Skip to contentScholarGate
LibraryBookshelfDeskReview StudioAssistant
Sign in
On this page
IntuitionHow it worksWhen to use itStrengths & limitationsCommon pitfallsApplicationsFrequently asked🔒 Read the full methodSourcesRelated methods
Cite this pageSpotted an issue on this page? Report or suggest a fix →
Home›Clinical Psychology›Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (ERQ)
Process / pipelineemotion-regulation-assessment

Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (ERQ)

Also known as: ERQ

The ERQ is a 10-item self-report measure assessing two primary emotion regulation strategies: cognitive reappraisal and expressive suppression. Developed by Gross and John in 2003, it has become a foundational instrument in emotion regulation research, widely used across clinical, developmental, and social psychology.

ScholarGate
  1. Process / pipeline
  2. v1
  3. 1 Sources
  4. PUBLISHED
Cite this page →
Tools & resources
Download slides
Learn & explore

Read the full method

Members only

Sign in with a free account to read this section.

Sign in

Method map

The neighbourhood of related methods — select a node to explore.

Emotion Regulation Questionnaire
Adult ADHD Self-Report S…Affective Lability ScaleDifficulties in Emotion…Emotion Dysregulation Sc…Cambridge Depersonalisat…Intolerance of Uncertain…Multidimensional Perfect…Rejection Sensitivity Qu…Schizotypal Personality…Toronto Alexithymia Scale

When to use it

Primary use: research assessing emotion regulation strategies and their associations with mental health outcomes. Clinical assessment of patients with mood, anxiety, or relationship difficulties; those with high expressive suppression may benefit from cognitive-behavioral therapy emphasizing cognitive reappraisal skills. Useful in longitudinal studies tracking emotion regulation trajectories and intervention efficacy. Not designed to diagnose specific disorders but provides dimensional measurement of regulation strategies.

Strengths & limitations

Strengths
  • Brevity and parsimony: only 10 items captures two distinct, theoretically grounded constructs
  • Strong theoretical foundation: items directly operationalize emotion regulation framework distinguishing antecedent-focused (reappraisal) from response-focused (suppression) strategies
  • Validated across diverse populations: extensive cross-cultural adaptation with language versions in 20+ languages showing consistent factor structure
  • Robust psychometric properties: internal consistency α=0.79 (reappraisal), α=0.73 (suppression); two-factor structure confirmed in multiple independent samples
  • Clinically meaningful subscales: differential associations with well-being outcomes allow targeted clinical intervention
Limitations
  • Limited scope: captures only two of many possible emotion regulation strategies (missing acceptance, mindfulness, problem-solving, social support)
  • Trait measurement: assesses typical strategy use, not situational or emotion-specific regulation capacity
  • Response bias vulnerability: desirability effects may inflate reappraisal, deflate suppression self-reports in some samples
  • Modest predictive validity for clinical outcomes: strategy use alone does not fully explain emotional distress; context and frequency matter significantly
  • Cultural variation: factor structure and meaning of reappraisal vs. suppression varies across individualist–collectivist cultures

Frequently asked

Can the ERQ identify people who need emotion regulation treatment?

The ERQ identifies preferred emotion regulation strategies but does not diagnose disorders. High suppression or low reappraisal may suggest targets for intervention, but clinical judgment using diagnostic interviews and other measures is essential. ERQ scores should be integrated with symptom severity, impairment, and comorbidity assessment.

What is the typical score difference between clinical and non-clinical samples?

Clinical samples (depression, anxiety, PTSD) typically show lower reappraisal (M≈4.2–4.5) and higher suppression (M≈4.0–4.3) compared to non-clinical controls (reappraisal M≈4.8–5.0, suppression M≈3.5–3.7). Effect sizes range d=0.5–1.0 depending on disorder and sample severity.

Should reappraisal and suppression be combined into a single regulation score?

No. These are conceptually and empirically distinct strategies with opposite correlates. Reappraisal and suppression should be analyzed and interpreted separately. Some research examines ratio scores (reappraisal/suppression) to identify regulatory profile, but two-subscale interpretation is standard.

Can the ERQ be used in adolescents or is it only for adults?

The ERQ was developed for adults (college students) but has been successfully used in adolescents 14+. For younger samples, reading level and comprehension should be verified. Alternative developmental measures (e.g., Emotion Regulation Questionnaire for Adolescents) may be more appropriate for children <14.

Is there copyright or licensing cost for using the ERQ?

No. The ERQ is freely available for research and clinical use in the public domain. It may be reproduced without permission for non-commercial purposes. Cite the original Gross & John (2003) publication in research.

Sources

  1. Gross, J. J., & John, O. P. (2003). Individual differences in two emotion regulation processes: Implications for affect, relationships, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(2), 348–362. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.85.2.348 ↗

How to cite this page

ScholarGate. (2026, June 3). Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (ERQ). ScholarGate. https://scholargate.app/en/clinical-psychology/emotion-regulation-questionnaire

Related methods

Adult ADHD Self-Report ScaleAffective Lability ScaleDifficulties in Emotion Regulation ScaleEmotion Dysregulation Scale

Which method?

Set this method beside its closest kin and read them side by side — the library lays the books on the table; the choice is yours.

  • Adult ADHD Self-Report ScaleClinical Psychology↔ compare
  • Affective Lability ScaleClinical Psychology↔ compare
  • Difficulties in Emotion Regulation ScaleClinical Psychology↔ compare
  • Emotion Dysregulation ScaleClinical Psychology↔ compare
Compare side by side →

Referenced by

Adult ADHD Self-Report ScaleAffective Lability ScaleCambridge Depersonalisation ScaleDifficulties in Emotion Regulation ScaleEmotion Dysregulation ScaleIntolerance of Uncertainty ScaleMultidimensional Perfectionism ScaleRejection Sensitivity QuestionnaireSchizotypal Personality QuestionnaireToronto Alexithymia Scale

Similar methods

Emotion Regulation Questionnaire for ChildrenEmotion Dysregulation ScaleDifficulties in Emotion Regulation ScaleToronto Empathy QuestionnairePerceived Stress ScalePositive and Negative Affect ScheduleEmotional Stroop TaskSubjective Well-Being Scale

Related reference concepts

Emotional and Psychological FunctionsBehavioral and Emotional Disorders in ChildrenPersonality Scales & InventoriesDepression and Anxiety Disorder ScreeningClinical Psychological TestingBrain Circuitry and Emotion Regulation

Spotted an issue on this page? Report or suggest a fix →

ScholarGate — Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (ERQ)). Retrieved 2026-07-21 from https://scholargate.app/en/clinical-psychology/emotion-regulation-questionnaire · Dataset: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20539026
Quick facts
Originator
James J. Gross & Oliver P. John
Subfamily
emotion-regulation-assessment
Year
2003
Type
Self-report questionnaire
Related methods
Adult ADHD Self-Report ScaleAffective Lability ScaleDifficulties in Emotion Regulation ScaleEmotion Dysregulation Scale
ScholarGate

A content-first reference library for research methods — what each one is, how it works, and where it comes from.

Open data (CC-BY)

Explore

  • Library
  • Search the library…
  • Browse by field
  • Fields
  • Journey
  • Compare
  • Which method?

Reference

  • Subjects
  • Atlas
  • Glossary
  • Methodology
  • Philosophy

Your tools

  • Bookshelf
  • Desk
  • Chat

Company

  • About
  • Pricing
  • Contact
  • Suggest a method

Entries are compiled from published sources for reference. Verifying the accuracy and suitability of any information for your own use remains your responsibility.

© 2026 ScholarGate · A research-method reference library
  • Privacy
  • Cookies
  • Terms
  • Delete account