Content uploaded by Stefania Balzarotti
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Stefania Balzarotti
Content may be subject to copyright.
S.Balzarotti et al.: An ItalianAdaptation of the Emo tion Regulation QuestionnaireEuropean Journalof PsychologicalAssessment 2010; Vol. 26(1):61–67© 2010HogrefePublishing
Original Article
An Italian Adaptation of the
Emotion Regulation Questionnaire
Stefania Balzarotti1, Oliver P. John2, and James J. Gross3
1Laboratory of Communication Psychology, Catholic University, Milan, 2Department of Psychology,
University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA, 3Department of Psychology, Stanford University, CA, USA
Abstract. The goal of this research was to develop and validate an Italian version of the Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (ERQ, Gross
& John, 2003). In an Italian undergraduate sample (N= 416), the two-scale ERQ structure was confirmed by confirmatory factor analysis,
and each of the two scales (Reappraisal and Suppression) showed good internal consistency. The Italian ERQ also showed the predicted
associations with measures of coping, affect, personality, and social functioning. Specifically, Reappraisal was positively correlated with
positive reinterpretation, positive affect, and extraversion, and negatively correlated with negative affect and neuroticism. Suppression,
by contrast, was negatively correlated with the venting of emotions, positive affect, extraversion, social support and social diversion.
Taken together, these findings suggest that the Italian ERQ is a reliable and valid measure that inherits the nomological network of
associations from the original version of the ERQ.
Keywords: emotion regulation, reappraisal, suppression, Italian
Introduction
In the past two decades, there has been a dramatic increase
in research on emotion regulation. This research has solid-
ified our understanding that effective emotion regulation is
crucial for diverse aspects of healthy adaptation ranging
from affective functioning to social relations (Gross, 2001,
2007). Two emotion regulation strategies that have re-
ceivedparticularattentionare cognitive reappraisal(which
consistsof attempts tothinkaboutthe situationsoas toalter
its meaning and emotional impact) and expressive suppres-
sion (which consists of attempts to inhibit or reduce ongo-
ing emotion-expressive behavior) (Gross, 1998).
Based on an analysis of how emotions unfold over
time, it has been argued that reappraisal and suppression
have their primary impact at different points of the emo-
tion-generative process (Gross, 2001; Gross & John,
2003). Specifically, reappraisal is an antecedent-focused
strategy that acts before the complete activation of emo-
tion response tendencies has taken place. It thus might be
expected to modify the entire temporal course of the
emotional response. Suppression is a response-focused
strategy that intervenes once an emotion is already under
way and after the response tendencies have already been
fully generated. It thus might be expected to require re-
peated efforts to manage emotional responses as they
continually arise, taxing the individual’s resources.
Thisfundamentaldifferencebetweenreappraisalandsup-
pressionleadsto thepredictionthat thetwostrategiesshould
differ in their implications for multiple domains of psycho-
logical functioning, suchas affect, cognition, and social in-
teraction(fora review,seeGross,2001;Gross&John,2003).
Consistent with this theoretical prediction, experimental
findings showed that reappraisal leads to decreases in both
behavioralandsubjectivesignsofnegativeemotion,withno
adverse consequences for either memory or emotional re-
sponsiveness in social interactions. By contrast, suppression
leadsto decreasesinbehavioralresponses,but hasno impact
ontheexperienceof negativeemotionand leadsto increased
sympathetic activation ofthe cardiovascular and electroder-
mal physiological systems. Suppression also leads to other
side effects such as impaired verbal memory and diminished
responsivenesstosocialpartners.Takentogether,thesefind-
ings suggest that reappraisal generally has more favorable
consequences than suppression (Gross, 1998, 2001).
To enable the study of individual differences in reap-
praisal and suppression, Gross and John (2003) devel-
oped the Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (ERQ),
which consists of two scales to measure reappraisal and
suppression use. Confirmatory factor analyses identified
this underlying two-factorial structure (Gross & John,
2003, Study 1); confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) also
showed that – among the different models tested – the
best fit was provided by an independence model, indicat-
ing that “reappraisal and suppression are two independ-
ent regulatory strategies that different individuals use to
varying degrees” (John & Gross, 2004, p. 1312).
Studies employing the ERQ have shown that individ-
ual differences in emotion regulation are associated with
differences in conceptually related measures of coping
DOI 10.1027/1015-5759/a000009
© 2010 Hogrefe Publishing European Journal of Psychological Assessment 2010; Vol. 26(1):61–67
strategies, mood management, inauthenticity, and rumi-
nation (Gross & John, 2003; Study 2). In particular, re-
appraisal is related to positive reinterpretation (Carver,
Scheier, & Weintraub, 1989) and mood repair (Salovey,
Mayer, Golman, Turvey, & Palfai, 1995), whereas sup-
pression is related to less focusing emotion and venting,
less attention to emotion, less clarity, and no repair efforts
(John&Gross,2004).Suppressionisalsoassociated
with inauthenticity and rumination (Trapnell & Camp-
bell, 1999). Finally, moderate correlations were found
with the two broad personality traits most related toaffect
(Big Five Inventory, John & Srivastava, 1999): Reap-
praisal is negatively related to neuroticism, and suppres-
sion is negatively related to extraversion.
Studies employing the ERQ have also shown that re-
appraisal and suppression have different long-term impli-
cations for affective responding, social functioning, and
well-being (Gross & John, 2003; Studies 3, 4, and 5). In
particular, results have shown that reappraisal is related
to greater experience of positive affect (PANAS, Watson,
Clark, & Tellegen, 1988), better relationship closeness,
social support (Carver et al., 1989), peer liking, and well-
being (Ryff & Keyes, 1995). By contrast, suppression is
related to less experience and expression of positive emo-
tions, social sharing, social support and relationship
closeness, and perceived well-being, but greater levels of
negative affect and depressive symptoms.
The Present Study
These results suggest that the ERQ is a reliable instrument
to measure individual differences in reappraisal and sup-
pression use. The ERQ has been translated into several lan-
guages (for the full set of current translations, see
http://www-psych.stanford.edu/~psyphy/resources.html),
generally showing acceptable internal consistency for both
the Reappraisal and Suppression scales (Vuorela & Num-
menmaa, 2004). Our goal here was to develop and validate
an Italian version of the ERQ by testing whether the Italian
ERQ would replicate prior findings concerning factorial
structure and relations to other constructs.
First, we expected to confirm the two-factor model
identified by the original American study in which the
correlation between latent factors was set to zero.
Second, associations with conceptually related con-
structs were examined, and predictions were formulated
according to theoretical assumptions (John & Gross,
2007) and prior findings (Gross & John, 2003). A first
set of predictions concerned the relation with coping
strategies that have conceptual overlap with reappraisal
andsuppression.Weexpectedreappraisaltobe positively
related to reinterpretation: Carver et al. (1989) defined
this strategy as “construing a stressful transaction in pos-
itive terms” involving the attempt to look for something
good in what is happening and to learn from difficult ex-
periences. Suppression was expected to be negatively re-
lated to the venting of emotions; this strategy consists of
being aware of one’s own emotional distress and letting
it out. Despite these conceptual similarities, we expected
moderate correlations since both reinterpretation and
venting tap a broader set of processes: Reinterpretation
measures optimism as well as learning from experience,
whereas venting measures both experience and expres-
sion of distress.
A second set of predictions concerned affective function-
ing. Based on prior theorizing and empirical findings, we
expected reappraisal to be positively associated with the ex-
perienceofpositiveaffectandnegativelyassociatedwiththe
experienceofnegativeaffect,whereasweexpectedsuppres-
sion to be positively associated with the experience of nega-
tive affect and negatively associated with the experience of
positiveaffect.Ina similarvein,we expectedreappraisaland
suppression to be related to the affectively saturated person-
ality dimensions of extraversion and neuroticism (John &
Srivastava, 1999). Because these are broad personality di-
mensions, we expected relations with our domain-specific
measures of emotion regulation to be modest in size and ev-
identonlywherethelinksbetweenthe measureswerestrong-
est. Specifically, we expected reappraisal to be negatively
relatedto neuroticismand suppressionto benegativelyrelat-
ed to extraversion.
Finally, a third set of predictions concerned relations
with measures of social functioning when coping with
stressful situations: seeking out of social support (Carver
etal.,1989)and social diversion (Endler &Parker,1990).
According to Carver et al. (1989), individuals may turn
to other people to get emotional solace, sympathy, and
understanding (emotional support) or to seek advice, in-
formation, and practical assistance (instrumental sup-
port). According to Endler and Parker (1990), social di-
version may provide opportunities for diversion activi-
ties, escape, and avoidance of one’s own problems. We
expected suppression to be negatively related to all mea-
sures of social functioning, whereas reappraisal was not
expected to show any association (Gross & John, 2003).
Materials and Method
Participants
Participants were recruited from the State and Catholic
Universities in Milan, Italy. Undergraduate students came
from different faculties (Psychology, Computer Science,
Economy, Motor Sciences). The combined sample consist-
ed of 416 participants (age: M= 21.6; SD = 3.01; 68.5%
women). All participants were Caucasian. A total of 182
participants completed a test-retest for the ERQ question-
naire after a period of 2 months. Participants were volun-
teers and received no credit for their participation in the
study.
62 S. Balzarotti et al.: An Italian Adaptation of the Emotion Regulation Questionnaire
European Journal of Psychological Assessment 2010; Vol. 26(1):61–67 © 2010 Hogrefe Publishing
Measures
The Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (ERQ: Gross &
John, 2003) is a 10-item self report questionnaire which
consists of two scales corresponding to two different emo-
tion regulation strategies: cognitive reappraisal (6 items)
and expressive suppression (4 items). Instructions ask the
subject “some questions about your emotional life, in par-
ticular, how you control (that is,regulate and manage) your
emotions.” The 10 items are rated on a 7-point-Likert scale
from strongly disagree to strongly agree. The Italian trans-
lation of the ERQ was developed with a back-translation
procedure by two independent translators. Discrepancies
emerging from this procedure were discussed until they
reached agreement on a common version. The American
versionofthe ERQdemonstratedgoodinternal consistency
and a 2-month test-retest reliability of about .7 (Gross &
John, 2003).
TheCopingOrientations toProblemsExperienced (COPE:
Carver, Scheier, & Weintraub, 1989) is a 60-item question-
naire that assesses 15 different coping strategies. Items are
rated on a 4-point Likert scale ranging fromI usually don’t
do this at all to I usually do this a lot. The COPE was
translated into Italian by Sica, Novara, Dorz, and Sanavio
(1997) as well as Steca, Accardo, and Capanna (2001). In
the present study we used the translation by Sica et al.
(1997). Item and factor analyses were conducted on our
dataset to check the internal consistency of the subscales
usedinthis study:PositiveReinterpretation(α= .70),Vent-
ing(α=.77), Seeking Social Support forInstrumentalRea-
sons (α= .78), and Seeking Social Support for Emotional
Reasons (α= .82). Item-total correlations ranged from .36
to .56 for Positive Reinterpretation, from .35 to .67 for
Venting, from .58 to .62 for Instrumental Support and from
.42 to .78 for Emotional Support. A principal component
factor analysis with Varimax rotation yielded a 12-factor
structure close to that obtained by Sica et al. (1997) and
Carver et al. (1989).
The Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS: Wat-
son, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988) is the most frequently used
instrument to assess positive and negative affect. It has
been translated into several languages and has demonstrat-
ed robust psychometric properties (Italian validation by
Terracciano, McCrae, & Costa, 2003). The PANAS is con-
stituted by 20 positive and negative adjectives. In the gen-
eral format of administration, subjects rate on a 5-point
Likert scale how much they usually feel as indicated by the
adjectives (e.g., active, determined, excited, nervous,
scared, distressed, etc.). The Positive Affect scale (α= .76)
reflectsthelevelof pleasant engagement, whereas the Neg-
ative Affect scale (α= .83) reflects a general dimension of
negative engagement and distress.
The Italian Big Five Questionnaire (BFQ: Caprara, Bar-
baranelli,&Borgogni, 1993) isawidely used andstandard-
ized 132-item personality inventory that assesses the basic
dimensions of the Five Factor Model of personality: Extra-
version/Energy, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neu-
roticism (versus Emotional Stability)1, and Openness.
Items are rated on a 5-point-Likert scale ranging from ab-
solutely false to absolutely true. In our data set, αs for the
five scales ranged from .73 to .89.
The Coping Inventory for Stressful Situations (CISS: End-
ler & Parker, 1990) is a 48-item questionnaire assessing
three coping dimensions: Task-Oriented coping, Emotion-
Oriented coping, and Avoidance, which is constituted by
two subscales, Social Diversion and Distraction. Subjects
rate the 48 items on a 5-point-Likert scale from not at all
toverymuch indicating howmuchthey engage ineachkind
of activity when they encounter a difficult, upsetting, and
stressful situation. Both Italian validations of the CISS
(Pedrabissi & Santinello, 1994; Sirigatti, Stefanile, & To-
selli, 1996) confirmed the original factorial structure. In
this study, Social Diversion (α= .80) was employed as a
measure of social functioning; the scale measures coping
attempts that rely on friends and other people. Item-total
correlations ranged from .73 to .80.
Procedure
Participants completed the ERQ and the other instruments
in large group sessions. Volunteers signed the consent form
and then completed the questionnaires. The whole proce-
dure lasted about 1 h. 182 participants were contacted once
more after 2 months to complete the test-retest.
Data Analysis
Data analysis was structured in three steps. First, psycho-
metric properties of the Italian Emotion Regulation Ques-
tionnaire (ERQ-I) were investigated. Means, standard de-
viationsandreliabilitycoefficients werecalculated,test-re-
test reliability was computed, and confirmatory factor
analyses were conducted using EQS 6.1 (Bentler, 1995).
Since univariate and multivariate kurtosis were found to be
indicative of nonnormality by preliminary distribution
analyses, the Satorra-Bentler scaled correction of ML was
used, as it provides an adjusted, more robust measure of fit
for nonnormal data (Hu, Bentler, & Kano, 1992). Second,
we considered relations to other constructs by conducting
multipleregressionanalyses (Gross&John, 2003)inwhich
we tested the effects of Reappraisal and Suppression on
each dependent variable. To test whether reappraisal and
suppression might interact in these and subsequent analy-
S. Balzarotti et al.: An Italian Adaptation of the Emotion Regulation Questionnaire 63
© 2010 Hogrefe Publishing European Journal of Psychological Assessment 2010; Vol. 26(1):61–67
1The Italian BFQ defines Emotional Stability as the opposite of Neuroticism (i.e., the tendency to experience negative affect). We use the
term Neuroticism throughout the paper.
ses,weinitiallyperformed moderated multiple regressions.
However, replicating Gross and John’s (2003) findings,
none of the interactions approached significance. More-
over, reappraisal and suppression were not correlated; we
therefore simply report correlations in the tables that fol-
low, thus making our findings directly comparable to those
reported by Gross and John (2003).
Results
Psychometric Properties and Factorial
Structure
Cronbach’s αreliability coefficients were .84 for the Re-
appraisal scale and .72 for the Suppression scale. As Table
1 shows, item analysis confirmed internal consistency for
both scales: Item-total correlations ranged from .48 to .68
for Reappraisal and from .42 to .63 for Suppression. As in
Gross and John (2003), Reappraisal and Suppression were
not correlated (r= .08, ns). Test-retest reliability across 2
months was .67 for Reappraisal and .71 for Suppression.
At-test was performed to examine gender differences.
As found by Gross and John (2003), males scored higher
than females on the Suppression scale, t(414) = 7.92, p<
.001. Cohen’s dmeasure of effect size was .84 (.83 < d<
1.05). Overall means were 3.82 (SD = 1.24) for men and
2.82 (SD = 1.16) for women. No significant difference was
found for the Reappraisal scale, t(414) = .57, ns. Overall
means were 4.31 (SD = 1.19) for men and 4.38 (SD = 1.14)
for women.
In order to test how well the two-factor independence
model of the original version of the ERQ fitted the Italian
translation, we compared that model to the augmented
model using CFA and following the procedures used by
Gross and John (2003). We first tested the less parsimoni-
ousaugmentedmodel,namely,a two-factor modelwiththe
factorintercorrelationfreelyestimated.Goodness-of-fitin-
dices were S-Bχ² (34) = 132.14, p< .001; CFI = .914;
RMSEA = .084, and standardized regression weights (fac-
tor loadings) ranged from .52 to .82. The standardized cor-
Table 1. Item-total correlation and confirmatory factor loadings for all items
Item # English item original and Italian translation Item-total rStand. Factor
Loadings CFA
Reappraisal Items
1 When I want to feel more positive emotion (such as joy or amusement), I change what I’m thinking
about.
Per sentirmi meglio (ad esempio, felice/contento/sollevato/di buon umore), cerco di guardare le
cose da una prospettiva diversa.
.61 .67
3 When I want to feel less negative emotion (such as sadness or anger), I change what I’m thinking
about.
Per non starci male (ad esempio, essere triste/in collera/di cattivo umore), cerco di guardare le
cose da una prospettiva diversa.
.67 .74
5 When I’m faced with a stressful situation, I make myself think about it in a way that helps me stay
calm.
Quando devo affrontare una situazione difficile, cerco di considerarla da una prospettiva che mi
aiuti a stare calmo/a.
.48 .52
7 When I want to feel more positive emotion, I change the way I’m thinking about the situation.
Cambiare il modo di pensare ad una situazione,mi aiuta a sentirmi meglio. .68 .77
8 I control my emotions by changing the way I think about the situation I’m in.
Cerco di controllare i miei sentimenti provando a cambiare il modo di considerare la situazione in
cui mi trovo.
.60 .67
10 When I want to feel less negative emotion, I change the way I’m thinking about the situation.
Cambiare il modo di pensare ad una situazione,mi aiuta a non starci male. .64 .74
.61 .69
Suppression Items
2 I keep my emotions to myself.
Tengo i miei sentimenti per me..56 .70
4 When I am feeling positive emotions, I am careful not to express them.
Quando sono contento/felice, cerco di non farlo notare. .42 .53
6 I control my emotions by not expressing them.
Controllo le mie emozioni non esprimendole. .63 .82
9 When I am feeling negative emotions, I make sure not to express them.
Se provo sentimenti negativi, faccio attenzione a non esprimerli. .45 .53
.51 .65
Items © 2003 by James J. Gross and Oliver P. John; reprinted with permission.
64 S. Balzarotti et al.: An Italian Adaptation of the Emotion Regulation Questionnaire
European Journal of Psychological Assessment 2010; Vol. 26(1):61–67 © 2010 Hogrefe Publishing
relation between the two factors was estimated Φ= .08,
similartothe low correlation GrossandJohn(2003) report-
ed. We then compared the augmented model to the more
parsimonious and predicted independence model, where
the latent factor correlation was set to 0. Results showed
the following fit indices: S-Bχ² (35) = 134.54, p< .001;
CFI = .913; RMSEA = .083. Most importantly,this simpler
model did not show a worse fit than the more complex,
augmented one,asshownby the direct comparison of these
twonestedmodels,Δχ²(1) = 2.4, ns, just as GrossandJohn
(2003) had found. Moreover, as in the originalversion, the
absolute levels of the fit statistics suggest that the scales
may not be strictly unidimensional because some of the
items share a specific aspect (e.g., regulation of negative
emotion) that is not shared with all the other items. Stan-
dardized regression weights for the final model are dis-
played in Table 1.
Correlations with Other Constructs
Results are displayed in Table 2. As expected, Reappraisal
was substantially positively related to the Positive Reinter-
pretation scale, whereas Suppression was substantially
negatively related to Venting of emotions. However, Reap-
praisal was not highly related to Venting, and Suppression
was not highly related to Positive Reinterpretation. These
findings confirm the convergent and discriminant pattern
of relations with these two coping constructs.
Wenext testedrelationswithmeasuresof affective func-
tioning. As expected, Reappraisal was related to greater
positive and lesser negative emotion experience; Suppres-
sion showed the predicted negative link to Positive Affect
but not the predicted positive relation to Negative Affect.
We also tested whether these specific emotion regulation
constructs were related to the much broader Big Five trait
constructs. Table 2 shows that associations with the Big
Five personality traits were modest in size, consistent with
priorreportsthatReappraisalandSuppression measures do
not duplicate these broader personality dimensions. How-
ever, since Suppression showed no association to Neuroti-
cism in the American study, we further examined the rela-
tionshipfoundinthe Italian sample (r= –.20)usingthetwo
subscalesthatform the EmotionalStabilityvs.Neuroticism
scaleinthe ItalianBigFive Questionnaire:Reappraisalwas
related to high levels of both Emotion Control (r= .21) and
Impulse Control (r= .20), whereas Suppression was signif-
icantly related only to high levels of Impulse Control (r=
.28).
Finally, we examined the relationships with social func-
tioning. As predicted and found by Gross and John (2003),
Reappraisal was not related to Seeking Social Support for
Emotional Reasons nor to Social Diversion; our findings
showed a small association with Seeking Social Support
for Instrumental Reasons. Suppression was negatively re-
lated to all measures of social functioning and especially to
Seeking Social Support for Emotional Reasons.
Discussion
Our findings confirm the reliability, factor structure, and
validity of the Italian adaptation of the Emotion Regulation
Questionnaire (ERQ-I). With respect to reliability, internal
consistency coefficients of both Reappraisal and Suppres-
sion scales were comparable to those obtained using the
original version. In addition, 2-month test-retest reliability
provided evidence for temporal stability of the Italian ERQ
comparable to that of the original version. CFA produced
aclearreplicationof the twofactorstructurefound in Gross
andJohn(2003). The predicted independence modelfitjust
as well across all fit indices as the less parsimonious aug-
mented model. This means, as Gross and John (2003) stat-
ed, that individuals who frequently use reappraisal were no
more (or less) likely to use suppression than individuals
who use reappraisal infrequently. Additional evidence of
the validity of the ERQ-I came from the pattern of relations
with coping and personality measures, as well as affective
and social correlates.
Reappraisal
Reappraisalwasrelated toCOPEPositive Reinterpretation.
Thismeansthatindividualswho commonly use reappraisal
are more likely to cope with stressful events by looking for
something good and by taking an optimistic attitude and
reinterpreting what they find stressful. Reappraisal was
also related to greater experience of positive affect and to
Table 2. Relations to other constructs
Scales Reappraisal Suppression
Italy (r) USA (β) Italy (r) USA (β)
Coping Styles
Reinterpretation .45** .43* –.06 –.13*
Venting –.08 –.01 – 48** –.43*
Affect
Positive Affect .24** .42* –.15** –.33*
Negative Affect –.14** –.51* .04 .39*
Big Five Traits
Extraversion .14** .11* –.32** –.41*
Neuroticism –.23** –.20* –.20** .03
Openness .17** .15* –.16** –.18*
Conscientiousness .11* .13* –.07 –.14*
Agreeableness .11* .14* –.18** –.11*
Social functioning
Instrumental Support .11* .10 –.29** –.37*
Emotional Support .02 .02 –.46** –.48*
Social Diversion .03 – –.39** –
Note: *p< .05, **p< .01.
S. Balzarotti et al.: An Italian Adaptation of the Emotion Regulation Questionnaire 65
© 2010 Hogrefe Publishing European Journal of Psychological Assessment 2010; Vol. 26(1):61–67
less experience of negative affect. This means that individ-
uals using reappraisal are more likely to experience posi-
tive affect and less likely to experience negative affect than
individuals who do not rely on this emotion regulation
strategy. Relationships with broader personality dimen-
sions were also investigated, and we found a significant
positive correlation with Extraversion; as expected, the as-
sociation was small. Concerning Neuroticism, Reappraisal
showed small positive correlations with both Emotional
Control and Impulse Control. In the social domain, Gross
and John (2003) found that reappraisal was not related to
social support. This study replicated these findings with
one exception: Reappraisal was significantly related to the
Seeking Social Support for Instrumental Reasons scale, al-
though the correlation was modest and similar in size to
that found by Gross and John (2003).
Suppression
If reappraisal showed all the expected associations with re-
lated constructs, Suppression was characterized by a more
complex pattern. As expected, Suppression was negatively
related to coping through focusing on emotion and venting.
Thus, suppressors – who habitually regulate their emotions
by reducing what they express behaviorally – deal with
stressful events by masking their feelings and avoiding the
outward display of emotions.
In the affective domain, the predicted negative link to
positive experience was replicated, but not the positive re-
lationship to negative affect. This means that, in the Italian
sample, suppressors were less likely to experience positive
emotion (though no more likely to experience negative af-
fect) than nonsuppressors. In the American sample, sup-
pressors reported higher negative affect than individuals
who habitually do not rely on this regulatory strategy (rath-
er than unchanged levels as in experimental studies). John
and Gross (2004) thus concluded that the use of suppres-
sion in daily life may lead to increasing levels of negative
affect as a consequence of its relationship with inauthen-
ticity. In our sample, however, suppression had no associ-
ation with experience of negative emotions, indicating
more similarity to the experimental findings. This result,
which perhaps represents the most important discrepancy
from the results obtained in the original American study,
should be further explored in future studies.
With respect to personality traits, Suppression was
weakly negatively related to Extraversion as in the original
American study. Shyness and low extraversion are the
more likely temperamental precursors for Suppression
(John & Gross, 2004). However, in our dataset suppression
wasalsorelatedweakly to Neuroticism, whereastheAmer-
ican Suppression scale was not associated with this person-
ality trait at all. In order to further investigate this finding,
we considered the two subscales of Emotion and Impulse
Control. The former is concerned with the experience of
negative emotional states, such as anger, anxiety, and ten-
sion (John & Srivastava, 1999), whereas the latter deals
with the ability to keep calm, maintain control, and avoid
impulsive behavior. Results showed a pattern consistent
with previous research, since Suppression was positively
related only to the Impulse Control subscale, that is, with
the ability to keep control of one’s own behavior, but
showed no relation to Emotion Control.
In the social domain, our findings corresponded to ex-
pectations: Suppression was negatively correlated to both
COPE Social Support scales and to CISS Social Diversion
scale.
Limitations and Future Directions
This study provided evidence that the Italian version of the
ERQ is a reliable and valid self-report measure for assess-
ing reappraisal and suppression use. The two independent-
factorstructurethat underlies the original ERQversionwas
replicated,asweregender differences intheuse of suppres-
sion but not reappraisal. External correlates were also con-
firmed: Moderate associations were found between emo-
tion regulation strategies on the one hand and coping strat-
egiesandpersonalitytraitson the other.Resultsconcerning
affective and social outcomes were consistent with those
obtained by Gross and John (2003), although the use of
suppression was not related to negative affect as expected.
The present research has two notable limitations. First,
this study used a sample of college-aged research partici-
pants. Future studies will need to test the generalizability
of these findings using samples representing a wider age
range, including children and older adults. Second, this
study used a relatively circumscribed set of measures of
affective and social functioning. In future research, it will
be important to broaden this set of measures.
References
Bentler, P.M. (1995). EQS: Structural equations programs.En-
cino, CA: Multivariate Software.
Caprara,G.V.,Barbaranelli, C.,& Borgogni, L.(1993). BFQ: Big
Five Questionnaire. Firenze: Giunti OS, Organizzazioni Spe-
ciali.
Carver, C.S., Scheier, M.F., & Weintraub, J.K. (1989). Assessing
coping strategies: A theoretically based approach. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 267–283.
Endler, N.S., & Parker, J.D.A. (1990). Multidimensional assess-
ment of coping: A critical evaluation. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 58, 844–854.
Gross, J.J. (1998). Antecedent- and response-focused emotion
regulation: Divergent consequences for experience, expres-
sion, and physiology. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 74, 224–237.
Gross, J.J. (2001). Emotion regulation in adulthood: Timing is
66 S. Balzarotti et al.: An Italian Adaptation of the Emotion Regulation Questionnaire
European Journal of Psychological Assessment 2010; Vol. 26(1):61–67 © 2010 Hogrefe Publishing
everything. Current Directions In Psychological Science, 10,
214–219.
Gross, J.J. (2002). Emotion regulation: Affective, cognitive, and
social consequences. Psychophysiology, 39, 281–291.
Gross, J.J. (Ed.) (2007). Handbook of emotion regulation. New
York: Guilford.
Gross, J.J., & John, O.P. (2003). Individual differences in two
emotion regulation processes: Implications for affect,relation-
ships, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 85, 348–362.
Hu, L., Bentler, P.M., & Kano, Y. (1992). Can test statistics in
covariance structure-analysis be trusted. Psychological Bulle-
tin, 112, 351–362.
John, O.P., & Gross, J.J. (2004). Healthy and unhealthy emotion
regulation: Personality processes, individual differences, and
lifespandevelopment. Journalof Personality,72, 1301–1333.
John,O.P.,& Gross,J.J. (2007).Individualdifferencesinemotion
regulation: Links to global trait, dynamic, and social cognitive
constructs. In J. Gross (Ed.), Handbook of emotion regulation
(pp. 351–372). New York: Guilford.
John, O.P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five trait taxonomy:
History, measurement and theoretical perspectives. In L.A.
Pervin & O.P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory
and research (2nd ed., pp.102–138). New York: Guilford.
McCrae, R.R., & Costa, P.T. (1987).Validation of the five-factor
model of personality across instruments and observers. Jour-
nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 81–90.
Pedrabissi, L., & Santinello, M. (1994). “Coping Inventory for
Stressful Situations”: Revision of validity and psychometric
properties. La validità del “Coping Inventory for Stressful Sit-
uations”di Endler eParker.Ricerche di Psicologia, 18, 49–63.
Ryff, C.D., & Keyes, C.L.M. (1995). The structure of psycholog-
ical well-being revisited. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 69, 719–727.
Salovey, P., Mayer, J.D., Golman, S.L., Turvey, C., & Palfai,
T.P. (1995). Emotional attention, clarity, and repair: Explor-
ing emotional intelligence using the trait meta-mood scale.
In J.W. Pennebaker (Ed.), Emotion, disclosure, and health
(pp.125–154). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Sica,C., Novara,C., Dorz, S.,& Sanavio,E. (1997).Copingstrat-
egies: Evidence for cross-cultural differences? A preliminary
study with the Italian version of Coping Orientations to Prob-
lems Experienced (COPE). Personality and Individual Differ-
ences, 23, 1025–1929.
Sirigatti, S., Stefanile, C., & Toselli, M. (1996). Una misura per
il coping: il Coping Inventory for Stressful Situations (CISS)
[Measuring coping: The Coping Inventory for Stressful Situ-
ations(CISS)]. Bollettinodi PsicologiaApplicata, 218,45–47.
Steca, P., Accardo, A., & Capanna, C. (2001). La misura del cop-
ing:Differenzedi generee di età[Themeasurementofcoping:
Gender and age differences]. Bollettino di Psicologia Appli-
cata, 235, 47–56.
Terracciano, A., McCrae, R.R., & Costa, P.T. (2003). Factorial
and construct validity of the Italian Positive and Negative Af-
fect Schedule (PANAS). European Journal of Psychological
Assessment, 19, 131–141.
Trapnell, P.D., & Campbell, J.D. (1999). Private self-conscious-
ness and the five-factor model of personality: Distinguishing
rumination from reflection. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 76, 284–304.
Vuorela, M., & Nummenmaa, L. (2004). Experiencedemotions,
emotion regulation and student activity in a web-based learn-
ing environment. European Journal of Psychology of Educa-
tion, 19, 423–436.
Watson,D., Clark, L.A.,& Tellegen,A.(1988).Development and
validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect:
The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 54, 1063–1070.
Stefania Balzarotti
Laboratory of Communication Psychology
Catholic University of the Sacred Heart
Largo Gemelli, 1
I-20123 Milano
Italy
Tel. +39 02 72345931
Fax +39 02 72342280
E-mail stefania.balzarotti@unicatt.it
S. Balzarotti et al.: An Italian Adaptation of the Emotion Regulation Questionnaire 67
© 2010 Hogrefe Publishing European Journal of Psychological Assessment 2010; Vol. 26(1):61–67
A preview of this full-text is provided by Hogrefe Publishing.
Content available from European Journal of Psychological Assessment
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
