See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/327639199

Don’t Get Too Excited: Assessing Individual Differences in the Down-

Regulation of Positive Emotions

Article in Journal of Personality Assessment · September 2018

DOI: 10.1080/00223891.2018.1501247

CITATIONS READS

0 9,970

3 authors:

Christopher Zou Jason E. Plaks

Ryerson University University of Toronto
16 PUBLICATIONS 362 CITATIONS 60 PUBLICATIONS 2,165 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Jordan B Peterson
University of Toronto
143 PUBLICATIONS 13,868 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Jordan B Peterson on 04 August 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of Personality Assessment

ISSN: 0022-3891 (Print) 1532-7752 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hjpa20

Don't Get Too Excited: Assessing Individual

Differences in the Down-Regulation of Positive
Emotions

Christopher Zou, Jason E. Plaks & Jordan B. Peterson

To cite this article: Christopher Zou, Jason E. Plaks & Jordan B. Peterson (2017): Don't Get Too
Excited: Assessing Individual Differences in the Down-Regulation of Positive Emotions, Journal of
Personality Assessment

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2017.1339711

Published online: 05 Jul 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hjpa20

Download by: [72.142.16.190] Date: 05 July 2017, At: 13:28

JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY ASSESSMENT
https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2017.1339711

Don’t Get Too Excited: Assessing Individual Differences in the Down-Regulation

of Positive Emotions
Christopher Zou, Jason E. Plaks, and Jordan B. Peterson
Department of Psychology, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

A voluminous literature has documented the importance of emotion regulation for health and well-being. Received 14 July 2015
The studies in this literature, however, have generally focused on the down-regulation of negative affect. Revised 5 May 2017
Few studies have examined the down-regulation of positive affect. In Study 1, we constructed a scale, the
revised Regulatory Emotional Self-Efficacy Scale (r–RESE), which assesses both the down- and up-
regulation of positive affect, in addition to the traditional down-regulation of negative affect. In Study 2,
we conducted an extensive validation of the r–RESE scale, using a multimethod approach with informant
ratings, to illustrate that the down-regulation of positive affect represents a process independent of each
of the other forms of emotion regulation. In Study 3, we provided evidence that the ability to down-
regulate positive emotions provides added predictive utility when predicting indexes of impulsivity and
adjustment. Across the studies, we illustrate the potential importance of the down-regulation of positive
emotions as a topic of study for the field of emotion regulation.

Emotion regulation processes influence the experience of posi-
tive and negative emotions (Gross & John, 2003), interpersonal
relationships (Gross & John, 2003), and even physical health
(John & Gross, 2004). Much of the literature on emotion regu-
lation has focused on the effects of different emotion regulation
strategies (i.e., reappraisal, suppression). Fewer studies have
examined individual differences in the ability to implement
such strategies.
Several scales have been constructed to assess emotion
regulation, such as the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation
Scale (DERS; Gratz & Roemer, 2004) and the Implicit The-
ories of Emotion Scale (ITES; Tamir, John, Srivastava, &
Gross, 2007). However, such scales suffer from a number of
limitations. For instance, they typically do not distinguish
between the up-regulation and the down-regulation of emo-
tions, which are distinct processes (Kim & Hamann, 2007).
More important, they rarely assess the regulation of positive
emotions, which has been associated with well-being (e.g.,
Tugade & Fredrickson, 2007).
One emotion regulation scale that does assess self-perceived
ability to regulate negative and positive emotions is the Regula-
tory Emotional Self-Efficacy (RESE) scale (Caprara et al.,
2008). It contains two subfactors for regulating negative affect:
managing despondency and controlling anger. It also includes
items tapping the up-regulation of positive emotions (e.g.,
“How well can you rejoice over successes?”). Higher scores on
both negative and positive emotion subscales, indicating higher
belief in the capacity to control personal emotions, have been
linked to more prosocial behavior (Bandura, Caprara,
Barbaranelli, Gerbino, & Pastorelli, 2003; Caprara et al., 2008),
better adjustment (Caprara et al., 2008), and less delinquency
(Bandura et al., 2003).
As helpful as the RESE has been, a significant limitation is
that it does not address a potentially useful element of emotion
regulation: the down-regulation of positive emotions. Imagine
two friends, A and B. Both are being considered for the same
job. While having dinner with B, A receives a call offering her
the job. Under such circumstances (i.e., an “outperformance
situation”; Exline & Lobel, 1999), it is socially appropriate for A
to attenuate her expression of positive emotion until a more
opportune moment. Recent studies have demonstrated that
individuals who suppressed, rather than expressed, their posi-
tive emotions when outperforming others were evaluated more
positively (Schall, Martiny, Goetz, & Hall, 2016).
Comparatively few studies have focused on the potentially
detrimental consequences of positive emotions (e.g., Tugade &
Fredrickson, 2007). Even fewer have concentrated on the
potential usefulness of its down-regulation. For instance, the
Emotional Regulation Questionnaire (ERQ) by Gross and John
(2003) includes just one item assessing the down-regulation of
positive emotions (“When I am feeling positive emotions, I am
careful not to express them”). Moreover, during scoring, that
item is aggregated with the negative emotion items. Ochsner
and colleagues (2004), however, reported that up-regulation
and down-regulation of emotions invoke unique neural cir-
cuits. Such results suggest the potential utility of assessing emo-
tional down-regulation separately from up-regulation, for both
negative and positive emotions.

CONTACT Christopher Zou christopher.zou@alum.utoronto.ca Department of Psychology, University of Toronto, 100 St. George St., 4th Floor, Sidney Smith
Hall, Toronto, ON M5S 3G3, Canada.

© 2017 Taylor & Francis

2 ZOU, PLAKS, PETERSON
Indeed, extreme cases of mass unregulated positive emotion,
such as celebratory riots, might be rooted in situational cues that
loosen individuals’ ability to down-regulate their positive emo-
tions. At the individual differences level, both mania and impul-
sivity have been linked with excessive positive affectivity
(Fredrickson, 1998; Revelle, Humphreys, Simon, & Gilliland,
1980). Thus although there are numerous studies illustrating the
detrimental effects of negative emotions (Fredrickson, 1998),
excessive positive emotions can also be socially disruptive.
Validation of the revised RESE scale
The original RESE scale assesses individuals’ ability to up-regu-
late positive emotions and down-regulate negative emotions,
but neglects the down-regulation of positive emotions. For this
reason, we generated and selected items for the revised RESE
(r–RESE), adding items that focused specifically on positive
emotion down-regulation. Additionally, given that neuroticism
has been linked to emotion regulation (Shields & Cicchetti,
1997), we examined the discriminant validity of each dimen-
sion from neuroticism. We assessed convergent and discrimi-
nant validity of scores on the r–RESE in Study 2 using a
multimethod approach (Campbell & Fiske, 1959), and evalu-
ated its concurrent validity in Study 3.
One challenge we faced was that there is no reliable objective
criterion by which to validate a person’s emotion regulation
ability. Although researchers have introduced a number of
emotion regulation tasks, such as the emotional Stroop task
(Williams, Mathews, & MacLeod, 1996) and the emotional go–
no-go task (Hare et al., 2008), the reliabilities of scores on such
tasks have either come into question (Algom, Chajut, & Lev,
2004) or are unknown.
Informant reports can be an effective method to obtain
meaningful personality information from an external source
(Vazire, 2006; Zou, Schimmack, & Gere, 2013). Well-
acquainted informants are in a position to provide information
about an individual’s behavior over an extended period of time.
Multiple informant reports increase validity by reducing mea-
surement error (Connelly & Ones, 2010). In Study 2, we exam-
ined the validity of scores on the r–RESE scale with a
multitrait–multimethod (MTMM) approach, using self- and
informant reports from three informants per participant.
In Study 3 we tested the concurrent validity of scores on the
r–RESE by examining how it would predict outcome variables
linked with emotion regulation. We paid particular attention to
the link between emotion regulation and risky behaviors, as
there is evidence that the regulation of positive emotions exerts
unique influence on involvement in delinquency (Caprara &
Gerbino, 2001). However, prior studies have tended to focus on
effective expression of positive emotions. We tested whether
ability to down-regulate positive emotions would be an impor-
tant predictor of risky behaviors. Previous research has demon-
strated that both extraversion and neuroticism uniquely predict
risky behavior (e.g., alcohol abuse, risky sex). Neurotic individu-
als engage in risky behaviors to cope with negative mood states,
whereas extraverted individuals do so to enhance positive affect
(Cooper, Agocha, & Sheldon, 2000). Such work indirectly sug-
gests that the suppression of both positive and negative emotions
might contribute to curbing involvement in risky behaviors.
Study 1
We sought to create a revised measure of emotion regulation
ability that possessed higher face validity and captured domains
of emotion regulation not captured by the original RESE. We
examined whether scores on our measure would exhibit a four-
factor structure: the three factors found in the original RESE
(up-regulation of positive emotions, down-regulation of
despondency and distress, down-regulation of anger; Caprara
et al., 2008), as well as a novel factor, the down-regulation of
positive emotions.
Method
Participants
Four hundred and ninety-five participants (58.4% female) were
recruited through Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (MTurk). The
average age was 33.28 (SD D 12.51, range D 19–88). Given cer-
tain limitations of MTurk samples (e.g., Chandler, Mueller, &
Paolacci, 2014; Crump, McDonnell, & Gureckis, 2013), includ-
ing participation in related experiments and poor attention to
stimuli, we used an undergraduate sample in Study 2. In Study
3 we collected an MTurk sample 3 years after Study 1. Addi-
tionally, the total running time of the surveys on MTurk in this
study and in Study 3 was kept to an average time of 15 min to
sustain participants’ attention.
Materials and procedure
Participants first read a consent form detailing the nature of the
study. Then they completed the questionnaires listed next.
After completing the questionnaires, participants were
debriefed about the purpose of the study and compensated
with $0.50.
r-RESE scale. A group of four graduate students and one fac-
ulty member (including authors of this article) generated a
pool of items for the r–RESE scale and assessed all items’ face
validity with dichotomous yes–no responses. We first examined
the face validity of the 12 items of the original RESE scale using
the widely accepted definition of emotion regulation by Gross
(1998): “the process by which individuals influence which emo-
tions they have, when they have them, and how they experience
and express these emotions” (p. 275). All members of the group
unanimously agreed that the four items tapping the up-regula-
tion of positive affect in the original RESE scale do not capture
people’s ability to regulate their emotions, but rather people’s
ability to react positively to specific events (“express joy when
good things happen to you,” “feel gratified over achieving what
you set out to do,” “rejoice over your successes,” “express
enjoyment freely at parties”). Therefore, these four items evalu-
ating the up-regulation of positive emotions were not retained
in the r–RESE.
However, the group unanimously agreed that the other eight
items of the RESE scale were face valid and were thus retained.
We made slight modifications to the items so that they assessed
people’s general emotion regulation abilities, rather than pro-
cesses deployed in a specific context. For instance, the item
“reduce your upset when you don’t get the appreciation you
feel you deserve,” was changed to, “reduce your upset.”

Next, the group generated an additional 32 items by assess-
ing each potential item’s face validity. We followed the same
structure as the original RESE scale, in which participants rate
how well they can perform the task on a scale from 1 (not very
well) to 7 (extremely well).
To generate the items, we used a deductive approach (Bur-
isch, 1984), based on existing theories about emotions.
Informed by the circumplex model of emotion (Posner, Russell,
& Peterson, 2005), we assessed the regulation of positive and
negative emotions on spectra of valence (pleasantness) and
arousal (activation). Additionally, given evidence that the up-
regulation and down-regulation of emotions are distinct pro-
cesses (Caprara et al., 2008; Kim & Hamann, 2007), we gener-
ated items to tap both processes. The preliminary r–RESE scale
consisted of 8 items assessing the up-regulation of positive
affect (U-POS), 10 items assessing the down-regulation of
despondency or distress (D-DES; 4 from the original RESE
scale), 5 items assessing the down-regulation of anger (D-ANG;
4 from the original RESE scale), and 8 items assessing the
down-regulation of PA (D-POS). Finally, we included 9 items
assessing the up-regulation of negative affect (NA): despon-
dency or distress and anger.
Neuroticism. A possible confound of r–RESE is trait neuroti-
cism. Neuroticism has been defined as emotionality or anxiety,
and has sometimes been used interchangeably with emotional
(in)stability (John & Srivastava, 1999). Therefore, we consid-
ered it necessary to demonstrate that the r–RESE is not another
measure of neuroticism. We assessed neuroticism using the
eight neuroticism items in the Big Five Inventory (BFI; John &
Srivastava, 1999); for example, “I get nervous easily” (1 D
strongly agree to 7 D strongly disagree; a D .88).
Results
Exploratory factor analysis
We used an inductive approach by conducting an exploratory
factor analysis (EFA) on the 40 items using SPSS Version 23.
Following Caprara and colleagues’ (2008) method of factor
analysis, we first conducted a maximum likelihood (ML) factor
analysis using a Promax rotation with the 40 items of the initial
r–RESE. Although the authors of the original RESE conducted
a principal-axis factor analysis in the initial study, none of the
items in the current r–RESE were nonnormally distributed.
Thus, the ML estimation procedure was applied, as recom-
mended by Fabrigar, Wegener, MacCallum, and Strahan
(1999). Following the suggestions of Costello and Osborne
(2005), we omitted items with low communality (< .40) and
items that did not load > .30 on any of the factors. We also
omitted items that loaded > .30 on more than one factor. We
repeated the EFA until all the items maintained a communality
greater than .40, and all the items loaded >.30 on only one fac-
tor. Once the final EFA model was generated, a factor of up-
regulation of NA did not emerge. In the final EFA, there were
three items that assessed the down-regulation of anger. Thus,
we trimmed the number of items in each factor down to three
to keep the number consistent across each factor, while main-
taining the minimum number of items required to maintain a
factor in a factor analysis (Costello & Osborne, 2005). Three of
DIFFERENCES IN DOWN-REGULATION OF POSITIVE EMOTIONS 3
the original RESE items (2 for D-DES and 1 for D-ANG) were
retained in the final version of the r–RESE.
The final r–RESE contained 12 items (Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin
measure of sampling adequacy D .824, and Bartlett’s test of
sphericity was significant, x2(66) D 2374.25, p < .001). Follow-
ing the recommendation by Fabrigar and colleagues (1999), we
conducted a parallel analysis along with a scree test to deter-
mine the number of factors to retain. A parallel analysis (Horn,
1965) was conducted using O’Connor’s (2000) syntax for SPSS
using a permutation test of 1,000 iterations with the same num-
ber of cases and variables as the original data set and an average
eigenvalue of 95% confidence interval (CI) for each factor.
Scree plots (Cattell, 1966) were also examined to supplement
our findings. Both the parallel analysis and the scree test sug-
gested a four-factor solution: D-DES (down-regulation of
despondency), D-ANG (down-regulation of anger), U-POS
(up-regulation of positive emotions), and D-POS (down-regu-
lation of positive emotions). The communalities of all the varia-
bles were greater than .5, and all the factor loadings were
greater than .5.
Descriptive statistics
All analyses in Study 1 were conducted using SPSS Version 23.
All items had a skew and kurtosis value of less than 1.0, sug-
gesting an approximately normal distribution. Three items
assess beliefs about one’s ability to up-regulate positive emo-
tions (U-POS; a D .80), three assess managing despondency or
distress (D-DES; a D .84), three assess managing anger (D-
ANG; a D .81), and three items assess reducing positive emo-
tions (D-POS; a D .78). We averaged the three items across
each factor to create mean composite scores for D-DES, U-
POS, D-ANG, and D-POS. All factors demonstrated good reli-
ability. Descriptive scores for all factors and the full set of items
are provided in Table 1.
We performed Bonferroni-corrected pairwise t tests to
examine differences in composite scores between the four fac-
tors. Of all the factors, the down-regulation of anger (D-ANG)
had the highest score, D-ANG and U-POS, t(489) D 11.27, p <
.001, d D 1.02; D-ANG and D-DES, t(489) D 5.00, p < .001, d
D .45, although it did not differ significantly from D-POS. Sim-
ilarly, down-regulation of positive emotions scores (D-POS)
and down-regulation of despondency or distress (D-DES)
scores did not differ significantly from one another, but both
scores were significantly higher than the up-regulation of posi-
tive emotions (U-POS), D-POS and U-POS, t(489) D 8.14, p <
.001, d D .74; D-POS and D-DES, t(489) D 7.62, p < .001, d D
.69. These results suggest that people believe that they are better
at down-regulating than up-regulating their emotions, and
believe they are best at down-regulating their anger.
Relationship of r–RESE to neuroticism
Although neuroticism was strongly negatively correlated with
D-DES (r D –.66) and D-ANG (r D –.46), it was not as strongly
related to the other factors (D-POS r D –.25; U-POS r D –.26).
This suggests that neuroticism more strongly reflects individu-
als’ beliefs about their inability to regulate negative emotions
(»30% shared variance), rather than positive emotions (»6%
shared variance).
4 ZOU, PLAKS, PETERSON

Table 1. Factor loadings and communalities based on a maximum-likelihood factor analysis with promax rotation for 12 items from the revised Regulatory Emotional Self-
Efficacy (r–RESE) scale.
D-DES U-POS D-POS D-ANG Com

1. Manage negative feelings? .72 .07 .02 .04 .63

2. Keep from getting discouraged in the face of difficulties? .93 ¡.07 ¡.08 ¡.10 .68
3. Reduce your upset? .74 .03 .00 .07 .63
4. Act excited for events you’re actually not excited about? ¡.09 .77 .03 ¡.01 .54
5. Be happy even when you’re not? .15 .68 .03 ¡.07 .58
6. Act cheerful even though you don’t feel that way? ¡.04 .83 ¡.07 .04 .64
7. Keep from getting overly excited? .03 ¡.04 .72 .01 .52
8. Contain your excitement? ¡.02 .05 .75 .00 .58
9. Avoid becoming overly energetic? ¡.05 ¡.02 .78 ¡.03 .55
10. Avoid losing your temper? ¡.04 ¡.06 .00 .91 .76
11. Avoid flying off the handle when you get angry? ¡.05 .01 ¡.06 .84 .64
12. Cool off when feeling angry? .23 .08 .10 .46 .50
Eigenvalue 4.53 1.70 1.44 1.10
Randomly generated eigenvalue 1.27 1.20 1.14 1.10
M 4.60 4.08 4.72 4.92
SD 1.38 1.40 1.38 1.42

Note. N D 484. D-DES D down-regulation of despondency or distress; U-POS D up-regulation of positive emotions; D-POS D down-regulation of positive emotions; DANG
D down-regulation of anger. The randomly generated eigenvalues are principal component eigenvalues from a parallel analysis, which is the recommended procedure
by Cattell (O’Connor, 2000). However, randomly generated common/principal factor eigenvalues using parallel analysis suggest a three-factor solution as the fourth fac-
tor eigenvalue is lower than the randomly generated eigenvalue (actual eigenvalue D 1.10 vs. randomly generated eigenvalue D 1.13) and this is the preferred method
among some experts. However, an additional analysis using Velicer’s minimum average partial (MAP) test confirms a four-factor solution and thus a four-factor solution
was retained. Bold values represent the items that assess the specific factor.

Discussion using an MTMM approach with informant ratings. As such,

Study 2 represented the first test (to our knowledge) of the
In Study 1, factor analyses revealed separate factors for the up-
validity of informant reports of emotion regulation. Given
regulation of positive emotion, the down-regulation of two neg-
recent evidence suggesting that use of emotional suppression
ative emotions, and the down-regulation of positive emotions
can be detected with some accuracy by informants (Impett
as its own distinct factor. Although neuroticism was strongly
et al., 2012), we expected to find high self–informant agree-
correlated with D-DES and D-ANG, it was weakly correlated
ment. By combining self- and informant ratings, we could
with D-POS and U-POS, demonstrating initial evidence of dis-
examine whether the factor structure would hold even when
criminant validity of scores on the r–RESE from neuroticism.
controlling for shared method variance (Campbell & Fiske,
This finding is consistent with Larsen and Ketelaar (1991), who
1959).
found that neurotic individuals are more susceptible to negative
emotions, but not to positive emotions.
We did not retain any items assessing the up-regulation of Method
negative emotions. Thus, the final r–RESE consisted of four
Participants
components: the up-regulation of positive emotions, the down-
Two hundred and twenty-five undergraduates (75.1% female)
regulation of positive emotions, the down-regulation of
were recruited from the University of Toronto introductory
despondency or distress, and the down-regulation of anger.
psychology pool. The average age was 18.89 (SD D 2.79, range
Given that up-regulation of negative emotion is rare, people
D 17–38). Each participant provided three informant reports.
might not hold firm beliefs about this skill. Future research
One hundred and ninety-one participants (84.9%) provided all
might reveal such a factor in certain subgroups (e.g., doctors,
three informant reports from individuals who have known the
social workers) who might be highly practiced at amplifying
target for over 2 years. Two participants returned two question-
negative emotional states (e.g., vicarious pain) to enhance
naires and one participant returned one questionnaire. The
empathic responding.
total analytic sample for Study 2 consisted of 803 reports (225
We were not able to assess gender differences in r–RESE in
self-reports, 578 informant reports).
this study as we did not examine measurement invariance
across genders. Previous studies have found some gender dif-
Materials and procedure
ferences in emotion regulation (e.g., McRae, Ochsner, Mauss,
Participants completed a booklet of questionnaires, which
Gabrieli, & Gross, 2008), but none have looked at potential gen-
included the r–RESE scale (U-POS, a D .69; D-POS, a D .81;
der differences in the down-regulation of positive emotions.
D-DES, a D .84; D-ANG, a D .81), and the neuroticism scale
This would be an interesting avenue for future research to
from the BFI (a D .82). Next, they were asked to use the enve-
explore.
lopes provided to distribute the questionnaires to three differ-
ent informants who have known them for more than 2 years.
They were asked to be absent when the informants were com-
Study 2
pleting the questionnaires. Informants were instructed to seal
The principal aim of Study 2 was to confirm the factor structure their responses in the envelope, sign the seal, and return it to
of Study 1 by conducting a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) the participant to submit to the lab. The informant

Figure 1. Confirmatory factor analysis of revised Regulatory Emotional Self-Efficacy Scale (r–RESE) for Study 2. Note. Numbers are standardized. DDES D down-regulation
of despondency or distress; DANG D down-regulation of anger; DPOS D down-regulation of positive emotions; UPOS D up-regulation of positive emotions; S D self-
report; I D informant report. All the same methods were allowed to correlate with one another (i.e., self-reports with self-reports, Informant 1 reports with Informant 1
reports, Informant 2 reports with Informant 2 reports, Informant 3 reports with Informant 3 reports), which are not shown in the figure.
questionnaires included the r–RESE scale and the neuroticism
scale from the BFI. Each question was rephrased so that it
referred to the target participant. When participants returned
all responses to the lab, they were debriefed and compensated
with partial course credit.
Analytic approach. We examined the self-informant data in
two ways: the traditional MTMM approach (Campbell & Fiske,
1959), and CFA using structural equation modeling (SEM). To
construct our MTMM matrix, we correlated mean composite
scores from each of the r–RESE factors from the self- and infor-
mant reports. To model the MTMM data using SEM, we mod-
eled the correlated uniqueness (CU) model1 (Figure 1; Lance,
Noble, & Scullen, 2002). The CU model is one way of modeling
self-informant data that allows measures from the same
method to correlate with one another (e.g., self-report with
self-report, informant report with informant report) to account
for shared method variance. However, one limitation of the CU
model is that it assumes that the independent methods are not
correlated (e.g., self-report and informant report; Conway,
Lievens, Scullen, & Lance, 2004). However, given that we
obtained one self-report and three informant reports from
three independent informants, the CU model is appropriate for
our data. We conducted the SEM analyses using Mplus 5.0 soft-
ware (Muth
en & Muth
en, 2007). The remaining analyses were
conducted on SPSS version 23. Because Mplus can account for
missing data using a full information ML estimation, we
included all participants in the analysis. Model fit was assessed
using a standard criteria of comparative fit index (CFI) > .95,
root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) < .06, and
standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) < .08 (Hu &
Bentler, 1999). Because chi-square difference tests are suscepti-
ble to large sample sizes (Raftery, 1995), model comparisons
were assessed using the Bayesian information criterion (BIC)
1
We initially fit a correlated trait–correlated method (CTCM) model but the model
did not converge. Thus, as suggested by Lance et al. (2002), once the CTCM
model failed, the CU model was chosen.
DIFFERENCES IN DOWN-REGULATION OF POSITIVE EMOTIONS 5
and Akaike’s information criterion (AIC), with lower BIC and
AIC values indicating better fit. Specifically, an AIC and BIC
difference greater than 10 provides strong evidence to support
the model with lower value (Burnham & Anderson, 2002; Raf-
tery, 1995).
We constructed the base CU model based on our findings to
confirm the factor structure observed in the EFA in Study 1
(Figure 1). Each r–RESE factor (D-POS, U-POS, D-DES, D-
ANG) was extracted from its respective three items. We also
allowed all factors of the r–RESE to correlate with one another
as Study 1 demonstrated that they were not strictly indepen-
dent. Because we arbitrarily assigned informants as Informant
1, Informant 2, and Informant 3, informants were assumed to
be equally valid by restricting the residual variances of all infor-
mant ratings to be equal. We allowed all the same methods
(i.e., self-reports with self-reports, Informant 1 reports with
Informant 1 reports, Informant 2 reports with Informant 2
reports, Informant 3 reports with Informant 3 reports) to cor-
relate with one another to account for shared method variance
(e.g., self-report of DERS was allowed to correlate with self-
report of POS).
We then compared the base model with alternative mod-
els that were similarly tested in Caprara and colleagues’
(2008) study. First we tested an alternative model with an
overarching general RESE factor extracted from the four
factors, with the four factors becoming secondary factors.
Second, we tested for the potential existence of second-
order factors. As positive emotion regulation and negative
emotion regulation have been shown to be distinct from
one another (e.g., Caprara et al., 2008), it might be possible
to observe a secondary factor that distinguishes between the
regulation of positive emotions versus negative emotions.
We initially examined a model with a secondary factor
comprised of just the regulation of negative emotions,
which was found in Caprara and colleagues’ (2008) CFA
study of the original RESE. We then assessed a model with
two secondary factors of managing positive emotions and
managing negative emotions.
6 ZOU, PLAKS, PETERSON

Table 2. Multitrait–multimethod matrix of Regulatory Emotional Self-Efficacy Scale and neuroticism.

Self-report Informant report

U-POS D-POS D-DES D-ANG N iU-POS iD-POS iD-DES iD-ANG iN

Self
U-POS
D-POS .12
D-DES .16 .17
D-ANG .23 .18 .49
N ¡.06 ¡.06 ¡.60 ¡.45
Informant
iU-POS .30 ¡.02 .20 .23 ¡.20
iD-POS .07 .29 .17 .17 ¡.05 .27
iD-DES .13 .05 .34 .27 ¡.39 .58 .45
iD-ANG .11 .10 .21 .36 ¡.34 .59 .46 .76
iN ¡.10 ¡.04 ¡.37 ¡.33 .55 ¡.42 ¡.32 ¡.67 ¡.63
M 4.08 4.18 4.28 4.43 3.12 4.16 4.14 4.50 4.55 2.80
SD 1.29 1.41 1.37 1.39 0.77 0.88 0.80 0.99 0.99 0.61

Note. r > .16 is significant at p < .05; r > .13 is significant at p < .1. Convergent validity coefficients are shown in bold. U-POS D up-regulation of positive emotions; D-
POS D down-regulation of positive emotions; D-DES D down-regulation of despondency or distress; D-ANG D down-regulation of anger; N D neuroticism; i D infor-
mant report.

Results there were also instances of overlap between particular r–RESE

Descriptive statistics
For the descriptive statistics (Table 2), we only included partici-
pants who returned all three questionnaires. To increase the
reliability and validity of the informant report data, we created
a composite informant score by averaging across informant
reports (Lucas, Diener, & Suh, 1996; Sandvik, Diener, & Seid-
litz, 1993; interrater reliability (k): U-POS D .54, D-POS D .39,
D-DES D .68, D-ANG D .50). The interrater reliability of
scores on the r–RESE was within the range of those found in
well-being and affect measures (Zou et al., 2013). Full descrip-
tive statistics are presented in Table 2.
Multitrait–multimethod matrix. Table 2 presents all correla-
tions between the factors of r–RESE and neuroticism based on
self- and informant reports. Correlations between the same
construct assessed using different methods (i.e., convergent
validity coefficients) are shown in bold. All convergent validity
coefficients were greater than .29. Additionally, there was only
a single instance where the self-informant convergent coeffi-
cient was weaker than any associated self-informant correlation
in the corresponding row and columns, which provides evi-
dence for discriminant validity (Campbell & Fiske, 1959). The
correlation between D-DES self-ratings and D-DES informant
ratings was .34, the correlation of D-DES self-ratings with neu-
roticism informant ratings was –.37, and the correlation of D-
DES informant ratings with neuroticism self-ratings was –.39.
Replicating Study 1, D-DES appears to overlap with neuroti-
cism. Next, to provide further support for the findings pre-
sented in the MTMM matrix (Kenny & Kashy, 1992), we
conducted a CFA based on the MTMM matrix.
Confirmatory factor analysis. This base model (Figure 1) had
acceptable fit to the data, x2(90) D 120.29, CFI D 0.982, RMSEA
D 0.039, SRMR D 0.066, AIC D 8681.58, BIC D 8893.10), and
served as the base model to which we compared alternative
models. As depicted in Figure 1, all four factors of r–RESE
showed evidence of independence from one another, although
factors. Additionally, informant reports of r–RESE had higher
loadings than self-reports of r–RESE. This was expected because
the design included only one self-report compared to three
informant reports. Indeed, constraining the residual variances of
self-reports and informant reports to be equally valid worsened
the model fit, x2(100) D 167.67, CFI D 0.959, RMSEA D 0.055,
SRMR D 0.103, AIC D 8708.96, BIC D 8886.37).2
We then tested an alternative model with one general RESE
factor represented by the shared variance across all four r–
RESE factors as secondary factors. This worsened the model fit
when compared with the base model, x2(df D 92) D 145.81,
CFI D 0.967, RMSEA D 0.051, SRMR D 0.076, AIC D 8703.11,
BIC D 8907.80. This suggests that the four factors of RESE do
not share a common factor. We then fit a secondary factor
comprised of D-DES and D-ANG to replicate Caprara and col-
leagues’ (2008) CFA model. This also worsened model fit, x2(df
D 92) D 150.97, CFI D 0.964, RMSEA D 0.053, SRMR D
0.085, AIC D 8708.26, BIC D 8912.96. We then fit a model
with two oblique secondary factors with one consisting of the
positive emotions (D-POS, U-POS), and the other the negative
emotions (D-DES, D-ANG). This model also displayed poorer
fit, x2(df D 91) D 143.50, CFI D 0.968, RMSEA D 0.051, SRMR
D 0.086, AIC D 8702.79, BIC D 8910.91. Taken together, the
four-factor model represented the best fit for the data.
Discussion
Using an MTMM approach provided evidence that there are
four related, but distinguishable components of the r–RESE.
Replicating findings from Study 1, we found that neuroticism
was associated with the regulation of negative, but not positive,
emotions.
These data provide the first evidence for the validity of
informant reports of emotion regulation. There was moder-
ate self-informant agreement in the r–RESE, which is
2
Whereas the BIC value was slightly lower than 10, model fit worsened on all
other fit indexes.

consistent with findings from informant reports of other
stable individual difference characteristics such as personal-
ity (e.g., Vazire, 2006) and well-being (Zou et al., 2013).
Thus, these data suggest that future researchers might use
informant reports as an additional tool—beyond self-
report—for assessing emotion regulation.
Although the informant reports did converge with the
self-reports, the MTMM matrix suggests that informants
are less able to discriminate the r–RESE factors than partici-
pants themselves. For example, examining the correlations
in the informant monomethod triangle in Table 2, the cor-
relation between D-POS and neuroticism was –.32, which is
markedly higher than the –.06 correlation between self-
reported D-POS and self-reported neuroticism. In fact, all
correlations in the informant monomethod triangle were
higher than the corresponding correlations in the self-report
monomethod triangle. A similar pattern has been observed
in previous work examining the discriminant validity of
well-being measures using self- and informant reports
(Lucas et al., 1996). This suggests a potential limitation
with using informant reports to assess internal feelings.
Based on this finding, researchers should be wary of using
only informant reports and should collect self-reports in
conjunction with informant reports to increase validity.
Although in Study 2 all four factors were correlated with
one another, the correlations observed in Study 2 were gen-
erally lower than in Study 1. One potential explanation for
this might be that Study 1’s MTurk sample was evenly split
between genders and possessed greater variability in age. In
contrast, the undergraduate sample in Study 2 was dispro-
portionately female and highly restricted in age range.
Given the gender and age differences found in previous
studies on emotion regulation (e.g., Urry & Gross, 2010),
these demographic differences could account for the differ-
ences between the two samples.
These data did not reveal the factor comprised of DES and
ANG reported by Caprara and colleagues (2008). However,
Caprara et al. (2008) found that the three-factor solution
(where DES, ANG, and POS were modeled as three separate
factors) fit equally as well as the two-factor solution (i.e., POS
and NEG) with a second-order negative factor (i.e., NEG !
DES & ANG). Although negative emotions are often combined
(e.g., Watson & Tellegen, 1985), there is growing behavioral
and neurophysiological evidence that anger is unique among
negative emotions in its association with approach motivation
(Carver & Harmon-Jones, 2009). Future researchers might ben-
efit from distinguishing between the regulation of anger versus
despondency.
Study 3
Caprara and colleagues (2008) reported that all three factors of
the original RESE scale positively predicted indicators of adjust-
ment (e.g., self-esteem, prosocial behavior) and negatively pre-
dicted indicators of maladjustment (e.g., depression,
aggression). In Study 3, we examined whether beliefs regarding
the down-regulation of positive emotions would provide addi-
tional predictive power to predict adjustment and impulsivity.
We focused specifically on measures of risky behaviors given
DIFFERENCES IN DOWN-REGULATION OF POSITIVE EMOTIONS 7
existing evidence that positive emotions play a specific role in
impulsivity (Furnham & Thompson, 1991; Revelle et al., 1980).
Participants
Four hundred and eighty-three participants (54.2% female)
were recruited from Amazon’s MT. The average age was 36.67
(SD D 12.41, range D 19–77).
Materials and procedure
After completing the consent form, participants completed the
questionnaires listed next. Afterward, they were thanked and
debriefed.
r–RESE
The r–RESE was distributed to the participants. Scores on each
dimension once again showed good reliabilities (U-POS,
a D .77; D-POS, a D .79; D-DES, a D .82; D-ANG, a D .84).
Attachment style
The Revised Adult Attachment Scale (RAAS) for close relation-
ships (Collins, 1996) assesses people’s general attachment style
with close others. The anxious dimension examines the extent
to which people worry about their close relationships (a D .93).
The avoidant dimension assesses the extent to which people
attempt to avoid becoming attached altogether (a D .91).
Self-esteem
We assessed self-esteem using the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale
(Rosenberg, 1979), which is a 10-item scale that measures
global self-worth (a D .93).
Resilience
The Resilience Scale for Adults (RSA; Friborg, Hjemdal, Rose-
nvinge, & Martinussen, 2003) is a 45-item measure of resilience
with five dimensions: personal competence, social competence,
family coherence, social support, and personal structure. Scores
on this scale demonstrated good reliability (a D .96).
Health
The SMU Health Questionnaire (Watson, 1988; Watson &
Pennebaker, 1989) is a 63-item measure that assesses a broad
range of health problems including minor complaints (e.g.,
cold or flu) and major health complications (e.g., cancer) expe-
rienced in the past year. Higher scores indicate worse health.
The scale includes six items that assess the number of days
spent in the hospital in the past year for the following prob-
lems: surgery, childbirth, psychological problems, injury, ill-
ness, and drug or alcohol problems. For the purposes of this
study, our main interest was in the number of days hospitalized
due to injury and drug or alcohol problems, as these were taken
as proxy indicators of engagement in risky behaviors. We
hypothesized that there would be a negative association
between the ability to down-regulate positive emotions and
risky behaviors.
8 ZOU, PLAKS, PETERSON

Table 3. Correlation matrix of Regulatory Emotional Self-Efficacy Scale (RESE) and life outcomes.

RESE Adult attachment Health

D-POS U-POS D-ANG D-DES AX AV RES HOSP–D/A HOSP–INJ

D-POS
U-POS .19
D-ANG .36 .28
D-DES .31 .40 .65
SE .14 .18 .30 .42
AA–AX ¡.16 ¡.08 ¡.27 ¡.42
AA–AV ¡.05 ¡.24 ¡.31 ¡.40 .62
RES .15 .34 .38 .56 ¡.52 ¡.65
HOSP–D/A ¡.04 .03 .03 .02 .04 .04 ¡.02
HOSP–INJ ¡.15 .02 ¡.05 ¡.07 .05 .01 .00 .03
M 4.99 4.21 4.93 4.57 2.61 2.79 3.70 0.09 0.15
SD 1.20 1.24 1.31 1.29 1.12 0.84 0.67 0.87 0.92

Note. N D 483. All correlations above .14 are significant at p < .01. D-POS D down-regulation of positive emotions; U-POS D up-regulation of positive emotions; D-ANG D
down-regulation of anger; D-DES D down-regulation of despondency or distress; AX D anxiety; AV D avoidance; RES D resilience; HOSP D number of days hospitalized;
D/A D drug or alcohol problems; INJ D injury; SE D self-esteem.

Analytic approach
We first examined the associations between the r–RESE fac-
tors and outcome scores with a series of correlations. We
then examined whether D-POS uniquely predicted any of
the outcome variables by modeling a series of regression
analyses with the four r–RESE factors as simultaneous pre-
dictors to examine how they each independently predict the
different outcomes.
Results
Table 3 provides correlations among the four mean com-
posite scores of r–RESE factors and all outcomes. D-ANG
and D-DES were consistently associated with all the out-
comes except the number of days hospitalized due to injury
and drug or alcohol problems. Better up-regulation of posi-
tive emotions was related to higher self-esteem, lower avoid-
ance, and higher resilience. Better down-regulation of
positive emotions was related to self-esteem and resilience
and lower levels of relationship anxiety.
Because the D-POS was a novel factor in the r–RESE, we
compared the correlations between D-POS and the four out-
come variables (avoidance, anxiety, self-esteem, resilience) with
the correlations among the other three factors (U-POS, D-DES,
D-ANG) and the outcome variables. To account for multiple
comparisons, each p value was adjusted using Bonferroni correc-
tion. Comparing D-POS to U-POS, there was a significant differ-
ence in the correlations for avoidance dimension of attachment
(z D 3.02, p D .003) and resilience (z D 3.14, p D .002). Com-
paring D-POS with D-ANG, differences in the correlations were
once again observed in the avoidance dimension of attachment
(z D 4.19, p < .001) and resilience (z D 3.86, p < .001). In com-
parisons between D-POS and D-DES, differences were observed
for all outcome measures: self-esteem (z D 4.75, p < .001), the
anxiety dimension of attachment (z D 4.44, p < .001), the avoid-
ance dimension of attachment (z D 5.79, p < .001), and resil-
ience ( D 7.46, p < .001). The differences in patterns of
correlations between D-POS and the other factors of r–RESE
provide further evidence that the D-POS is somewhat unique.
Focusing on risky behavior outcomes, as predicted, higher
D-POS was related to fewer days of hospitalization due to
injury. None of the r–RESE factors was significantly correlated
with hospitalization due to drug or alcohol problems.
When we entered all four factors of r–RESE simultaneously
into a regression analysis, the D-POS factor did not uniquely
predict most of the outcomes,3 with the notable exception of
the hospitalization measures. In the first model, we used the
number of hospitalizations due to injury as the outcome vari-
able. We conducted a negative binomial regression to take into
account that the outcome measure (i.e., number of days of hos-
pitalization) is a count variable. Higher D-POS significantly
predicted fewer days of hospitalizations due to injury (inci-
dence rate ratio [IRR] D .47, 95% CI [.36, .60], p < .001). More-
over, higher U-POS predicted more hospitalization days due to
injury (IRR D 1.53, 95% CI [1.15, 2.02], p D .003). We also rep-
licated the same pattern with the number of hospitalizations
due to drugs or alcohol problems (D-POS: IRR D .58, 95% CI
[.42, .78], p < .001; U-POS D 1.40, 95% CI [1.01, 1.95], p D
.04).4 Both of these results held when controlling for age and
gender.
In sum, these results suggest that the ability to curb one’s
exuberance uniquely predicts a lower likelihood of ending up
in the hospital due to injury, substance abuse, or both. More-
over, the reverse appeared to be true: The tendency to amplify
positive emotion predicted higher occurrence of the same nega-
tive outcomes.
Discussion
These data provide evidence that the down-regulation of posi-
tive emotions and the up-regulation of positive emotions might
be related to distinct outcomes. These data lend further support
for the convergent validity of the D-POS factor. Specifically, D-
POS was related to lower anxiety scores on the attachment
measure, greater resilience, and fewer days of hospitalization
due to injury. The correlation table also illustrates that the D-
POS factor behaves slightly differently from the other three
3
D-POS was uniquely predictive of the avoidance subscale of the attachment
scale, but in the opposite direction from what we expected, where higher D-POS
was significantly related to greater avoidance, b D .08, t(436) D 2.35, p D .02.
4
D-ANG also uniquely predicted the number of days in the opposite direction (IRR
D 1.51, 95% CI [1.02, 2.22], p D .04).

components of r–RESE. This provides further support for the
discriminant validity of the D-POS construct.5 Furthermore,
D-POS was uniquely predictive of hospitalizations due to injury
and substance abuse when simultaneously entered into a
regression equation with the other components of r–RESE.
This represents evidence of incremental convergent validity
above and beyond the other r–RESE factors.
We acknowledge that the cross-sectional, correlational
design does not permit a conclusive determination of the direc-
tion of causality. Although it is plausible that the inability to
down-regulate positive emotions causes people to engage in
behaviors that result in hospitalization, it is also possible that
engaging in these behaviors worsens people’s ability to down-
regulate positive emotions. For instance, recent alcohol con-
sumption is common in serious offenses (Elliott, Huizinga, &
Menard, 1989). Future researchers could use manipulations or
longitudinal designs to help to disentangle questions of causal
direction.
The finding that the ability to down-regulate positive emo-
tions independently predicts days of hospitalization due to
injury and alcohol or drug use has direct clinical implications
for the treatment of alcoholism and drug addiction. It might
also shed light on what drives delinquent behavior more gener-
ally. Given the link between extraversion and positive emotions
(Watson & Clark, 1997), these data suggest that the link
between extraversion and delinquency is attributable in part to
individuals’ inability to down-regulate positive emotions rather
than negative emotions. We acknowledge, however, that the
dependent measures in this study were indirect indicators of
delinquency. Future studies should replicate our findings with
more direct measures of delinquency.
Another limitation is that it is unclear whether the self-effi-
cacy aspect of r–RESE or actual emotion regulation ability
drove the observed effects. In other words, does simply holding
the belief that one is good at regulating emotions lead to these
positive outcomes, or are these beliefs an indicator of one’s
actual emotion regulation ability? Future studies would benefit
from the inclusion of another indicator of emotion regulation
abilities (e.g., informant reports) that might disentangle subjec-
tive beliefs from actual emotion regulation ability.
General discussion
Although there is strong evidence demonstrating the positive
impact of successful emotion regulation (e.g., DeSteno, Gross,
& Kubzansky, 2013; Gross, 2013), prior measures of individual
differences in self-reported emotion regulation ability have gen-
erally failed to assess regulation of both negative and positive
emotions. One questionnaire that does address both forms of
regulation is the RESE scale. This study made improvements to
the RESE scale and more thoroughly examined the validity of
scores on the revised scale using self- and informant reports.
An EFA (Study 1) and a CFA using MTMM data (Study 2)
both suggested that there are four distinct but related subscales
in the r–RESE. Each component of the r–RESE behaves
5
We could not conduct a formal test to compare the strength of all the correla-
tions as there would be too many tests to be conducted (4 RESE components
and 6 outcome measures D 45 comparisons).
DIFFERENCES IN DOWN-REGULATION OF POSITIVE EMOTIONS 9
differently when predicting life outcomes; down-regulation of
positive emotions uniquely predicts proxies for risky behaviors
(Study 3). Such data suggest that a comprehensive model of
emotion regulation ability should include the down-regulation
of positive emotions.
Limitations and future directions
Future studies should examine how the regulations of specific
emotions are related to one another. For instance, it is unclear
whether the down-regulation of anger is related to the down-
regulation of sadness. It would also be useful to distinguish
between the valence of emotions and the arousal of emotions to
observe whether the regulation of emotional valence might dif-
fer from the regulation of emotional arousal (Posner et al.,
2005).
We did not find evidence for another potential compo-
nent of emotion regulation—the up-regulation of negative
emotions (U-NEG; Ochsner et al., 2004). For instance, a
recent study suggests that faking anger in different ways
can lead to more favorable or unfavorable negotiation out-
comes (C^ot
e, Hideg, & van Kleef, 2013). Although there
might be some circumstances in which the up-regulation of
negative emotions is appropriate (e.g., a funeral), we suggest
that these situations are generally rare. Our data indicate
that people do not hold firm beliefs about their ability to
up-regulate negative emotions.
Another possibility, however, is that that we did not
phrase the questions properly to effectively distinguish emo-
tional self-efficacy beliefs from actual emotion regulation
ability. This possibility is muted somewhat by the informant
reports in Study 2; informants were not asked about the
individual’s beliefs about his or her emotion regulation abil-
ities (i.e., “To what extent does the individual see him/her-
self as being good at reducing their upset?”), but rather the
individual’s objective emotion regulation abilities (i.e., “To
what extent is the individual good at reducing their
upset?”). Nevertheless, future researchers might consider
teasing apart the two constructs more explicitly.
Conclusion
Using an MTMM approach, we present data supporting the use
of a new tool for measuring trait-level ability to down-regulate
negative emotions and both down-regulate and up-regulate
positive emotions. Using this tool, these data suggest that future
researchers would do well to consider the down-regulation of
positive affect as an independent psychological experience with
meaningful behavioral consequences.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank and acknowledge the members of the Plaks lab for
their assistance in the initial development of the scale and Quyet Dinh for
organizing the data. We would also like to thank the members of
Dr. Impett's Relationship and Well-Being Lab for their helpful comments
on the earlier version of the manuscript.
10 ZOU, PLAKS, PETERSON
Funding
This research project was supported by a standard research grant awarded
to Jason Plaks and Jordan B. Peterson by the Canadian Social Sciences and
Humanities Research Council.
References
Algom, D., Chajut, E., & Lev, S. (2004). A rational look at the emotional
Stroop phenomenon: A generic slowdown, not a Stroop effect. Journal
of Experimental Psychology: General, 133, 323–338.
Bandura, A., Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Gerbino, M., & Pastor-
elli, C. (2003). Role of affective self-regulatory efficacy in diverse
spheres of psychosocial functioning. Child Development, 74, 769–
782.
Burisch, M. (1984). Approaches to personality inventory construction: A
comparison of merits. American Psychologist, 39, 214–227.
Burnham, K. P., & Anderson, D. R. (2002). Model selection and multimodel
inference: A practical information-theoretic approach. New York, NY:
Springer Science & Business Media.
Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant vali-
dation by the multitrait–multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56
(2), 81–105.
Caprara, G. V., Di Giunta, L., Eisenberg, N., Gerbino, M., Pastorelli, C., &
Tramontano, C. (2008). Assessing regulatory emotional self-efficacy in
three countries. Psychological Assessment, 20, 227–237.
Caprara, G. V., & Gerbino, M. (2001). Autoefficacia Emotiva Percepita: La
capacita di regolare l’affettivita negativa e di esprimere quella positiva
[Affective perceived self-efficacy: The capacity to regulate negative
affect and to express positive affect]. In G. V. Caprara (Ed.), La valuta-
zione dell’autoefficacia [Self-efficacy assessment] (pp. 35–50). Trento,
Italy: Edizioni Erickson.
Carver, C. S., & Harmon-Jones, E. (2009). Anger is an approach-related
affect: Evidence and implications. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 183–204.
Cattell, R. B. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate
Behavioral Research, 1, 245–276.
Chandler, J., Mueller, P., & Paolacci, G. (2014). Nonna€ıvet
e among Ama-
zon Mechanical Turk workers: Consequences and solutions for behav-
ioral researchers. Behavior Research Methods, 46, 112–130.
Collins, N. L. (1996). Working models of attachment: Implications for
explanation, emotion, and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 71, 810–832.
Connelly, B. S., & Ones, D. S. (2010). An other perspective on personality:
Meta-analytic integration of observers’ accuracy and predictive validity.
Psychological Bulletin, 136, 1092–1122.
Conway, J. M., Lievens, F., Scullen, S. E., & Lance, C. E. (2004). Bias in the
correlated uniqueness model for MTMM data. Structural Equation
Modeling, 11, 535–559.
Cooper, M. L., Agocha, V. B., & Sheldon, M. S. (2000). A motivational per-
spective on risky behaviors: The role of personality and affect regula-
tory processes. Journal of Personality, 68, 1059–1088.
Costello, A. B., & Osborne, J. W. (2005). Best practices in exploratory fac-
tor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your
analysis. Practical Assessment, Research, & Evaluation, 10, 1–9.
C^ot
e, S., Hideg, I., & van Kleef, G. A. (2013). The consequences of faking
anger in negotiations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49,
453–463.
Crump, M. J., McDonnell, J. V., & Gureckis, T. M. (2013). Evaluating
Amazon’s Mechanical Turk as a tool for experimental behavioral
research. PloS ONE, 8(3), e57410. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0057410
DeSteno, D., Gross, J. J., & Kubzansky, L. (2013). Affective science and
health: The importance of emotion and emotion regulation. Health
Psychology, 32, 474–486.
Elliott, D. S., Huizinga, D., & Menard, S. (1989). Multiple problem youth:
Delinquency, substance use, and mental health problems. New York,
NY: Springer-Verlag.
Exline, J. J., & Lobel, M. (1999). The perils of outperformance: Sensitivity
about being the target of a threatening upward comparison. Psychologi-
cal Bulletin, 125, 307–337.
Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999).
Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological
research. Psychological Methods, 4, 272–299.
Fredrickson, B. L. (1998). What good are positive emotions? Review of
General Psychology, 2, 300–319.
Friborg, O., Hjemdal, O., Rosenvinge, J. H., & Martinussen, M. (2003). A
new rating scale for adult resilience: What are the central protective
resources behind healthy adjustment? International Journal of Methods
in Psychiatric Research, 12(2), 65–76.
Furnham, A., & Thompson, J. (1991). Personality and self-reported delin-
quency. Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 585–593.
Gratz, K. L., & Roemer, L. (2004). Multidimensional assessment of emo-
tion regulation and dysregulation: Development, factor structure, and
initial validation of the difficulties in emotion regulation scale. Journal
of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 26, 41–54.
Gross, J. J. (1998). The emerging field of emotion regulation: An integrative
review. Review of General Psychology, 2, 271–299.
Gross, J. J. (2013). Emotion regulation: Taking stock and moving forward.
Emotion, 13, 359–365.
Gross, J. J., & John, O. P. (2003). Individual differences in two emotion reg-
ulation processes: Implications for affect, relationships, and well-being.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 348–362.
Hare, T. A., Tottenham, N., Galvan, A., Voss, H. U., Glover, G. H., &
Casey, B. J. (2008). Biological substrates of emotional reactivity and
regulation in adolescence during an emotional go-nogo task. Biological
Psychiatry, 63, 927–934.
Horn, J. L. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor
analysis. Psychometrika, 30, 179–185.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance
structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struc-
tural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.
Impett, E. A., Kogan, A., English, T., John, O., Oveis, C., Gordon, A. M., &
Keltner, D. (2012). Suppression sours sacrifice: Emotional and rela-
tional costs of suppressing emotions in romantic relationships. Person-
ality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 707–720.
John, O. P., & Gross, J. J. (2004). Healthy and unhealthy emotion regula-
tion: Personality processes, individual differences, and life span devel-
opment. Journal of Personality, 72, 1301–1334.
John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five trait taxonomy: History,
measurement, and theoretical perspectives. Handbook of Personality:
Theory and Research, 2, 102–138.
Kenny, D. A., & Kashy, D. A. (1992). Analysis of the multitrait–multime-
thod matrix by confirmatory factor analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 112,
165–172.
Kim, S., & Hamann, S. B. (2007). Neural correlates of positive and negative
emotion regulation. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19, 776–798.
Lance, C. E., Noble, C. L., & Scullen, S. E. (2002). A critique of the corre-
lated trait–correlated method and correlated uniqueness models for
multitrait–multimethod data. Psychological Methods, 7, 228–244.
Larsen, R. J., & Ketelaar, T. (1991). Personality and susceptibility to posi-
tive and negative emotional states. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 61, 132–140.
Lucas, R. E., Diener, E., & Suh, E. (1996). Discriminant validity of well-
being measures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 616–
628.
McRae, K., Ochsner, K. N., Mauss, I. B., Gabrieli, J. J., & Gross, J. J. (2008).
Gender differences in emotion regulation: An fMRI study of cognitive
reappraisal. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 11, 143–162.
Muth
en, L. K., & Muth
en, B. O. (2007). Mplus user’s guide (5th ed.). Los
Angeles, CA: Muth
en & Muth
en.
Ochsner, K. N., Ray, R. D., Cooper, J. C., Robertson, E. R., Chopra, S.,
Gabrieli, J. D., & Gross, J. J. (2004). For better or for worse: Neural sys-
tems supporting the cognitive down- and up-regulation of negative
emotion. Neuroimage, 23, 483–499.
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,
396–402.
Posner, J., Russell, J. A., & Peterson, B. S. (2005). The circumplex model of
affect: An integrative approach to affective neuroscience, cognitive

development, and psychopathology. Development and Psychopathology,
17, 715–734.
Raftery, A. E. (1995). Bayesian model selection in social research. Sociologi-
cal Methodology, 25, 111–164.
Revelle, W., Humphreys, M. S., Simon, L., & Gilliland, K. (1980). The
interactive effect of personality, time of day, and caffeine: A test of
the arousal model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,
109(1), 1–31.
Rosenberg, M. (1979). Conceiving the self. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Sandvik, E., Diener, E., & Seidlitz, L. (1993). Subjective well-being: The
convergence and stability of self-report and non-self-report measures.
Journal of Personality, 61, 317–342.
Schall, M., Martiny, S. E., Goetz, T., & Hall, N. C. (2016). Smiling on the
inside: The social benefits of suppressing positive emotions in outperform-
ance situations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 42, 559–571.
Shields, A., & Cicchetti, D. (1997). Emotion regulation among school-age
children: The development and validation of a new criterion Q-sort
scale. Developmental Psychology, 33, 906–916.
Tamir, M., John, O. P., Srivastava, S., & Gross, J. J. (2007). Implicit theories
of emotion: Affective and social outcomes across a major life transition.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 731–744.
Tugade, M. M., & Fredrickson, B. L. (2007). Regulation of positive emo-
tions: Emotion regulation strategies that promote resilience. Journal of
Happiness Studies, 8, 311–333.
View publication stats
DIFFERENCES IN DOWN-REGULATION OF POSITIVE EMOTIONS 11
Urry, H. L., & Gross, J. J. (2010). Emotion regulation in older age. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 19, 352–357.
Vazire, S. (2006). Informant reports: A cheap, fast, and easy method
for personality assessment. Journal of Research in Personality, 40,
472–481.
Vohs, K. D., & Heatherton, T. F. (2000). Self-regulatory failure: A resource-
depletion approach. Psychological Science, 11, 249–254.
Watson, D. (1988). Intraindividual and interindividual analyses of positive
and negative affect: Their relation to health complaints, perceived
stress, and daily activities. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
54, 1020–1030.
Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1997). Extraversion and its positive emotional
core. In R. Hogan, J. A. Johnson, & S. R. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of
personality psychology (pp. 767–793). San Diego, CA: Academic.
Watson, D., & Pennebaker, J. W. (1989). Health complaints, stress, and
distress: Exploring the central role of negative affectivity. Psychological
Review, 96, 234–254.
Watson, D., & Tellegen, A. (1985). Toward a consensual structure of
mood. Psychological Bulletin, 98, 219–235.
Williams, J. M. G., Mathews, A., & MacLeod, C. (1996). The emotional
Stroop task and psychopathology. Psychological Bulletin, 120, 3–24.
Zou, C., Schimmack, U., & Gere, J. (2013). The validity of well-being meas-
ures: A multiple-indicator–multiple-rater model. Psychological Assess-
ment, 25, 1247–1254.