Psychological Reports

The Persian Version of the Perth Emotional Reactivity Scale-

short form: Psychometric Evaluation

Journal: Psychological Reports

Manuscript ID PRX-22-1436

Manuscript Type: Original Research Article

Fo
Mental Health < Mental & Physical Health, Emotional intelligence <
Intelligence < Mental & Physical Health, Measures & Statistics,
Keywords:
Translated questionnaires < New psychometric tests < Measures &
Statistics, Psychometrics < Measures & Statistics
rP

The current study aimed to assess the psychometric properties of the

Persian version of the Perth Emotional Reactivity Scale-Short Form
(PERS-S) in the Iranian population. The sample consisted of 360 adults
ee

who participated in the study voluntarily and completed questionnaires.

Confirmatory factor analysis was performed and supported a six-factor
structure of the PERS-S. The model fit indices indicated an appropriate fit
rR

Abstract: of Indices. The Cornbrash’s alpha coefficient showed good reliability of

the PERS-S. Convergent and divergent validity by examining correlation
coefficient with alexithymia, psychosomatic symptoms, self-Compassion,
and emotion regulation showed the good concurrent validity. Based on
ev

the results, PERS-S has desirable validity and reliability in the Iranian
population and can be used in assessment in clinical and research
situations.
iew

https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/prx
Page 1 of 25 Psychological Reports

Perth Emotional Reactivity Scale-short form

1
2
3
4 The Persian Version of the Perth Emotional Reactivity Scale-short form: Psychometric
5
6 Evaluation
7
8 Abstract
9
10
11 The current study aimed to assess the psychometric properties of the Persian version of the Perth
12
13 Emotional Reactivity Scale-Short Form (PERS-S) in the Iranian population. The sample consisted
14
15 of 360adults who participated in the study voluntarily and completed questionnaires.
16
17
18
Confirmatory factor analysis was performed and supported a six-factor structure of the PERS-S.
19
The model fit indices indicated an appropriate fit of Indices. The Cornbrash’s alpha coefficient
Fo
20
21
22 showed good reliability of the PERS-S. Convergent and divergent validity by examining
23
rP

24
correlation coefficient with alexithymia, psychosomatic symptoms, self-Compassion, and emotion
25
26
ee

27 regulation showed the good concurrent validity. Based on the results, PERS-S has desirable
28
29 validity and reliability in the Iranian population and can be used in assessment in clinical and
rR

30
31 research situations.
32
ev

33
34 Keywords:
35
36 Emotional reactivity, Factor Analysis, Psychometrics, Scale, Validation
iew

37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58 1
59
60 https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/prx
 Psychological Reports Page 2 of 25

Perth Emotional Reactivity Scale-short form

1
2
3
4 Introduction
5
6 Emotions are short-term multi-systemic responses to the way people evaluate their environment
7
8 and current situation (Gross, 2014., Schreuder, Van Erp, Toet, & Kallen, 2016). Emotions are
9
10
11 considered as multidimensional phenomena that cause changes in the channels of subjective
12
13 experience, physiology, and behavior (Becerra, Preece, Campitelli, & Scott-Pillow, 2019).
14
15 According to contemporary approaches to emotion research, emotions can occur dynamically and
16
17
18
become apparent over time, which may reflect risk factors or protect against psychological
19
incompatibility (Uink, Modecki, Barber, & Correia, 2018). Although emotions have been
Fo
20
21
22 previously considered spontaneous phenomena, it is now understood that people can control their
23
rP

24
emotions using a wide range of strategies such as cognitive reappraisal and expressive suppression
25
26
ee

27 (Gross & John, 2003). According to Differential Emotions Theory (DET), the individual utilizes
28
29 a conscious or unconscious effort to change emotional reactions to adequately respond to
rR

30
31 environmental demands (Gouveia et al., 2018., Izard, 2009). These changes enable better
32
ev

33
34 performance in the emotional and social dimensions, less depressive symptoms, and higher levels
35
36 of life satisfaction (Gouveia et al., 2018).
iew

37
38 Emotional reactivity is one of the agents that may affect a person's capability to control
39
40
41
emotions (Mettler, Stern, Lewis, & Heath, 2021) and points to the stimulation of cognitive,
42
43 autonomic, and endocrine processes that changes the behavioral and experimental systems (Gross,
44
45 1998). It seems that emotional reactivates are closely related to cognition and behavioral intentions
46
47
(Schreuder, Van Erp, Toet, & Kallen, 2016). This phenomenon also explains that people differ in
48
49
50 the duration and severity of behavioral and physiological reactions to emotional motivations
51
52 (Mettler et al., 2021). Emotional reactivity is relatively short-lived and often assessed in terms of
53
54 intensity, duration, and latency (Gross, 1998). These aspects of the reactions usually together form
55
56
57
58 2
59
60 https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/prx
Page 3 of 25 Psychological Reports

Perth Emotional Reactivity Scale-short form

1
2
3
4 the structure of emotional reactivity (Preece, Becerra, & Campitelli, 2019). People may vary in
5
6 their level of stimulation threshold, the intensity of the emotion they express, and the duration of
7
8 emotional reactivity (Herres, Caporino, Cummings, & Kendall, 2018; Preece et al., 2019; van
9
10
11 Knippenberg, de Vugt, Ponds, Verhey, & Myin-Germeys, 2018). On the other hand, emotions can
12
13 be positive or negative and appear as responses in empirical, physiological, and behavioral
14
15 channels of the emotional system (Gross, 2014; Gross & John, 2003; Mocanu, Mohr, Pouyan,
16
17
18
Thuillard, & Dan-Glauser, 2018; Preece et al., 2019). Frederickson (2013) in broaden-build theory
19
stated that positive emotions can be self-protective and act differently from negative emotions
Fo
20
21
22 (Mettler et al., 2021).
23
rP

24
Background
25
26
ee

27 Some studies have shown positive and negative emotions have different relationships with
28
29 mental health and well-being (Mettler et al., 2021). Emotional reactivity is closely related to the
rR

30
31 ability to effectively regulate emotions so that people who have weaker regulation skills in the face
32
ev

33
34 of unpleasant emotions show more intense and continuous reactivity (Becerra, Preece, Campitelli,
35
36 & Scott-Pillow, 2019; Gross, 2014). It has been proven that emotional reactivates and regulation
iew

37
38 of emotions play an essential role in the well-being, psychological function, and development of
39
40
41
social skills (Cavanagh, Fitzgerald, & Urry, 2014; Mitmansgruber, Beck, Höfer, & Schüßler, 2009;
42
43 Usler & Weber, 2021). A meta-analysis by Houben et al. (2015) showed that psychological
44
45 flourishing is distinguished by particular patterns of emotional fluctuations over time and intensity
46
47
constancy in emotional reactivates are related to a higher level of well-being (Houben, Van Den
48
49
50 Noortgate, & Kuppens, 2015; Mocanu et al., 2018). Some models of psychopathology believe that
51
52 unusual levels of emotional reactivity are an important diagnostic factor in psychological trauma
53
54 (Becerra et al., 2019; Gross & Jazaieri, 2014). Studies have shown that how people react to
55
56
57
58 3
59
60 https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/prx
 Psychological Reports Page 4 of 25

Perth Emotional Reactivity Scale-short form

1
2
3
4 emotions is of a pivotal role in mental health, and emotional reactivity difficulties are a
5
6 considerable factor in the emergence of a wide range of psychiatric disorders (Clauss, Bardeen,
7
8 Thomas, & Benfer, 2020; DeCou & Lynch, 2019;. Preece, Becerra, Robinson, & Gross, 2019).
9
10
11 For example, these difficulties are involved in the emergence and Preservation of disorders such
12
13 as bipolar disorder, anxiety disorders, suicidal ideation, sleep disturbance, depression, substance
14
15 abuse, and borderline personality disorder (DeCou & Lynch, 2019; Li et al., 2020; McLaughlin et
16
17
18
al., 2010; Pickett, Barbaro, & Mello, 2016; Ranney, Behar, & Yamasaki, 2020; Stepp, Scott, Jones,
19
Whalen, & Hipwell, 2016). Unik et al. (2018) showed in a study that high external symptoms are
Fo
20
21
22 associated with stronger negative emotional reactivity such as sadness, anger, jealousy, and
23
rP

24
loneliness (Uink et al., 2018). Finding Roberts et al (2020) showed high Emotional Reactivity is
25
26
ee

27 identified as a vulnerability in non-epileptic seizures (Roberts et al., 2020). On the other hand,
28
29 studies show contradictory results in the performance of emotional reactions, and this indicates the
rR

30
31 need for further study in this area (Lapid Pickman, Gelkopf, & Greene, 2021; Stratta, Tempesta,
32
ev

33
34 Bonanni, de Cataldo, & Rossi, 2014).
35
36 Considering the importance of emotional reactivity and its multifaceted structure, a
iew

37
38 comprehensive and, a valid criterion is needed to assess emotional reactivity. In the field of
39
40
41
emotions, several scales were developed and have been used in several countries, such as the
42
43 Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (ERQ, Gross, 2003) and the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation
44
45 Scale (DERS, Gratz, & Roemer, 2004).
46
47
Measures of emotions
48
49
50 ERQ is a self-report questionnaire based on the Gross (1998) emotion regulation process
51
52 model designed to measure individuals' use of two regulatory strategies: cognitive reappraisal and
53
54
55
56
57
58 4
59
60 https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/prx
Page 5 of 25 Psychological Reports

Perth Emotional Reactivity Scale-short form

1
2
3
4 expressive suppression (Gouveia et al., 2018; Gross & John, 2003; Preece et al., 2019). This
5
6 questionnaire is widely used in research in the field of emotion (Preece et al., 2021).
7
8 DERS involves 36 items that evaluate emotion regulation problems. It assesses the extent
9
10
11 to which the respondent lacks emotional awareness and has difficulty identifying emotions
12
13 (Mocanu et al., 2018).
14
15 The Perth Emotional Reactivity Scale (PERS) is a scale that assesses the three factors of
16
17
18
activation, intensity, and duration of response to emotions by reporting individuals' emotional
19
reactions. The importance of this action is in examining the negative and positive emotions
Fo
20
21
22 separately. Becerra et al. (2019) evaluated and validated PERS's capacity to measure positive and
23
rP

24
negative emotional reactions separately using exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. In
25
26
ee

27 addition, three aspects of reactions were distinguished (Becerra et al., 2019).

28
29 Among the scales explained above, the ERQ and DERS which evaluate emotion regulation
rR

30
31 strategies and emotional difficulties, have been previously used in several studies in Persian
32
ev

33
34 language. While the Persian version of the Perth Comprehensive Scale, which measures six
35
36 different dimensions of emotional reactivates, was not available. According to the purpose of our
iew

37
38 study, which was the psychometric examination of a comprehensive scale to evaluate emotional
39
40
41
reactivates, this scale seems appropriate.
42
43 This study
44
45 Currently, research on emotion in Iran has increased in recent decade (REFS), but a Persian version
46
47
scale that assesses the dimensions of emotional reactivity in positive and negative emotions is not
48
49
50 currently available. Performing psychometrics for the short-form of the PERS (PERS-S) in a
51
52 public sample will help validate its relevance for an Iranian population. Given that short-form tools
53
54 are sometimes needed in situations such as emergencies or research cases. The current study aimed
55
56
57
58 5
59
60 https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/prx
 Psychological Reports Page 6 of 25

Perth Emotional Reactivity Scale-short form

1
2
3
4 to evaluate the PERS-S factor structure, reliability, and concurrent validity in a diverse population
5
6 in Iran. In the present study, we considered the Emotional Regulation Questionnaire, the
7
8 Alexithymia Scale, the Self-Compassion Scale, and the Psychosomatic Symptoms Scale to assess
9
10
11 concurrent validity. We hypothesized that emotional reactivity was related to emotion regulation.
12
13 We also hypothesized that a negative emotional reactivity was positively related to alexithymia
14
15 and Psychosomatic Complaints. Our final hypothesis was that a positive emotional reactivity was
16
17
18
positively related to self-compassion.
19
Method
Fo
20
21
22 Participants
23
rP

24
Our sample consisted of 360 adults who participated in the study through an online call. The
25
26
ee

27 acceptable sample size for performing confirmatory factor analysis is 10 to 20 times the number
28
29 of items on each scale (Kline, 2015; MacCallum, Widaman, Zhang, & Hong, 1999). Given that
rR

30
31 the number of items on the PERS-S is 18 items, a sample size of 360 (15 times the number of
32
ev

33
34 items) is sufficient. The age of the participants was in the range between 18 and 60 years (M =
35
36 32.01, SD = 9.64), most of them were female (73.1%), Unmarried (53.1%), and university-
iew

37
38 educated (73.3%). This was a nonprobability sample that individuals participated in the study
39
40
41
voluntarily and with informed consent.
42
43 Ethical considerations
44
45 First, qualified people were asked to participate in the research through an online call. The
46
47
information and objectives of the research were explained to those who agreed. The participation
48
49
50 was assured that it was voluntary and that they could withdraw from the study at any time. Then
51
52 informed consent form was sent to them along with an online questionnaire. These forms were
53
54 submitted online by all participants. The data collection period was from June to October 2021.
55
56
57
58 6
59
60 https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/prx
Page 7 of 25 Psychological Reports

Perth Emotional Reactivity Scale-short form

1
2
3
4 Measures
5
6 The Perth Emotional Reactivity Scale-Short form (PERS-S) is adapted from the long form of
7
8 Perth Emotional Reactivity scale (PERS). PERS-S is an 18-item self-report questionnaire that
9
10
11 measures trait emotional reactivity with three components: activation, intensity, and duration and
12
13 does so separately for positive and negative emotions. The response options are rated on a five-
14
15 point response scale from 1 (very unlike me) to 5 (very like me). Higher scores indicate higher
16
17
18
emotional reactivity levels.
19
Becerra et al. (2019) evaluated the psychometric properties of the PERS-S scores in a
Fo
20
21
22 sample of 428 adults. All subscales and combined scores showed optimal reliability. The reliability
23
rP

24
coefficients were excellent for composite domains and acceptable to good for 6 subscales.
25
26
ee

27 Correlation of emotional response scores with scores of depression, stress, anxiety, and ER
28
29 confirmed concurrent validity of the scale (Preece et al., 2019). Recently, the validity of this scale
rR

30
31 was assessed using 268 Russian adults. In that study, the factor structure of the scale was supported
32
ev

33
34 and its concurrent validity was confirmed by the correlation of its scores with perceived stress
35
36 scores and positive and negative emotions (Larionov, Ageenkova, & Belashina, 2021). In Iran,
iew

37
38 Mousavi Asl et al. (2020) examined the psychometric evaluation of the Farsi version of the long-
39
40
41
form in a sample of undergraduate students and reported good validity and reliability for PERS
42
43 (Mousavi Asl, Mohammadian, Gharraee, Khanjani, & Pazouki, 2020).
44
45 The scale was translated using the back translation method of the Brislin (Brislin, 1970).
46
47
First, two psychologists translated the scale into Persian. Then the Persian items were translated
48
49
50 into English again by an English language expert. The final Persian version was modified by an
51
52 expert psychologist comparing the two versions.
53
54
55
56
57
58 7
59
60 https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/prx
 Psychological Reports Page 8 of 25

Perth Emotional Reactivity Scale-short form

1
2
3
4 The Emotional Regulation Questionnaire (ERQ) developed by Gross and John (2003) consists
5
6 of 10 items that evaluate two strategies for emotional regulation: cognitive reappraisal and
7
8 emotional suppression. The responses are rated on a seven-point response scale, from 1 (strongly
9
10
11 disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Higher scores on one of the factors show a greater tendency to use
12
13 that emotion regulation strategy. In previous studies, ERQ showed good convergent and divergent
14
15 validity (Gross & John, 2003). In the Iranian population, the ERQ psychometric parameters have
16
17
18
been appropriate and showed good validity and reliability (Alidoosti, Jangi, & Shojaeifar, 2020;
19
Lashkari, Dehghani, Sadeghi-Firoozabadi, Heidari, & Khatibi, 2021). In the present study,
Fo
20
21
22 Cronbach's alpha showed good reliability for both emotional suppression (α= 0.75) and cognitive
23
rP

24
reappraisal (α= 0.85).
25
26
ee

27 The Self-Compassion Scale-Short form (SCS-S) is a 12-item scale, and response options ranged
28
29 from 1 (almost never) to 5 (almost always). SCS-S was associated with SCS (r = 0.97) (Raes,
rR

30
31 Pommier, Neff, & Van Gucht, 2011). The validity and reliability of this scale have been confirmed
32
ev

33
34 in the Iranian population (Jelodari & Gheydari, 2016). Cornbrash’s alpha coefficient in the current
35
36 study for the whole scale was 0.73.
iew

37
38 The Perth Alexithymia Questionnaire (PAQ, Preece et al, 2018) is a self-report scale
39
40
41
consistiong of 24 items, all of which include a statement designed to assess the components of
42
43 Alexithymia. The answers are recorded on a seven-point Likert scale, rating from 1 (strongly
44
45 disagree) to 7 (strongly agree), and higher scores demonstrate higher levels of alexithymia( Preece,
46
47
Becerra, Robinson, Dandy, & Allan, 2018). In a study among Iranian adults, the structure of the
48
49
50 PAQ with five factors was confirmed and good validity and reliability were reported (Lashkari et
51
52 al., 2021). In the current study, Cornbrash’s alpha coefficient for the total scale was 0.88.
53
54
55
56
57
58 8
59
60 https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/prx
Page 9 of 25 Psychological Reports

Perth Emotional Reactivity Scale-short form

1
2
3
4 The Psychosomatic Symptoms Scale (PSS, Takata & Sakata, 2004) consists of 30 items rated on
5
6 a 5-point Likert scale. This scale has been developed in a sample in Japan and has shown good
7
8 validity and reliability. Its factor analysis has confirmed one dimension (Takata & Sakata, 2004).
9
10
11 Hajloo (2013) evaluated the psychometric properties of this scale in the Iranian sample and
12
13 reported its validity and reliability as appropriate (Hajloo, 2013). In the current study, the reliability
14
15 of this scale was excellent (α =0.91).
16
17
18
Data analysis
19
Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was performed using AMOS-26 and other analyzes such as
Fo
20
21
22 descriptive statistics and correlation were performed by SPSS-26. CFA was performed using
23
rP

24
maximum likelihood estimation.
25
26
ee

27 The fitness of the model was assessed with the Normalize chi-square (CMIN / DF), Root
28
29 Mean Square Approximation Error (RMSEA), Akaike Information Criteria (AIC), Goodness-of-
rR

30
31 Fit Index (GFI), incremental fit index (IFI), and comparative fit index (CFI). In structural equation
32
ev

33
34 analysis, the acceptable fit value of CMIN / DF is less than 5, while the acceptable values of GFI,
35
36 IFI, and CFI are greater than 0.90. (Hooper, Coughlan, & Mullen, 2008). The acceptable value of
iew

37
38 the RMSEA is in the range between 0.03 and 0.08 (Kline, 2015).
39
40
41
Results
42
43 Preliminary Analysis
44
45 Preliminary analyzes were performed on the data and revealed that there was no missing data.
46
47
Mahalanobis test was used to evaluate the outlier data and 2 data with a value of more than 72 (4
48
49
50 times the number of items) (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013) was identified as an outlier and excluded
51
52 from the analysis. The results of normality analysis showed that skewness values are in the range
53
54 of +0.47 and -1.04 and kurtosis values were in the range of +1.28 and -0.98. If the skewness and
55
56
57
58 9
59
60 https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/prx
 Psychological Reports Page 10 of 25

Perth Emotional Reactivity Scale-short form

1
2
3
4 kurtosis values were in the range of ±2 and ±3, respectively, the values of the data distribution
5
6 were normal (Ryu, 2011). The following is the mean and standard deviation of all items of the
7
8 PERS-S shown in Table 1.
9
10
11 [Insert Table 1]
12
13 Construct Validity
14
15 The CFA was performed with a maximum likelihood estimation in AMOS-26 software to evaluate
16
17
18
the Construct Validity of the measure. Based on the study of Preece et al. (2019), three models
19
were implemented: 2-factor correlated model (positive and negative), 6-factor correlated model,
Fo
20
21
22 and 6-factor higher-order model. First, the factor loading of the indicators were assessed. If the
23
rP

24
factor of an item was less than 0.4 or greater than 1, that item must be removed (Kline, 2015). In
25
26
ee

27 all three models, all items showed good loading on their assigned factor (between 0.5 and 1).
28
29 Therefore, all indicators were maintained in these models (see 3 models in Figure 1).
rR

30
31 [Insert Figure 1 here]
32
ev

33
34 In the next step, the fit indices of the three models were examined. The results showed that
35
36 the model fit indices in the 6-factor correlated model indices were acceptable. The indicators of
iew

37
38 the other two models (2-factor correlated model and 6-factor higher-order model) reached an
39
40
41
acceptable level after the implementation of the proposed software modification indices (see the
42
43 final results in Table 2).
44
45 [Insert Table 2 here]
46
47
Reliability
48
49
50 The Cornbrash’s alpha coefficient was used to evaluate the reliability of the PERS-S and its two
51
52 domains (Positive and Negative emotions). In addition, the Composite Reliability (CR) was used
53
54 to evaluate the internal consistency between the items. In the internal consistency evaluation,
55
56
57
58 10
59
60 https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/prx
Page 11 of 25 Psychological Reports

Perth Emotional Reactivity Scale-short form

1
2
3
4 values greater than 0.80 indicate good consistency and values greater than 0.70 indicate acceptable
5
6 consistency (Groth-Marnat, 2009). The results showed that reliability and internal consistency for
7
8 the PERS-S and its two domains were satisfactory (see Table 3).
9
10
11 [Insert Table 3 here]
12
13 Concurrent Validity
14
15 The results of the correlation study showed that positive emotional reactivity was negatively
16
17
18
correlated with alexithymia, psychosomatic symptoms, and emotional suppression strategies.
19
Also, this component had a positive relationship with the scores of the self-compassion scale and
Fo
20
21
22 cognitive reappraisal component. While negative emotional reactivity was negatively correlated
23
rP

24
with self-compassion and cognitive reappraisal components. There was a positive relationship
25
26
ee

27 between this component and psychosomatic symptoms. Based on the results, the convergent and
28
29 divergent validity of the two domains of the PERS-S and its 6 factors were confirmed (see Table
rR

30
31 4).
32
ev

33
34 [Insert Table 4]
35
36 Discussion
iew

37
38 This study was performed to examine the psychometric evaluation of the Perth Emotional
39
40
41
Reactivity Scale-Short form in the population of Iran. In examining the factor structure of this
42
43 scale, it was found that the three models (2-factor correlated model (positive and negative), 6-
44
45 factor correlated model, and 6-factor higher-order model) have a suitable model fit. Meanwhile,
46
47
the model fit indices in the 6-factor correlated model were more appropriate than others. This
48
49
50 finding was consistent with the earlier studies (Becerra et al., 2019; Preece et al., 2019). In
51
52 explaining this finding, it can be assumed that emotions are innate phenomena and there are no
53
54 cultural differences in emotions and reactions to them.
55
56
57
58 11
59
60 https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/prx
 Psychological Reports Page 12 of 25

Perth Emotional Reactivity Scale-short form

1
2
3
4 Findings showed that there is a distinction between positive and negative emotional
5
6 reactivates and their effects. Examination of the correlation between two areas of emotional
7
8 reactivity with alexithymia, psychosomatic symptoms, emotional regulation, and self-compassion
9
10
11 showed that higher levels of general negative emotional reactivity were correlated with higher
12
13 levels of psychosomatic symptoms. Conversely, general positive emotional reactivity was
14
15 positively correlated with self-compassion and cognitive reappraisal. Individuals with higher
16
17
18
levels of positive emotional reactivity expressed fewer symptoms of psychosomatic, alexithymia,
19
and emotion suppression. This finding was consistent with the results of the study of Preece et al.
Fo
20
21
22 (2019) which showed the relationship between higher negative emotional reactivity was
23
rP

24
significantly correlated with higher levels of depression, anxiety, stress, and emotional
25
26
ee

27 suppression. On the other hand, higher levels of positive emotional reactivity were significantly
28
29 associated with lower levels of depression, anxiety, and stress. The study of Mousavi et al. (2020)
rR

30
31 also showed that self-compassion has a positive relationship with positive emotional reactivity and
32
ev

33
34 a negative relationship with negative emotional reactivity. These findings confirm that emotions
35
36 play a key role in psychological trauma. On the other hand, it enriches the literature because it
iew

37
38 showed that the reaction to positive or negative emotions is different, and these two have different
39
40
41
effects on people's well-being. In explanation, it can be assumed that positive emotional reactions
42
43 are due to the desired situation and people tend to express emotion and its persistence. It is also
44
45 assumed that people influenced by learning and culture do not like expressing negative emotions.
46
47
Limitations
48
49
50 One of the limitations of the present study was that this study was performed in a non-clinical
51
52 sample, and according to models that emphasize abnormal emotional reactivates in
53
54 psychopathology, it is suggested that future studies be performed in clinical samples. Second, the
55
56
57
58 12
59
60 https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/prx
Page 13 of 25 Psychological Reports

Perth Emotional Reactivity Scale-short form

1
2
3
4 study was performed on adults and did not include adolescents and the elderly. Subsequent studies
5
6 can be performed on samples of different ages. Another limitation was that this study was
7
8 performed during the Covid-19 pandemic period, and the psychological effects of this pandemic
9
10
11 on arousal threshold, intensity, and duration of emotion could be affected.
12
13 Future directions
14
15 Future studies could examine the effect of pandemics on emotional reactivity.
16
17
18
Conclusion
19
The results of the current study showed that the Short Form of Emotional Reactivity Scale (PERS-
Fo
20
21
22 S) in the Iranian population has appropriate validity and reliability. According to the results the
23
rP

24
PERS-S can be used in clinical and research situations.
25
26
ee

27 Author Contributions
28
29 Conceptualization: Roya Rasouli, Fatemeh Asl-Dehghan and Abbas Abdollahi.; Methodology:
rR

30
31 KDV Prasad and Pushpamala Ramaiah; Data collection: Fatemeh Asl-Dehghan; Writing—
32
ev

33
34 original draft: Andrés Alexis Ramírez-Coronel and Fatemeh Asl-Dehghan; Writing—review &
35
36 editing: Abbas Abdollahi and Kelly A. Allen. All authors have read and agreed to the published
iew

37
38 version of the manuscript.
39
40
41
Funding
42
43 This research was not received any Funding.
44
45 Institutional Review Board Statement
46
47
The study was conducted in accordance with the ethical standards and according to the
48
49
50 Declaration of Helsinki and national and international guidelines.
51
52 The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Alzahra University with the number:
53
54 AU2021-019
55
56
57
58 13
59
60 https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/prx
 Psychological Reports Page 14 of 25

Perth Emotional Reactivity Scale-short form

1
2
3
4 Informed Consent Statement
5
6 All participants gave their informed consent for inclusion before they participated in the study.
7
8 Data Availability Statement
9
10
11 The data presented in this study are available on figshare at 10.6084/m9.figshare.21746861
12
13 Conflicts of Interest
14
15 The authors declare no conflict of interest.
16
17
18
19
Fo
20
21
22
23
rP

24
25
26
ee

27
28
29
rR

30
31
32
ev

33
34
35
36
iew

37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58 14
59
60 https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/prx
Page 15 of 25 Psychological Reports

Perth Emotional Reactivity Scale-short form

1
2
3
4 References
5
6
7
8
Alidoosti, F., Jangi, F., & Shojaeifar, S. (2020). The effectiveness of emotion regulation training
9
10 based on Gross model on emotion regulation, anxiety and depression in mothers of children
11
12 with intellectual disability. Journal of Family Psychology, 7(1), 69-80.
13
14
Becerra, R., Preece, D., Campitelli, G., & Scott-Pillow, G. (2019). The assessment of emotional
15
16
17 reactivity across negative and positive emotions: Development and validation of the Perth
18
19 Emotional Reactivity Scale (PERS). Assessment, 26(5), 867-879.
Fo
20
21 Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural
22
23
rP

24 Psychology, 1(3), 185-216.

25
26 Cavanagh, S. R., Fitzgerald, E. J., & Urry, H. L. (2014). Emotion reactivity and regulation are
ee

27
28 associated with psychological functioning following the 2011 earthquake, tsunami, and
29
rR

30
31
nuclear crisis in Japan. Emotion, 14(2), 235.
32
Clauss, K., Bardeen, J. R., Thomas, K., & Benfer, N. (2020). The interactive effect of emotional
ev

33
34
35 reactivity and maladaptive metacognitive beliefs on anxiety. Cognition and Emotion,
36
iew

37
34(2), 393-401.
38
39
40 DeCou, C. R., & Lynch, S. M. (2019). Emotional reactivity, trauma-related distress, and suicidal
41
42 ideation among adolescent inpatient survivors of sexual abuse. Child Abuse & Neglect, 89,
43
44 155-164.
45
46
47 Fredrickson, B. L. (2013). Positive emotions broaden and build. In Advances in experimental
48
49 social psychology (Vol. 47, pp. 1-53): Elsevier.
50
51 Gouveia, V. V., Moura, H. M. d., Oliveira, I. C. V. d., Ribeiro, M. G. C., Rezende, A. T., & Brito,
52
53
54
T. R. d. S. (2018). Emotional Regulation Questionnaire (ERQ): evidence of construct
55
56 validity and internal consistency. Psico-USF, 23, 461-471.
57
58 15
59
60 https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/prx
 Psychological Reports Page 16 of 25

Perth Emotional Reactivity Scale-short form

1
2
3
4 Gross, J. J. (1998). The emerging field of emotion regulation: An integrative review. Review of
5
6 general psychology, 2(3), 271-299.
7
8 Gross, J. J. (2014). Emotion regulation: conceptual and empirical foundations.
9
10
11 Gross, J. J., & Jazaieri, H. (2014). Emotion, emotion regulation, and psychopathology: An
12
13 affective science perspective. Clinical psychological science, 2(4), 387-401.
14
15 Gross, J. J., & John, O. P. (2003). Individual differences in two emotion regulation processes:
16
17
18
implications for affect, relationships, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social
19
Psychology, 85(2), 348.
Fo
20
21
22 Groth-Marnat, G. (2009). Handbook of psychological assessment: John Wiley & Sons.
23
rP

24
Hajloo, N. (2013). Psychometric properties of Takata and Sakata's psychosomatic complaints scale
25
26
ee

27 among Iranian university students. Journal of Research in Behavioural Sciences, 10(3),

28
29 204-. Retrieved from https://www.magiran.com/paper/1079877
rR

30
31 Herres, J., Caporino, N. E., Cummings, C. M., & Kendall, P. C. (2018). Emotional reactivity to
32
ev

33
34 daily events in youth with anxiety disorders. Anxiety, Stress, & Coping, 31(4), 387-401.
35
36 Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. (2008). Equation modelling: Guidelines for determining
iew

37
38 model fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1), 53-60.
39
40
41
Houben, M., Van Den Noortgate, W., & Kuppens, P. (2015). The relation between short-term
42
43 emotion dynamics and psychological well-being: A meta-analysis. Psychological bulletin,
44
45 141(4), 901.
46
47
Izard, C. E. (2009). Emotion theory and research: Highlights, unanswered questions, and emerging
48
49
50 issues. Annual review of psychology, 60, 1-25.
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58 16
59
60 https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/prx
Page 17 of 25 Psychological Reports

Perth Emotional Reactivity Scale-short form

1
2
3
4 Jelodari, A., & Gheydari, S. (2016). The reliability and validity of the Persian version of Self-
5
6 Compassion Scale-Revised Edition. The International Jounral of Indian Psychology, 3,
7
8 123-133.
9
10
11 Kline, R. B. (2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling: Guilford
12
13 publications.
14
15 Lapid Pickman, L., Gelkopf, M., & Greene, T. (2021). Emotional reactivity to war stressors: An
16
17
18
experience sampling study in people with and without different psychiatric diagnoses.
19
Stress and Health, 37(1), 127-139.
Fo
20
21
22 Larionov, P. M., Ageenkova, E. K., & Belashina, T. V. (2021). Psychometric properties of the
23
rP

24
Russian-language version of the short form of the Perth scale of emotional reactivity.
25
26
ee

27 Neurology, neuropsychiatry, psychosomatics, 13(2), 26-33. doi:10.14412/2074-2711-

28
29 2021-2-26-33
rR

30
31 Lashkari, A., Dehghani, M., Sadeghi-Firoozabadi, V., Heidari, M., & Khatibi, A. (2021). Further
32
ev

33
34 Support for the Psychometric Properties of the Farsi Version of Perth Alexithymia
35
36 Questionnaire. Frontiers in Psychology, 12.
iew

37
38 Li, J., Zhong, Y., Ma, Z., Wu, Y., Pang, M., Wang, C., . . . Zhang, N. (2020). Emotion reactivity-
39
40
41
related brain network analysis in generalized anxiety disorder: a task fMRI study. BMC
42
43 Psychiatry, 20(1), 1-13.
44
45 MacCallum, R. C., Widaman, K. F., Zhang, S., & Hong, S. (1999). Sample size in factor analysis.
46
47
Psychological methods, 4(1), 84.
48
49
50 McLaughlin, K. A., Kubzansky, L. D., Dunn, E. C., Waldinger, R., Vaillant, G., & Koenen, K. C.
51
52 (2010). Childhood social environment, emotional reactivity to stress, and mood and anxiety
53
54 disorders across the life course. Depression and anxiety, 27(12), 1087-1094.
55
56
57
58 17
59
60 https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/prx
 Psychological Reports Page 18 of 25

Perth Emotional Reactivity Scale-short form

1
2
3
4 Mettler, J., Stern, M., Lewis, S. P., & Heath, N. L. (2021). Perceived vs. Actual Emotion Reactivity
5
6 and Regulation in Individuals With and Without a History of NSSI. Frontiers in
7
8 Psychology, 12, 479.
9
10
11 Mitmansgruber, H., Beck, T. N., Höfer, S., & Schüßler, G. (2009). When you don’t like what you
12
13 feel: Experiential avoidance, mindfulness and meta-emotion in emotion regulation.
14
15 Personality and Individual Differences, 46(4), 448-453.
16
17
18
Mocanu, E., Mohr, C., Pouyan, N., Thuillard, S., & Dan-Glauser, E. S. (2018). Reasons, years and
19
frequency of yoga practice: Effect on emotion response reactivity. Frontiers in Human
Fo
20
21
22 Neuroscience, 12, 264.
23
rP

24
Mousavi Asl, E., Mohammadian, Y., Gharraee, B., Khanjani, S., & Pazouki, A. (2020).
25
26
ee

27 Assessment of the Emotional Reactivity Through the Positive and Negative Emotions: The
28
29 Psychometric Properties of the Persian Version of the Perth Emotional Reactivity Scale.
rR

30
31 Iranian Journal of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, 14(2).
32
ev

33
34 Pickett, S. M., Barbaro, N., & Mello, D. (2016). The relationship between subjective sleep
35
36 disturbance, sleep quality, and emotion regulation difficulties in a sample of college
iew

37
38 students reporting trauma exposure. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice,
39
40
41
and Policy, 8(1), 25.
42
43 Preece, D., Becerra, R., & Campitelli, G. (2019). Assessing emotional reactivity: Psychometric
44
45 properties of the Perth Emotional Reactivity Scale and the development of a short form.
46
47
Journal of personality assessment, 101(6), 589-597.
48
49
50 Preece, D., Becerra, R., Robinson, K., Dandy, J., & Allan, A. (2018). The psychometric assessment
51
52 of alexithymia: Development and validation of the Perth Alexithymia Questionnaire.
53
54 Personality and Individual Differences, 132, 32-44.
55
56
57
58 18
59
60 https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/prx
Page 19 of 25 Psychological Reports

Perth Emotional Reactivity Scale-short form

1
2
3
4 Preece, D. A., Becerra, R., Hasking, P., McEvoy, P. M., Boyes, M., Sauer-Zavala, S., . . . Gross,
5
6 J. J. (2021). The Emotion Regulation Questionnaire: Psychometric properties and relations
7
8 with affective symptoms in a United States general community sample. Journal of Affective
9
10
11 Disorders, 284, 27-30.
12
13 Preece, D. A., Becerra, R., Robinson, K., & Gross, J. J. (2019). The emotion regulation
14
15 questionnaire: psychometric properties in general community samples. Journal of
16
17
18
personality assessment.
19
Raes, F., Pommier, E., Neff, K. D., & Van Gucht, D. (2011). Construction and factorial validation
Fo
20
21
22 of a short form of the self‐compassion scale. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 18(3),
23
rP

24
250-255.
25
26
ee

27 Ranney, R. M., Behar, E., & Yamasaki, A. S. (2020). Affect variability and emotional reactivity
28
29 in generalized anxiety disorder. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental
rR

30
31 Psychiatry, 68, 101542.
32
ev

33
34 Roberts, N. A., Burleson, M. H., Torres, D. L., Parkhurst, D. K., Garrett, R., Mitchell, L. B., . . .
35
36 Wang, N. C. (2020). Emotional reactivity as a vulnerability for psychogenic nonepileptic
iew

37
38 seizures? Responses while reliving specific emotions. The Journal of neuropsychiatry and
39
40
41
clinical neurosciences, 32(1), 95-100.
42
43 Ryu, E. (2011). Effects of skewness and kurtosis on normal-theory based maximum likelihood test
44
45 statistic in multilevel structural equation modeling. Behavior research methods, 43(4),
46
47
1066-1074.
48
49
50 Schreuder, E., Van Erp, J., Toet, A., & Kallen, V. L. (2016). Emotional responses to multisensory
51
52 environmental stimuli: A conceptual framework and literature review. Sage Open, 6(1),
53
54 2158244016630591.
55
56
57
58 19
59
60 https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/prx
 Psychological Reports Page 20 of 25

Perth Emotional Reactivity Scale-short form

1
2
3
4 Stepp, S. D., Scott, L. N., Jones, N. P., Whalen, D. J., & Hipwell, A. E. (2016). Negative emotional
5
6 reactivity as a marker of vulnerability in the development of borderline personality disorder
7
8 symptoms. Development and Psychopathology, 28(1), 213-224.
9
10
11 Stratta, P., Tempesta, D., Bonanni, R., de Cataldo, S., & Rossi, A. (2014). Emotional reactivity in
12
13 bipolar depressed patients. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 70(9), 860-865.
14
15 Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.): Pearson
16
17
18
Takata, Y., & Sakata, Y. (2004). Development of a psychosomatic complaints scale for
19
adolescents. Psychiatry and clinical neurosciences, 58(1), 3-7.
Fo
20
21
22 Uink, B., Modecki, K. L., Barber, B. L., & Correia, H. M. (2018). Socioeconomically
23
rP

24
disadvantaged adolescents with elevated externalizing symptoms show heightened
25
26
ee

27 emotion reactivity to daily stress: An experience sampling study. Child Psychiatry &
28
29 Human Development, 49(5), 741-756.
rR

30
31 Usler, E. R., & Weber, C. (2021). Emotion processing in children who do and do not stutter: An
32
ev

33
34 ERP study of electrocortical reactivity and regulation to peer facial expressions. Journal of
35
36 Fluency Disorders, 67, 105802.
iew

37
38 van Knippenberg, R. J., de Vugt, M. E., Ponds, R. W., Verhey, F. R., & Myin-Germeys, I. (2018).
39
40
41
Emotional reactivity to daily life stress in spousal caregivers of people with dementia: An
42
43 experience sampling study. PloS one, 13(4), e0194118.
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58 20
59
60 https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/prx
Page 21 of 25 Psychological Reports

Perth Emotional Reactivity Scale-short form

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Fo
20
21
22
23
rP

24
25
26
ee

27
28
29
rR

30
31
32
ev

33
34
35
36
iew

37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44 Figure 1. The assessed Confirmatory factor analysis models for the PERS-S (p <.01)
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55 Table 1. Means and standard deviations of the items of PERS-S
56
57
58 21
59
60 https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/prx
 Psychological Reports Page 22 of 25

Perth Emotional Reactivity Scale-short form

1
2
3
4 Items Mean Std. Deviation
5 RE1 3.83 1.13
6
RE2 3.27 1.16
7
8 RE3 3.96 .924
9 RE4 3.68 1.13
10
RE5 3.68 1.07
11
12 RE6 3.38 1.17
13 RE7 4.02 .924
14 RE8 2.59 1.24
15
16 RE9 4.12 .834
17 RE10 2.56 1.16
18 RE11 3.81 .982
19
RE12 3.70 .999
Fo
20
21 RE13 3.95 .993
22 RE14 3.33 1.133
23
rP

24 RE15 3.78 1.02

25 RE16 3.05 1.16
26 RE17 3.97 .936
ee

27
28 RE18 3.14 1.13
29
rR

30
31
32
ev

33
34
35
36
iew

37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58 22
59
60 https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/prx
Page 23 of 25 Psychological Reports

Perth Emotional Reactivity Scale-short form

1
2
3
4 Table 2. Goodness-of-Fit Index values for the confirmatory Factor Analysis models of the PERS-S
5
6 Model CMIN/df P GFI IFI CFI RMSEA AIC
7
8
2-factor correlated model 2.67 <.001 .902 .902 .901 .06 427.06
9
10
11 6-factor correlated model 2.60 <.001 .904 .91 .906 .06 418.88
12
13 6-factor higher-order model 2.65 <.001 .902 .90 .89 .07 426.73
14
15
16
17
18
19
Fo
20
21
22
23
rP

24
25
26
ee

27
28
29
rR

30
31
32
ev

33
34
35
36
iew

37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58 23
59
60 https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/prx
 Psychological Reports Page 24 of 25

Perth Emotional Reactivity Scale-short form

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Table 3. ccomposite reliability and Cronbach's alpha for the PERS-S and its subscales
9
10 Variable CR Cronbach's alpha
11
12 Emotional Reactivity 0.91 0/81
13
14
15
Positive ER 0.87 0/86
16
17 Negative ER 0.84 0.84
18
19 Note: ER: Emotional Reactivity
Fo
20
21
22
23
rP

24
25
26
ee

27
28
29
rR

30
31
32
ev

33
34
35
36
iew

37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58 24
59
60 https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/prx
Page 25 of 25 Psychological Reports

Perth Emotional Reactivity Scale-short form

1
2
3
4
5
Table 4. Correlations between the studied variables.
6
7
variable GPR P-a P-i P-d GNR N-a N-i N-d
8
9 Self-compassion .24** .19* .19* .27** -.53** -.52** -.40** -.48**
10
11 Psychosomatic -.34** -.21 -.25* -.41** .43** .34** .31** .45**
12
13 Alexithymia -.44** -.38** -.36** -.40** .22 .18 .08 .31**
14
15 ER-suppression -.31** -.36** -.24** -.21** -.03 -.08 -.04 .03
16
17 ER- reappraisal .28** .21** .28** .25** -.30** -.32** -.18** -.27**
18
19 Note: GPR: General Positive Reactivity, P-a: Positive-activation, P-i: Positive-intensity, P-d: Positive-duration, Gnr: General
Fo
20
21 Negative Reactivity, N-a: Negative-activation, N-i: Negative-intensity, N-d: Negative-duration, ER: Emotion Regulation,
22 ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level
23
rP

24 * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level.

25
26
ee

27
28
29
rR

30
31
32
ev

33
34
35
36
iew

37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58 25
59
60 https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/prx