwendungsfelder, Praxismuster [Executive surveys: Methods, application fields, practical examples]. Hogrefe Verlag.
• Felfe, J., & Goihl, K. (2006). Deutsche modifizierte Fassung des „Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire“ (MLQ) [German modified version of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire]. In A. Glöckner-Rist (Ed.), ZUMA-Informationssystem. Elektronisches Handbuch sozialwissenschaftlicher Erhebungsinstrumente (Version 10.00). ZUMA.
• Gross, J. J. (1998a). 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. (1998b). Antecedent- and response-focused emotion regulation: Divergent consequences for experience, expression, and physiology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(1), 224–237. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.1.224
• 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., & 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
• John, O. P., & Gross, J. J. (2004). Healthy and unhealthy emotion regulation: Personality processes, individual differences, and life span development. Journal of Personality, 72(6), 1301–1334. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2004.00298.x
• Kuhl, J. (1994). Action versus state orientation: Psychometric properties of the Action Control Scale (ACS-90). In J. Kuhl & J. Beckmann (Eds.), Volition and personality: Action versus state orientation (pp. 47–59). Hogrefe & Huber Publishers.
• Musch, J., Brockhaus, R., & Bröder, A. (2002). Ein Inventar zur Erfassung von zwei Faktoren sozialer Erwünschtheit [An inventory for the measurement of two factors of social desirability]. Diagnostica, 48(3), 121–129. https://doi.org/10.1026//0012-1924.48.3.121
• Neubert, C. (2007). Emotionsregulation am Arbeitsplatz: Validierung der deutschen Version des Emotion Regulation Questionnaire [Emotion regulation in the workplace: Validation of the German version of the Emotion Regulation Questionnaire] (Unpublished diploma thesis). Department of Psychology, University of Mannheim, Germany.
• O’Connor, B. P. (2000). SPSS and SAS programs for determining the number of components using parallel analysis and Velicer’s MAP test. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 32(3), 396–402. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03200807
• Paul, H. (2006). Emotionale Einflussnahme als Führungsdimension [Emotional influence as a leadership dimension] (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Germany.
• Rammstedt, B., & John, O. P. (2005). Kurzversion des Big Five Inventory (BFI-K): Entwicklung und Validierung eines ökonomischen Inventars zur Erfassung der fünf Faktoren der Persönlichkeit [Short version of the Big Five Inventory (BFI-K): Development and validation of an economic inventory for assessing the five factors of personality]. Diagnostica, 51(4), 195–206. https://doi.org/10.1026/0012-1924.51.4.195
• Stadelmaier, U. W. (2008). Emotionsregulation bei Führungskräften: Validierung einer deutschsprachigen Version des Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (ERQ-D-FK) [Emotion regulation in leaders: Validation of a German version of the Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (ERQ-D-FK)] (Unpublished diploma thesis). Department of Psychology, University of Mannheim, Germany.
• van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Hambleton, R. K. (1996). Translating tests: Some practical guidelines. European Psychologist, 1(2), 89–99. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040.1.2.89
• Warntjen, B. (2006). Emotionsarbeit bei Führungskräften [Emotional labor in executive leaders] (Unpublished diploma thesis). Department of Psychology, University of Mannheim, Germany.

Items of the Scale