Capturing Interpersonal Resources for Emotion Regulation: Development and Validation of the External Emotion Regulation Questionnaire

Capturing Interpersonal Resources for Emotion Regulation: Development and Validation of the External Emotion Regulation Questionnaire | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Capturing Interpersonal Resources for Emotion Regulation: Development and Validation of the External Emotion Regulation Questionnaire Mariah Xu, Grace Cho, Cindy Veldhuis, Regina Miranda, Brett Marroquín This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-6356709/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Published Journal Publication published 05 Jul, 2025 Read the published version in Cognitive Therapy and Research → Version 1 posted 12 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Purpose Despite the strong effects of social relationships on psychopathology, interpersonal emotion regulation (IER) is understudied compared to intra personal emotion regulation (ER). In particular, external IER (e.g., ER influences received from others within interpersonal interactions ) is less understood than internal IER (e.g., intrinsic or self-generated ER that involves other people, such as support-seeking). To fill this gap, we developed the External Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (EERQ) and validated it across four studies. Methods We generated an initial set of items and conducted an exploratory factor analysis in a sample of 548 adults reporting on IER from their romantic partners (Study 1). A confirmatory factor analysis was conducted in a sample of 1,012 LGBTQ + individuals with romantic partners (Study 2). We further validated the EERQ among 214 single adults (Study 3) and 193 ethnoracially diverse young adults with elevated psychopathology symptoms (Study 4). Results The 32-item measure includes five subscales: 1) Problem-solving/Reappraisal, 2) Invalidation, 3) Empathy, 3) Avoidance, and 5) Distraction/Soothing. The EERQ had strong internal consistency (α = 0.71 – .96) and construct validity across all four studies. Conclusions The EERQ showed good psychometric properties among diverse populations, in both clinically elevated and general samples, and with romantic and non-romantic support partners, making it a relationship-specific yet broadly applicable measure of IER. Theoretical and clinical implications are discussed. interpersonal emotion regulation emotion regulation psychopathology measurement dyadic processes relationships INTRODUCTION Emotion regulation (ER) refers to the processes by which individuals monitor, evaluate, and modify their emotional states in the service of goals (Gross, 2015). ER research has long emphasized intrapersonal processes—for example, attentional deployment, cognitive appraisals, and management of emotional expression—that occur within an individual to modify emotional states. There is abundant evidence that intrapersonal ER processes play a key role in everyday functioning and in coping with stress (Gross, 2015), and that disruptions in adaptive ER processes are implicated in a range of psychopathologies (e.g., Cludius et al., 2020). Recent research in psychological science has expanded to incorporate social contexts in which people regulate emotions. The broad term interpersonal emotion regulation (IER) encompasses the variety of ways people pursue emotional goals in the context of social relationships or interactions (Barthel et al., 2018; Dixon-Gordon et al., 2015; Niven, 2017; Zaki & Williams, 2013). Not unlike the role of intrapersonal ER in mental health, maladaptive IER processes may also contribute to affective psychopathology, given that social relationships influence cognitive and affective processes in both everyday interactions and in times of distress (e.g., Lakey et al., 2016; Sbarra & Coan, 2018). Maladaptive IER processes may underlie affective psychopathology, just as maladaptive intrapersonal ER does (e.g., Dixon-Gordon et al., 2016; Hofmann, 2014; Marroquín, 2011). Despite the characterization of IER as dyadic, dynamic, and iterative (Dixon-Gordon et al., 2015; Niven, 2017; Zaki & Williams, 2013), empirical evidence has yet to catch up with theory, in part due to gaps in measurement tools. The majority of IER research has focused on internal processes, including individuals’ regulatory efforts aimed at modifying their own emotional state ( intrinsic IER) and their efforts aimed at modifying another individual’s emotional state ( extrinsic IER; Zaki & Williams, 2013). However, the other side of the dyadic process—emotion regulation resources received from others , is less understood. Here, we refer to this element as external IER. Individuals, while capable of managing emotions with internal ER resources such as intrapersonal ER strategies or support-seeking, are impacted by external social resources as well—and sometimes quite strongly. At the most basic level, close others’ or social supporters’ behavior can promote either positive or negative emotions. These external influences almost certainly interact with internal ER resources, but both their direct and indirect influences on affective and psychopathology outcomes are surprisingly obscure. The field’s focus on internal processes belies the inherently dyadic and interactive nature of IER. Others’ responses to individuals’ emotions, the specific behaviors used for regulation, and the effects of those behaviors are integral aspects of the social and emotional experience. To facilitate our understanding of external IER, the current study developed and validated a novel self-report measure of external IER, the External Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (EERQ). Interpersonal Influences on Psychopathology The idea that external IER can contribute to psychopathology (for better or worse) is now well-described in theoretical work and increasingly supported by empirical evidence (Dixon-Gordon et al., 2016; Hofmann, 2014; Marroquín, 2011). In depression, for example, close others may influence key mechanisms such as negative attentional bias and cognitive reappraisal in both adaptive and maladaptive ways (Marroquín, 2011). For example, a well-meaning social supporter might effectively cheer up an individual by distracting them or emphasizing positive aspects of an event. Conversely, they might promote less helpful IER strategies such as over-analyzing negative events (e.g., co-rumination). Indeed, research indicates that among couples, co-rumination was more strongly associated with psychopathology, above and beyond intrapersonal rumination (Horn & Maercker, 2016). These types of dyadic influences may contribute to the development or maintenance of mood, anxiety, and other psychiatric disorders (for reviews, see Hofmann, 2014; Marroquín, 2011). The emotion socialization literature, which we drew upon to develop the EERQ, provides further evidence that interpersonal factors and specific types of emotion-regulatory behaviors affect psychopathology. Parental emotion socialization, encompassing the modeling of emotions, parenting practices around emotions, and responses to children's emotions (Eisenberg et al., 1998) have long established interpersonal influences in the developmental context, and might be considered a long-term form of IER that has far-reaching and transdiagnostic implications into adulthood (for a review, see Chronis-Tuscano et al., 2022). For example, parents’ invalidation of children’s emotions is associated with child psychopathology (Buckholdt et al., 2014). As Rimé (2007) and Marroquín (2011) have argued, it is very unlikely that analogous IER behaviors are exclusive to parent-child relationships or disappear in adulthood. It is important to note, however, that certain IER strategies may be more effective in different situations, for different populations, and for different relationship contexts. A regulating behavior that may be helpful during a given time frame (e.g., immediately after a potentially traumatic event) may be maladaptive in another situation (e.g., in a safe environment years after the event; Xu et al., 2024). In the emotion socialization literature, as described above, parents’ invalidation of emotions is typically considered to be associated with negative outcomes for children (Buckholdt et al., 2014; Eisenberg et al., 1996). However, it may actually be adaptive in certain contexts, e.g., as a down-regulating strategy. Recent research suggests that in Black families, invalidating or suppressive responses to children’s emotions may serve a protective or buffering role in conversations about racism (Dunbar et al., 2022) and in environments with high family conflict (Lamoreau et al., 2023). Relatedly, the effect of IER may change depending on the specific relationship in which it occurs. For example, an effective strategy utilized by a current romantic partner may have been unhelpful from a previous partner because of the unique dynamics within each relationship. A true reflection of IER as a dyadic, relational phenomenon must acknowledge that interpersonal interactions and outcomes depend greatly on characteristics of the two specific individuals and their specific relationship, rather than broad characterizations of “others” (Lakey & Orehek, 2011). The EERQ may help us to better understand the circumstances in which specific IER behaviors are helpful or harmful, which may, in turn, guide us in improving relationships and mental health interventions. Importantly, the types of social interactions discussed here (e.g., co-rumination, invalidation of emotions) may be but are not necessarily initiated as an internal process. That is, IER happens to someone, regardless of whether they elicited such behavior. As evidenced by the research outlined above, it can influence individuals’ emotions and psychological well-being, independently of the intrapersonal ER skills at their disposal. Further, interpersonal emotion regulation may, at times, be more effective than intrapersonal emotion regulation at reducing distress (Levy-Gigi & Shamay-Tsoory, 2017). However, the current dearth of knowledge about external IER, including basic descriptive information such as the types of IER close others actually provide, their frequency, and their effects precludes a full understanding of a fundamentally dynamic process. Grasping the nuances of IER may also help to pinpoint which types of strategies are most effective in which situations. A better set of measurement tools is needed to clarify these dyadic interactions and inform effective interventions targeting relationships and affective distress. Measurement Challenges in IER Research IER is difficult to measure given its dynamic and interactive nature, and relatively recent theoretical emphasis in the literature. There is thus a great deal of diversity in how IER is measured and even defined. Existing self-report measures of IER represent several key constructs in the field, all relating to internal IER processes, whether intrinsic or extrinsic. The Interpersonal Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (IERQ; Hofmann et al., 2016) and Interpersonal Regulation Questionnaire (IRQ; Williams et al., 2018) capture individuals’ general tendencies to use IER to regulate their emotions (e.g., “I look to others for comfort when I feel upset”). The Emotion Regulation of Others and Self (EROS; Niven et al., 2011) captures extrinsic IER (regulating others’ emotions, e.g., “I listened to someone’s problems”) and intrapersonal ER (e.g., “I thought about something nice”). The Difficulties in Interpersonal Regulation of Emotions scale (DIRE; Dixon-Gordon et al., 2018) was developed to capture specifically maladaptive intrinsic IER, especially in relation to psychopathology. A recently developed measure, the Emotion Regulation Strategy Scale (ERSS; Kneeland et al., 2024), captures intrapersonal ER as well as interpersonal strategies for regulating individuals’ emotions (e.g., “help me think about the situation differently”). The ERSS is the only existing measure that captures external IER and overlaps with the EERQ. However, the ERSS measures external IER resources broadly available from close others, having only been tested thus far in two samples of adults whose relationship status was unknown. The EERQ offers more precision in capturing enacted IER from individual relationship partners, including both romantic and non-romantic supporters, and address other critical aspects of dyadic interactions not currently represented in the current IER self-report toolbox. Despite the considerable strengths of each, none of the existing measures of IER address the respondent’s perception of IER received from another person within a specific relationship . First, most available measures capture only internal IER. A person’s choice to seek IER resources is important, but it is also critical to understand what the person actually receives from this interaction and how it can influence their mental and emotional states. Moreover, support-seeking is only the most obvious context for interpersonal influence; IER can be delivered even when the recipient does not actively turn to social resources (such as when a friend offers a hug—or an invalidating criticism—without prompting). Second, the measures are not keyed to a particular relationship partner, but rather to the respondent’s social resources in general. Although this is appropriate for research questions specifically involving individual differences in seeking out or initiating IER, a true reflection of IER as a dyadic, relational phenomenon must acknowledge that interpersonal interactions and outcomes depend greatly on characteristics of the two specific individuals and their specific relationship (Lakey & Orehek, 2011; Marroquín & Nolen-Hoeksema, 2015). Lastly, most existing measures of intrinsic IER capture general beliefs and traits instead of recent IER behavior. As with intrapersonal ER, stable individual differences in IER are important, but the most important dimensions of IER may not be stable or generalizable to all situations. As such, current measures—despite their substantial strengths—miss important components of what we mean by IER, both theoretically and practically. It is important to note that IER is distinct from social support more generally. Social support can be conceptualized in many ways, including social network size and integration; subjective perceptions (e.g., feeling supported or connected); and the objective availability or “enactment” of social support (see Barrera Jr., 1986; Taylor, 2012). Of these, IER as we discuss it here is best considered a smaller construct within the phenomenon of enacted support. However, theoretically, IER is not redundant with enacted support more broadly, which includes non-emotional components like instrumental and informational support (e.g., helping a friend move) but is not specific to emotion-regulatory processes per se. As such, it is important to develop distinct tools to measure IER separately from general social support. The External Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (EERQ) Across four studies, we developed and validated a measure of IER to fill gaps in the existing self-report toolbox. Our broad goal was to develop a measure that (1) taps received rather than sought IER from external social resources, (2) is keyed to a specific dyadic relationship rather than general “others,” and (3) is psychometrically valid across multiple populations and relationship types. Samples included adults in romantic relationships reporting on their partners (Study 1), LGBTQ+ adults in romantic relationships reporting on their partners (Study 2), single adults reporting on IER from their primary social supporter (Study 3), and ethnoracially diverse young adults with elevated clinical concerns reporting on the person they are most frequently with when feeling emotional (Study 4). Further, divergent and convergent validity were tested across all samples, to examine whether IER as measured by the EERQ is distinct from intrapersonal ER, social support, and other related constructs, while still having predictive value (e.g., correlating with relationship and psychological well-being measures). Our measure is oriented around times of distress, when individuals are most likely to have ER needs, activate interpersonal resources to meet those needs, and receive regulatory input from relationship partners (Rimé, 2009). Emphasizing these situations also maximizes application in clinical research and practice, as distress and psychopathology may be maintained through interpersonal interactions (Hofmann, 2014; Marroquín, 2011). We report how we determined statistical power, all data exclusions, all manipulations, and all measures in these studies. All studies were approved by their corresponding institutional review boards. STUDY 1: ITEM DEVELOPMENT & FACTOR ANALYSIS We developed initial items based on theoretical and empirical research on IER in a community sample of individuals in romantic relationships. We conducted an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to isolate well-performing items, identify underlying factors, and establish internal consistency. We also examined construct and convergent validity. We hypothesized that EERQ factors would be significantly correlated with social relationship availability and quality, intrapersonal ER, psychological well-being, and psychopathology symptoms, with directions differing depending on the type(s) of IER strategies represented by each factor. To review the full measure, see the supplementary materials. Methods Participants and Procedure Participants in Study 1 ( N = 548) lived in the United States, were at least 18 years old, and were currently in a romantic relationship. Recruitment took place in March 2013 via Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (MTurk). Following recommended guidelines to ensure data quality and avoid influence of “bots” (Buhrmester et al., 2018), participants were required to have a 95% approval rate on previous MTurk tasks, and participants were excluded if they completed all measures unrealistically quickly (in less than 15 minutes) or if they failed a series of attention check questions distributed throughout the study. Participants completed the study on a secure online platform, where they provided informed consent, completed a battery of questionnaires, and were provided with a debriefing form and a link to mental health resources. Participants reported that they were currently in various types of committed romantic relationships (31.9 % seriously dating and not engaged, married, or partnered; 8.0% engaged to be married or partnered; 58.2% married or partnered; and 1.8% other (e.g., non-monogamous relationships). Relationship lengths varied from less than 3 months to more than 20 years. Most participants (77.0%) reported cohabiting with their relationship partner. See Table 1 for participant demographics. Measures Descriptive statistics and internal consistencies for all measures are reported in Table 3. Initial External Emotion Regulation Item Set. An initial set of 43 items was generated based on previous theory and empirical work identifying behaviors evident in IER and emotion-focused social support. Items were generated across three broad categories. The first category comprised partner support strategies hypothesized to target specific intrapersonal ER processes (Marroquín, 2011; Marroquín & Nolen-Hoeksema, 2015), including attentional deployment, cognitive reappraisal, co-rumination, and cheerleading. The second category included contextual features of support delivery predicted to facilitate effectiveness of specific strategies, including soothing, validation, cognitive empathy, and affective empathy (e.g., Fruzzetti & Iverson, 2006; Lepore et al., 2000). The third category included discrete constructs that characterize parental responses to children’s negative emotions, including expressive encouragement, parental distress, punitive reactions, emotion-focused reactions, problem-focused reactions, and minimization (Eisenberg et al., 1998). The latter category was included to capitalize on a more well-developed empirical base on IER in the developmental literature, as discussed earlier, and guided by the theory that IER processes in adulthood likely derive from processes earlier in development (e.g., Barthel et al., 2018; Rimé, 2007). Items in this third category were worded to be appropriate to relationships in adulthood. The EERQ was originally developed as part of a doctoral dissertation completed in 2014 [CITATION MASKED]. The initial item set, then, was intended to capture key mechanisms in IER as previously hypothesized and/or empirically supported in the field of IER, in the form of statements that would be accessible to self-report. It was not assumed that all possible IER processes would be captured; the intent was to represent the most important constructs and behaviors implicated in IER. It was also not predicted a priori that any one theory-specific component of IER (e.g., specific ER process being targeted versus a more general “approach” such as validation) would emerge as more structurally important or influential than any other. For each item, participants rated the extent to which the item described their partner’s behaviors when the participant feels “sad, blue, depressed, anxious, or under a lot of stress.” To target IER in the context of support provision, participants were instructed to focus not on times of conflict, but rather on how their partner responds when the participant is upset about other things. All question stems began with “When I am feeling upset, my partner…” followed by a partner behavior (e.g., “...encourages me to express whatever I’m feeling”; “...tells me that I am over-reacting”). The response scale ranged from 1 ( almost never ) to 5 ( almost always ). Intrapersonal “Relational” Measures These measures capture general intrapersonal traits relevant to a person’s relationships (e.g., attachment style) that we hypothesized to be associated with IER. Social isolation. The UCLA Loneliness Scale-Revised (Russell et al., 1980) is a 20-item measure of perceived social isolation (e.g., “There are people I can talk to”; “No one knows me really well.”). It has a total range of 20 to 80. Attachment. The Experiences in Close Relationships Scale–Short Form (ECR-S; Wei et al., 2007) is a 12-item measure of adult attachment style in romantic relationships in general. The measure has two 6-item factors: attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance . Each has a possible range of 6 to 42. Relational self-construal. The 11-item Relational-Interdependent Self-Construal Scale (RISC; Cross et al., 2000) measures the tendency to think of oneself in terms of relationships with close others, as opposed more independent self-construal (e.g. “When I think of myself, I often think of my close friends or family also”). Scores range from 11 to 77. Relationship-Specific Measures These measures were worded specifically about participants’ current romantic relationship partners, capturing the specific relationship they also reported on for the EERQ. Intimacy. This study used the 6 items of the emotional intimacy subscale and 6-item intellectual intimacy subscale of the Personal Assessment of Intimacy in Relationships Scale (PAIR; Schaefer & Olson, 1981). A total intimacy score was computed across the 12 items, for a total possible score of 12 to 60. Trust. The Trust Scale(Rempel et al., 1985)is a 17-item measure of trust in the relationship, including predictability, dependability, and faith/confidence in the partner. It has a total range of -51 to 51. Closeness. The Unidimensional Relationship Closeness Scale (URCS; Dibble et al., 2012) is a 12-item measure of closeness with the relationship partner. The scale has a total range from 12 to 84. Relationship satisfaction. The 32-item Couple Satisfaction Index (CSI; Funk & Rogge, 2007) is a measure of relationship satisfaction, including global assessment of satisfaction, couples’ agreement and disagreement in various areas, commitment, and enjoyment. Scores can range from 0 to 161, with higher scores indicating greater satisfaction. Intrapersonal Emotion Regulation Measures We measured a range of intrapersonal ER strategies, all with well-established measures, to capture both adaptive and maladaptive aspects of participants’ own regulation of their own emotion. All measures were presented with trait wording, i.e., they reflected the individuals’ ER tendencies, in general. Intrapersonal emotion regulation. The Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (ERQ; Gross & John, 2003) measures trait cognitive reappraisal with 6 items (ranges from 6 to 42) and expressive suppression with 4 items (ranges from 4 to 28). Rumination. The 5-item brooding subscale of the Ruminative Response Scale (RRS; Treynor et al., 2003) measures the tendency to focus passively on the causes and consequences of one’s negative mood states. A 4-item scale gives a possible range of 5 to 20. Avoidance. The Acceptance and Action Questionnaire (AAQ-II; Bond et al., 2011) is a measure of experiential avoidance , the tendency to experience discomfort around and avoid emotional experience. The 7-item scale has a possible range of 7 to 49. Cognitive emotion regulation. The Cognitive Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (CERQ; Garnefski & Kraaij, 2007)measures the tendency to use 9 different cognitive ER strategies when experiencing negative events. The scales are: self-blame, acceptance, rumination, positive refocusing, focus on planning, positive reappraisal, putting into perspective, catastrophizing , and blaming others . Total scores for each 4-item scale range from 4 to 20. Emotion regulation difficulties. The Difficulties with Emotion Regulation Scale (DERS; Gratz & Roemer, 2004) measures multiple areas of emotion dysregulation , including in awareness, understanding, and modulation of emotion. For the present study, scores for all 36 items were totaled (possible range from 36 to 180), representing overall difficulties with ER. Psychopathology and Well-being Measures Depressive symptoms. Depressive symptoms within the past 2 weeks were measured with the 21-item Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II; Beck et al., 1996). The total score has a possible range of 0 to 63, with scores of 14 or higher indicating at least mild symptoms. Anxiety symptoms. The Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-item (GAD-7) questionnaire (Spitzer et al., 2006) measures symptoms of generalized anxiety disorder (anxiety, worry, restlessness, and irritability) over the last 2 weeks on a scale from 0 to 21. The suggested cutoffs of 5 for mild anxiety and 10 for moderate symptoms indicate a potential GAD diagnosis. Life satisfaction. The Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS; Diener et al., 1985) is a widely-used measure of general psychological well-being without tapping state affect and distinct from psychopathology. Possible scores range from 5 to 35. Analytic Plan The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy (KMO = .97) and Bartlett’s test of sphericity ( p < .001) both indicated our observed data for the set of items for consideration in the EERQ were suitable for exploratory factor analysis (EFA). Thus, we subjected all 43 items to a principal components analysis (PCA) with direct oblimin rotation to allow for correlations between the factors. As we were not certain how many factors would best underlie our data, we set initial PCA to extract factors with Eigenvalues greater than 1. After identifying the most satisfactory factor structure, we conducted correlation analyses between EERQ subscales and related interpersonal, relationship-specific, ER, and psychological well-being measures to test convergent and divergent validity. Results and Discussion In this initial specification, six factors had Eigenvalues greater than 1. In the six-factor solution, the first factor explained 44.8% of the variance, with subsequent factors accounting for 7.4%, 4.7%, 3.8%, 2.5%, and 2.4% respectively. While six factors had eigenvalues greater than 1, we examined factor loadings alongside prior theory to determine how many factors to retain. We evaluated four-, five-, and six-factor solutions. The four-factor model contained multiple items that cross-loaded onto two factors. To avoid creating indistinct subscales and difficult-to-interpret factors, we dropped the four-factor model. The six-factor model contained a factor with only two items, which was dropped to form the final five-factor model. Using a factor loading threshold of (>.4) and attempting to avoid cross-loadings, the results led to the identification of a 32-item instrument with five subscales: 1) Problem-solving/Reappraisal , 2) Invalidation , 3) Empathy , 4) Avoidance , and 5) Distraction/Soothing . See Table 2 for items in each subscale and their factor loadings. To aid in interpretability, we reverse-scored the Invalidation and Avoidance subscales for reliability analyses. The 32-item measure demonstrated excellent internal consistency both as a full scale (α = .96) and separately for each factor: Problem-solving/Reappraisal (α = .91), Invalidation (α = .81), Empathy (α = .84), Avoidance (α = .89), and Distraction/Soothing (α = .92). In analyses, we use subscale scores independently to reflect the multidimensional nature of these constructs. Although our approach was primarily empirically driven, theoretical frameworks also supported our five-factor model. Each of the subscales captures robust constructs in the intrapersonal emotion regulation or emotion socialization literature. Problem-solving, reappraisal, and distraction/soothing are commonly used coping and ER strategies employed by individuals (e.g., Gross, 2015) and their social supporters (Marroquín, 2011). Invalidating responses and environments have also been shown to impact individuals’ emotional states (Crowell et al., 2009; Shenk & Fruzzetti, 2011). Empathy is another well-studied construct in social relationships that has been more recently integrated into the IER literature (for a review, see Zaki, 2020). Eisenberg (1998) also outlined parent socialization of emotion practices that are relevant to the EERQ, including supportive or unsupportive responses to children’s emotions (e.g., problem-solving/reappraisal, invalidation). In sum, results from our factor analysis suggest that our theoretically-derived IER constructs were also empirically grouped into Problem-solving/Reappraisal, Invalidation, Empathy, Avoidance, and Distraction/Soothing subscales. Convergent and Divergent Validity Results indicated theoretically consistent convergence and divergence between EERQ factors and social/relational, relationship-specific, intrapersonal ER, and psychological wellbeing constructs (see Table 3). Results suggest that IER received from others is mildly associated with aspects of overall social relationships—for example, EERQ Invalidation was correlated with loneliness as well as anxious and avoidant attachment. External IER appeared to have a modest association with the quality of the specific relationship as well. For example, partners’ problem-solving/reappraisal was positively correlated with intimacy, trust, closeness, and couple satisfaction, while partner’s avoidance of emotions was negatively correlated with the same variables. Further, results indicate that external IER, as captured by the EERQ, is a related but distinct construct from intrapersonal ER. EERQ subscales were weakly correlated with intrapersonal ER strategies and difficulties. As expected, the Problem-solving/Reappraisal, Empathy, and Distraction/Soothing EERQ subscales were broadly associated with typically adaptive intrapersonal ER strategies, including greater use of cognitive reappraisal, planning, and perspective-taking, while the Invalidation and Avoidance subscales were associated with greater rumination and avoidance, as well as difficulties in ER. Lastly, the EERQ was weakly or modestly correlated with psychopathology and wellness measures, in the expected directions. Specifically, greater partner Problem-solving/Reappraisal, Empathy, and Distraction/Soothing scores correlated with lower symptomatology and greater life satisfaction, whereas opposite associations were observed for partner Invalidation and Avoidance. STUDY 2: CONFIRMATORY ANALYSIS In Study 2, we conducted a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to test the fit of the five-factor structure identified in Study 1. To assess the generalizability of the EERQ to diverse compositions of couple relationships, we chose to use a community sample of LGBTQ+ people in romantic relationships (e.g., same-gender couples, one or more transgender partners, etc.). As in Study 1, EERQ subscales were examined for convergent and divergent validity with measures of ER difficulties, relationship satisfaction, attachment, and psychological wellbeing. Methods Participants and Procedures Data for Study 2 come from a study of LGBTQ+ people who are in relationships. Participants were recruited between May 2021–March 2022 using social media and web-based paid advertising. Advertisements were aimed at people who identified as queer, nonbinary, and/or transgender, who were 18 or over, and who were in a relationship with someone who identified as queer, nonbinary, and/or transgender. Interested individuals were given a link to the survey that included a brief description of the study; those who clicked through to the survey were considered to have consented. The survey took approximately 45 minutes to complete; participants were not offered compensation. A total of 1,204 people completed the survey. Participants were excluded if they had over 75% or more missing data. In addition, some participants were in relationships with other participants in the study; of these participants, one partner was randomly removed from the data. The final sample size was 1,012. Participants ranged from 18 to 66 in age, and relationship length ranged from 1 month to over 40 years, with an average of about 5 years. For additional participant demographics, see Table 1. Measures Descriptive statistics and internal consistencies for all measures are reported in Table 4. EERQ. The same pool of 43 potential EERQ items was administered as in Study 1. Depressive symptoms. Depressive symptoms were measured in two ways: first, the 11-item Center for Epidemiologic Studies Short Depression Scale–Revised (CES-DR; Kohout et al., 1993; Radloff, 1977) with total scores ranging from 0 to 33; second, the Patient Health Questionnaire–9 (PHQ-9; Kroenke et al., 2001), with total scores ranging from 0 to 27. Stress in context. Experiences of stress and stressors were with the Adulthood Stress in Context scale (SIC; UCSF Stress Measurement Network, 2017). The SIC was designed to overcome limitations of extant measures of stress by taking context and chronicity into account. The scale comprises 18 questions, such as how often people feel: “life is stable and predictable,” “emotionally unsafe,” and “socially isolated.” Total potential scores ranged from 17 to 68. Perceived stress. The Perceived Stress Scale (PSS; Cohen et al., 1983) is a 10-item scale used to measure past-month psychological stress levels. Total scores ranged from 0 to 40. Emotion regulation and relationship measures. As in Study 1, Study 2 also used the DERS, CSI, and ECR. Results and Discussion To examine the five-factor structure of the EERQ established in Study 1 in a novel dataset, we conducted a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) with maximum likelihood estimation in Mplus (Version 8.1). Based on liberal estimates of five participants for each parameter accounting for factor loadings and residual variances (Jackson, 2003), the sample size of 1,012 provided sufficient power to reliably estimate the model. We estimated a model of five oblique factors (i.e., allowing for covariances between factors) with independent measurement errors. Based on recommended model fit thresholds (Schermelleh-Engel et al., 2003), the five-factor model provided acceptable fit to the data based on two of three fit indices, but mediocre fit based on the third (CFI =.799, SRMR = .073, RMSEA = .076). However, fit improved (CFI = .850, SRMR = .072, RMSEA = .066) by allowing for two correlations between error terms based on modification indices. The first pair of items was between “feels the same things I feel in the moment” and “experiences the same emotions I am experiencing.” Both these items were in the named “empathy” factor. As both items measure sharing the feelings of another, this modification was deemed conceptually sensible. After implementing this modification, absolute model fit of the instrument improved (CFI = .834, SRMR = .070, RMSEA = .070). Further, results indicated that the overall fit of the model with the addition of these correlated measurement errors was statistically significantly better than the original model (Δ χ2 = 462.44, p < .001). The second modification was correlating the measurement errors between the items “encourages me to express what I’m feeling” and “encourages me to talk about why I’m feeling upset.” Both items were on the named “problem solving/validation factor.” As both items are about motivating another to communicate their feelings, this modification was also deemed conceptually sensible and was implemented. Results indicated overall improvement of the model (Δ χ2 = 219.63, p < .001). Given some discrepancy between fit indices is common in CFA and cut-off thresholds are inconsistently applied across the field (Goretzko et al., 2024; Schermelleh-Engel et al., 2003), we considered the five-factor structure after modifications to have an adequate fit to the data for this stage of measurement development and in consideration of other reliability factors. Assessment of composite reliability ( CR ) of the latent factors demonstrated acceptable reliability and internal consistency with values above the threshold of .70: ( CR problemsolving = .83, CR invalidation = .84, CR empathy = .74, CR avoidance = .75, CR distraction = .83 ). Internal consistency was good for the full scale (α = .89) and for each factor: Problem-solving/Reappraisal (α = .83), Invalidation (α = .83), Empathy (α = .78), Avoidance (α = .71), and Distraction/Soothing (α = .82). Convergent and Divergent Validity. Results indicated that the EERQ had theoretically consistent convergent and divergent validity in Study 2, similar to Study 1 (see Table 4). In general, Problem-solving/Reappraisal, Empathy, and Distraction/Soothing subscales were associated with lower levels of ER difficulties, insecure attachment, depressive symptoms, and stress, as well as greater couples satisfaction and use of ER strategies. The Invalidation and Avoidance subscales were broadly related to these variables in the opposite direction. Similar to Study 1, the EERQ subscales had weak to moderate correlations to measures of intrapersonal ER, relationship, and psychological wellbeing—indicating these constructs are related but theoretically and empirically distinct. STUDY 3: MEASURE VALIDITY WITH NON-ROMANTIC IER PARTNERS Given that individuals are strongly influenced by non-romantic relationships (e.g., friends, family) in addition to romantic ones (Caron et al., 2012) and that diverse social support networks are important to emotional well-being (Cheung et al., 2015), it is theoretically and practically important to capture IER with non-romantic close others. To test the utility of the EERQ in non-romantic relationships, we conducted Study 3 using a sample of single/unpartnered participants. Whereas in Studies 1 and 2, participants completed EERQ items with respect to their partner (who may or may not have been their primary source of IER support), in Study 3 participants were asked to identify the specific person they relied on most for social support, whatever their relationship to that person. This allowed tests of the EERQ’s structure and validity in an entirely different relational context in which IER and support provision occur, and an examination of generalizability of the measure. Methods Participants and Procedure The sample included 208 participants who self-identified as not currently in a romantic relationship. Similar to Study 1, participants were recruited online via MTurk from March 2013. To review participant demographics, see Table 1. After indicating their single relationship status and prior to completing questionnaires, participants were asked to identify the “one person you are most likely to talk to when you are going through a difficult time,” excluding professionals such as therapists or religious professionals. Here, we refer to this identified person as their “primary supporter.” To review wording for the questionnaire instructions, see the supplementary materials. Most participants (58.2%) reported that their primary supporter was a friend, with other participants identifying a parent (18.8%), sibling (11.5%), cousin (2.4%), other relative (6.7%), or some other person (2.4%). All measures referencing a particular support provider reminded the participant to refer specifically to the person they had identified. Measures All measures from Study 1 were also administered in Study 3, except for the Couple Satisfaction Index (due to the unpartnered nature of the sample). Measure instructions and item wording for EERQ candidate items and relationship-specific measures were modified to specify the primary supporter rather than a partner. Otherwise, all procedures and measures were the same as in Study 1. The full set of 43 candidate items for the EERQ was included. Descriptive statistics and internal consistencies for all measures are reported in Table 5. Results and Discussion The EERQ was found to be a reliable measure in individuals reporting on non-romantic social supporters. It had strong internal consistency as a full scale (α = .92), and for all factors: Problem-solving/Reappraisal (α = .90), Invalidation (α = .81), Empathy (α = .81, Avoidance (α = .84), and Distraction/Soothing (α = .85). Patterns of convergent and divergent validity were overall similar to Studies 1 and 2, though some differences between the partnered (Study 1) and unpartnered samples (Study 3) were observed as described below. Weak to moderate correlations with the intrapersonal and relationship variables tested in Study 3 indicate that the EERQ is related to these constructs, but not so strongly that they are measuring the same thing. See Table 5 for correlations between the EERQ subscales and the variables examined. We found that EERQ subscales appeared to have more associations with the relational, relationship-specific, intrapersonal ER, and psychological wellbeing variables in Study 1 compared to Study 3. While the direction of association between EERQ subscales and measures of interest were consistent across Studies 1 and 3, we found fewer statistically significant correlations in Study 3, and some of the significant associations were weaker. For example, although EERQ Invalidation and Avoidance were significantly negatively associated with certain CERQ subscales, such as planning and positive reappraisal, among partnered Study 1 participants, these relationships were not found in Study 3. Results suggest that IER from non-romantic compared to romantic social supporters might have fewer, smaller effects on intrapersonal and relationship characteristics such as ER, attachment style, and psychopathology. One potential explanation for these smaller effects is that individuals may have larger networks of friends and family who may provide support, so the impact of a single supporter may not be as central as that from a romantic partner. Another possibility is that the generally higher levels of closeness, intimacy, and interdependence in romantic relationships magnify the power of interpersonal influence from partners relative to other close others (Marroquin & Nolen-Hoeksema, 2015). Results suggest that, as theory predicts, (1) the EERQ structure captures IER phenomena in non-romantic as well as romantic relationships, and (2) external IER appears to have greater influence from romantic partners compared to other social supporters. STUDY 4: MEASURE VALIDITY IN A DIVERSE CLINICAL SAMPLE Studies 1, 2, and 3 provide support for the 5-factor, 32-item EERQ, including evidence of divergent validity with measures of intrapersonal ER and ER-related characteristics such as attachment style. However, the possibility remains that our measure captures more general processes of social support, rather than the more specific processes of IER. We thus examined the EERQ’s associations with perceived support (i.e., the individual’s perception of available social support) and received support (i.e., actual support behavior by others). Moreover, it is possible that our measure of external IER support is redundant or overlapping with internal, intrinsic IER (e.g., received IER vs. support-seeking tendencies). In Study 4, we tested divergent validity with respect to these associated constructs. Moreover, we were interested in testing if the EERQ could be applicable in populations at risk for clinical concerns, and whether it was valid in ethnoracially minoritized and socioeconomically disadvantaged populations. As such, in Study 4, we recruited a diverse sample of individuals at high risk for affective psychopathology. Methods Participants and Procedure Participants ( N = 193) were recruited from an introductory psychology course in a large, public commuter college in Northeastern U.S. from November 2019 to April 2020. Eligible students were 18 or older and scored above 18 on the Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale (Lovibond & Lovibond, 1995). This cutoff was selected to meet the threshold for moderate depression, severe anxiety, or moderate stress. After providing informed consent, participants completed the online survey. Participants were compensated with course credit or a $10 Amazon gift card. Participant ages ranged from 18 to 41 (M = 19.51, SD = 2.72), and the sample was ethnoracially and socioeconomically diverse. Of the 146 participants that reported family income, 24.7% of students reported $24,999 or less in family income, 34.2% reported $25,000–$49,999, 18.5% reported $50,000–$74,999, and 22.6% reported $75,000 or greater. To review additional participant demographics, see Table 1. Measures Descriptive statistics and internal consistencies for all measures are reported in Table 6. EERQ. To provide additional confirmation of the EERQ, all 43 initially generated items were administered. In this study, the instructions asked participants to identify one individual who is “most often with you when you are emotional” and to respond to items with this person in mind. This was done to ensure the EERQ is relevant to external ER influences regardless of a particular relationship type (e.g., romantic, as in Studies 1 and 2) or role as an explicitly positive supporter (as in Study 3). In other words, the instruction set captured the most general version of IER and may better capture a range of beneficial to detrimental IER effects (see supplemental materials). Tendencies to seek interpersonal ER. The Interpersonal Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (IERQ; Hofmann et al., 2016) is a 20-item self-report questionnaire measuring tendencies to reach out to others to regulate emotions. The IERQ has four subscales with 5 items each (enhancing positive affect, perspective taking, soothing, social modeling). Possible scores ranged from 5 to 25 for each subscale and 20 to 100 total. Perceived social support. The Social Provisions Scale (SPS) is a 24-item questionnaire measuring the extent to which respondents feel supported in their social relationships (Russell & Cutrona, 1984). Total scores ranged from 24 to 96. Received social support. The Inventory of Socially Supportive Behaviors (ISSB; Barrera et al., 1981) contains 40 items measuring emotional, informational, and practical support behaviors provided by others. Respondents indicated how often they received each form of social support over the past four weeks, with total scores ranging from 40 to 200. Depressive symptoms. Depressive symptoms and severity were measured using the 20-item self-report Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D; Radloff, 1977). Participants indicated how often they experienced each symptom within the past week. Total scores range from 0 to 60, with scores of 15 or above indicating at least mild depression. Anxiety symptoms. The GAD-7 (Spitzer et al., 2006) was given, as in Studies 1 and 3. Suicidal ideation. The 25-item Adult Suicidal Ideation Questionnaire (ASIQ; Reynolds, 1991) was used to measure severity of suicide ideation in the past month. Respondents indicated frequency of thoughts, for a total score of 0 to 125. Results and Discussion Results indicate that the EERQ retains its reliability and validity in a racially/ethnically and socioeconomically diverse sample with elevated depression and anxiety symptoms. We found that total (α = .94) and subscale EERQ reliability scores (Problem-solving/Reappraisal α = .91, Invalidation α = .80, Empathy α = .80, Avoidance α = .89, and Distraction/Soothing α = .88) were very good in this sample. Overall, we found theoretically-consistent convergent and divergent validity for the EERQ in this sample, with external IER constructs overlapping with support-seeking and social support variables in theoretically consistent ways (see Table 6). Correlations indicated that the tendency to seek social resources to help regulate emotions, as measured by the IERQ, appears to be associated with actually receiving certain types of IER responses (i.e., problem-solving and distraction). At the same time, the modest effect indicates that external and internal IER differ meaningfully. Moderate correlations with the SRS and ISSB scales indicate that received IER is related to objective and perceived social support, as expected. Unlike in the previous studies, we did not find that the EERQ was significantly correlated with depression or anxiety symptoms. It is possible that this is due to less variation within the sample, which was selected for elevated mental health concerns. Alternatively, it is possible that associations between IER and psychopathology are weaker among ethnoracially minoritized individuals. However, we found that Problem-solving/Reappraisal was negatively correlated with suicide ideation severity, while Avoidance was positively correlated with it, suggesting that different types of IER may impact suicide-related risk differentially. GENERAL DISCUSSION The EERQ is a novel 32-item measure of interpersonal emotion regulation received from close others capturing behaviors across five subscales: 1) Problem-solving/Reappraisal, 2) Invalidation, 3) Empathy, 3) Avoidance, and 5) Distraction/Soothing. In Study 1, we developed a set of 43 initial items and conducted an exploratory factor analysis in a sample of adults in current romantic relationships. In Study 2, we confirmed the five-factor structure found in Study 1 in a sample of LGBTQ+ adults in romantic relationships. Study 3 validated the EERQ among single adults with non-romantic primary supporters, and Study 4 validated it among ethnoracially and socioeconomically diverse young adults with elevated depression and anxiety symptoms. The EERQ had very good to excellent reliability and validity across all four studies. Findings support convergent and divergent validity of all five EERQ scales. Each subscale related in theoretically consistent ways across social/relational, social support, couples-specific, intrapersonal ER, support-seeking, and mental health/well-being variables. Strengths of associations were in the small to moderate range in most cases, indicating that the EERQ relates to other theoretically relevant constructs as expected, but is not redundant with any of them. The strongest associations seen in partnered samples (Studies 1 and 2) were with couple-specific variables, suggesting that the EERQ was particularly sensitive to the specific relationship as opposed to intrapersonal or social factors more broadly—as was intended. Lastly, we found more and stronger correlations in partnered samples (Sample 1) compared to non-partnered ones (Sample 3), suggesting that external IER may play a larger role in both relationship-specific and intrapersonal characteristics within romantic relationships. The current studies suggest that IER resources vary between specific relationships, and that these processes have important connections with interpersonal and psychological functioning. It is important to note, however, that while IER and intrapersonal processes (e.g., intrapersonal ER, rumination) are significantly correlated across all four studies, the causal relationships between them are yet unknown. For example, interactions with others may cause changes in intrapersonal ER, but internal forces may also drive the individual’s behaviors eliciting (or avoiding) IER from others and their responses to any IER received. Further, it seems plausible that external and internal regulatory processes mutually and iteratively influence each other, but further research is necessary to draw concrete conclusions. Implications The EERQ fills an important gap in the self-report measurement toolbox by capturing external interpersonal emotion regulation: individuals’ perception of a specific support partner’s behaviors and responses to their emotions. Existing IER self-report measures only capture internal processes (e.g., reaching out to others more often, choosing a different support partner, changing behavior to elicit a different response, etc.), which are obvious targets for intervention. However, external IER influences can be just as impactful on emotion regulation and health, and our currently incomplete understanding of them presents a one-sided picture of an intrinsically dynamic and dyadic interpersonal process—and they may be modifiable through intervention as well (e.g., couples or family therapy). The EERQ may help to identify IER mechanisms that contribute to psychopathology and negative relationship dynamics, as well as highlight those that might improve them and support psychological well-being. To deliver more effective and tailored interventions, the EERQ may be useful in identifying which types of support are most adaptive in which circumstances and for whom. Emotion may be perceived, experienced, expressed, and regulated differently across ethnoracial backgrounds (Weiss et al., 2022), and these factors may play a role in how IER is received by individuals of different identities and cultures. As the only measure of IER that has been validated with a majority ethnoracially minoritized sample and an LGBTQ+ sample, the EERQ is a useful tool for better understanding how culture and identity impact IER. Further, the EERQ, which measures a variety of IER resources without assigning a positive or negative valence to each type, can capture the nuances in how social influences impact emotion regulation in disparate circumstances. Future research may inform clinical applications and potential interventions for individuals, couples, and families. Limitations Despite the strengths of the EERQ, certain limitations should be considered when using it. First, as a self-report measure, it captures only the respondent’s perspective. Their perceptions may not match up with actual IER received, or with the perceptions of their support partner. Further, it may be subject to response bias, capturing more about how respondents feel about support partners rather than the types of received IER resources. Though research indicates that perception of support, not necessarily actually received support, is more closely associated with health outcomes (Haber et al., 2007), conclusions from self-report data should be drawn with caution. Other research methodologies, such as behavioral observation or dyadic studies, may be used in conjunction with EERQ for a clearer picture of relationship dynamics. In terms of limitations in EERQ psychometrics, it should be noted that our Sample 2 CFA showed only adequate fit overall, with one of three fit indices evaluated (CFI) showing less than adequate fit based on rule-of-thumb cut-off thresholds (Schermelleh-Engel et al., 2003). Due to the smaller sample size of Studies 3 and 4, we were unable to conduct reliable CFAs in these samples. While there is variation in how cut-off thresholds are used and fit indices are commonly discrepant even within the same model (Goretzko et al., 2024; Schermelleh-Engel et al., 2003), the factor structure of the EERQ presented in this paper may not be the best fit for all samples and caution in its application is advised. In addition, the phrasing of the negatively-valanced items (e.g., “Does not do things to calm or comfort me”) requires the participant to report on the absence of a behavior, which may have led to interpretation issues. The two negatively-valanced factors had lower Cronbach’s alphas than two of the positively-valanced factors, but were within acceptable threshold limits. Constraints on Generality The EERQ factor structure was derived using a relatively racially homogenous sample: we performed both the EFA and CFA on samples that were around 80% non-Hispanic White. As such, the EERQ factors described here may not be the optimal organization of IER constructs outside of non-Hispanic White populations. One finding of note was that we did not find that the EERQ was significantly associated with psychopathology symptoms in Study 4, which utilized an ethnoracially diverse sample. We did find significant relationships between external IER and suicidal ideation in this sample. While this may be due to pre-selection of participants for high depression and anxiety symptoms, associations between IER and these variables may also be different in ethnoracially minoritized populations. Still, we found the EERQ to be overall valid and reliable in Study 4, which offsets some of these limitations. Given the weaker fit of the CFA in Study 2, it is possible that the current EERQ factor structure is strongest in predominantly White, heterosexual, cisgender samples similar to the one we used for the EFA. The CFA, by contrast, was conducted in a sample of LGBTQ+ individuals, who may relate to their support partners or engage in IER in different ways than do heterosexual, cisgender individuals. More research is necessary to better understand these potential differences. However, considering the EERQ’s strong internal consistency and theoretically consistent divergent and convergent validity in Sample 2, evidence indicates that it can reliably and validly capture IER in LGBTQ+ populations. Conclusion The EERQ is a valid and reliable tool to measure external interpersonal emotion regulation in a variety of social contexts, and with diverse populations. Validated across four studies, the EERQ has good psychometric properties and is theoretically consistent with existing relationship and emotion regulation research. The EERQ is a valuable tool for advancing the study of IER as an iterative and dyadic process, and potentially identifying modifiable targets for interventions targeting affective psychopathology. Declarations Author Contribution MX and BM wrote the main manuscript text, with additional support from GC and CV. BM provided major theoretical contributions, including primary conceptualization for the measure and initial item development; MX made additional theoretical contributions through further conceptualization and interpretation of results. GC led statistical analyses, in collaboration with MX, and also provided key instrumental support. BM, CV, and MX designed and conducted the studies presented in the current work. RM and CV procured grant funding which partially supported this study. RM provided professional connections that made this collaboration possible, and served as an advisor throughout the process. MX was the primary project manager and correspondent for the study. All authors reviewed the manuscript. Acknowledgement The authors acknowledge the supervisory and mentorship role of Dr. Susan Nolen-Hoeksema during the early stages of this work. They also acknowledge the contributions of Dr. Nathan Huff from the Center for Research on Families at UMass Amherst as a statistical consultant. Data Availability Data for Studies 1, 3, and 4 are not publicly available, but will be provided upon request. For Study 2, the full dataset cannot be made available due to identifiability of responses, but study materials and syntax will be provided upon request. References Barrera Jr., M. (1986). Distinctions between social support concepts, measures, and models. American Journal of Community Psychology , 14 (4), 413–445. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00922627 Barrera, M., Sandler, I. N., & Ramsay, T. B. (1981). Preliminary development of a scale of social support: Studies on college students. American Journal of Community Psychology , 9 (4), 435–447. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00918174 Barthel, A. L., Hay, A., Doan, S. N., & Hofmann, S. G. (2018). Interpersonal Emotion Regulation: A Review of Social and Developmental Components. Behaviour Change; Bowen Hills , 35 (4), 203–216. https://doi.org/10.1017/bec.2018.19 Beck, A. T., Steer, R. A., & Brown, G. (1996). Beck Depression Inventory–II. Psychological Assessment . https://doi.org/10.1037/t00742-000 Bond, F. W., Hayes, S. C., Baer, R. A., Carpenter, K. M., Guenole, N., Orcutt, H. K., Waltz, T., & Zettle, R. D. (2011). Preliminary Psychometric Properties of the Acceptance and Action Questionnaire–II: A Revised Measure of Psychological Inflexibility and Experiential Avoidance. Behavior Therapy , 42 (4), 676–688. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2011.03.007 Buckholdt, K. E., Parra, G. R., & Jobe-Shields, L. (2014). Intergenerational Transmission of Emotion Dysregulation Through Parental Invalidation of Emotions: Implications for Adolescent Internalizing and Externalizing Behaviors. Journal of Child and Family Studies , 23 (2), 324–332. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-013-9768-4 Buhrmester, M. D., Talaifar, S., & Gosling, S. D. (2018). An Evaluation of Amazon’s Mechanical Turk, Its Rapid Rise, and Its Effective Use. Perspectives on Psychological Science , 13 (2), 149–154. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617706516 Caron, A., Lafontaine, M.-F., Bureau, J.-F., Levesque, C., & Johnson, S. M. (2012). Comparisons of close relationships: An evaluation of relationship quality and patterns of attachment to parents, friends, and romantic partners in young adults. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science / Revue Canadienne Des Sciences Du Comportement , 44 (4), 245–256. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028013 Cheung, E. O., Gardner, W. L., & Anderson, J. F. (2015). Emotionships: Examining People’s Emotion-Regulation Relationships and Their Consequences for Well-Being. Social Psychological and Personality Science , 6 (4), 407–414. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550614564223 Chronis-Tuscano, A., Bui, H. N. T., & Lorenzo, N. E. (2022). Transdiagnostic Implications of Parental Socialization of Child and Adolescent Emotional Development: Commentary and Future Directions. Research on Child and Adolescent Psychopathology , 50 (2), 269–282. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-021-00872-3 Cludius, B., Mennin, D., & Ehring, T. (2020). Emotion regulation as a transdiagnostic process. Emotion , 20 (1), 37–42. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000646 Cohen, S., Kamarck, T., & Mermelstein, R. (1983). A Global Measure of Perceived Stress. Journal of Health and Social Behavior , 24 (4), 385–396. https://doi.org/10.2307/2136404 Cross, S. E., Bacon, P. L., & Morris, M. L. (2000). The relational-interdependent self-construal and relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 78 (4), 791–808. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.78.4.791 Crowell, S. E., Beauchaine, T. P., & Linehan, M. M. (2009). A Biosocial Developmental Model of Borderline Personality: Elaborating and Extending Linehan’s Theory. Psychological Bulletin , 135 (3), 495–510. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015616 Dibble, J. L., Levine, T. R., & Park, H. S. (2012). The Unidimensional Relationship Closeness Scale (URCS): Reliability and validity evidence for a new measure of relationship closeness. Psychological Assessment , 24 (3), 565–572. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026265 Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The Satisfaction With Life Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment , 49 (1), 71–75. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13 Dixon-Gordon, K. L., Bernecker, S. L., & Christensen, K. (2015). Recent innovations in the field of interpersonal emotion regulation. Current Opinion in Psychology , 3 , 36–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.02.001 Dixon-Gordon, K. L., Haliczer, L. A., Conkey, L. C., & Whalen, D. J. (2018). Difficulties in Interpersonal Emotion Regulation: Initial Development and Validation of a Self-Report Measure. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment , 40 (3), 528–549. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-018-9647-9 Dixon-Gordon, K. L., Whalen, D. J., Scott, L. N., Cummins, N. D., & Stepp, S. D. (2016). The Main and Interactive Effects of Maternal Interpersonal Emotion Regulation and Negative Affect on Adolescent Girls’ Borderline Personality Disorder Symptoms. Cognitive Therapy and Research , 40 (3), 381–393. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10608-015-9706-4 Dunbar, A. S., Zeytinoglu, S., & Leerkes, E. M. (2022). When is Parental Suppression of Black Children’s Negative Emotions Adaptive? The Role of Preparation for Racial Bias and Children’s Resting Cardiac Vagal Tone. Research on Child and Adolescent Psychopathology , 50 (2), 163–176. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-021-00779-z Eisenberg, N., Cumberland, A., & Spinrad, T. L. (1998). Parental Socialization of Emotion. Psychological Inquiry , 9 (4), 241–273. Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., & Murphy, B. C. (1996). Parents’ Reactions to Children’s Negative Emotions: Relations to Children’s Social Competence and Comforting Behavior. Child Development , 67 (5), 2227–2247. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1996.tb01854.x Fruzzetti, A. E., & Iverson, K. M. (2006). Intervening With Couples and Families to Treat Emotion Dysregulation and Psychopathology. In Emotion regulation in couples and families: Pathways to dysfunction and health (pp. 249–267). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/11468-012 Funk, J. L., & Rogge, R. D. (2007). Testing the ruler with item response theory: Increasing precision of measurement for relationship satisfaction with the Couples Satisfaction Index. Journal of Family Psychology , 21 (4), 572–583. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.21.4.572 Garnefski, N., & Kraaij, V. (2007). The Cognitive Emotion Regulation Questionnaire. European Journal of Psychological Assessment , 23 (3), 141–149. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759.23.3.141 Goretzko, D., Siemund, K., & Sterner, P. (2024). Evaluating Model Fit of Measurement Models in Confirmatory Factor Analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement , 84 (1), 123–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/00131644231163813 Gratz, K. L., & Roemer, L. (2004). Multidimensional Assessment of Emotion Regulation and Dysregulation: Development, Factor Structure, and Initial Validation of the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment , 26 (1), 41–54. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JOBA.0000007455.08539.94 Gross, J. J. (2015). The Extended Process Model of Emotion Regulation: Elaborations, Applications, and Future Directions. Psychological Inquiry , 26 (1), 130–137. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2015.989751 Gross, J. J., & John, O. P. (2003). Individual differences in two emotion regulation processes: Implications for affect, relationships, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 85 (2), 348–362. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.2.348 Haber, M. G., Cohen, J. L., Lucas, T., & Baltes, B. B. (2007). The relationship between self-reported received and perceived social support: A meta-analytic review. American Journal of Community Psychology , 39 (1), 133–144. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-007-9100-9 Hofmann, S. G. (2014). Interpersonal Emotion Regulation Model of Mood and Anxiety Disorders. Cognitive Therapy and Research , 38 (5), 483–492. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10608-014-9620-1 Hofmann, S. G., Carpenter, J. K., & Curtiss, J. (2016). Interpersonal Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (IERQ): Scale Development and Psychometric Characteristics. Cognitive Therapy and Research , 40 (3), 341–356. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10608-016-9756-2 Horn, A. B., & Maercker, A. (2016). Intra- and interpersonal emotion regulation and adjustment symptoms in couples: The role of co-brooding and co-reappraisal. BMC Psychology , 4 (1), 51. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-016-0159-7 Jackson, D. L. (2003). Revisiting Sample Size and Number of Parameter Estimates: Some Support for the N:q Hypothesis. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal , 10 (1), 128–141. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM1001_6 Kneeland, E. T., Hay, A., Curtiss, J., Hennessey, A., Vanderlind, W. M., Joormann, J., & Clark, M. S. (2024). The development of a novel scale to assess intra- and interpersonal emotion regulation strategies: The Emotion Regulation Strategy Scale (ERSS). Emotion (Washington, D.C.) , 24 (7). https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0001375 Kohout, F. J., Berkman, L. F., Evans, D. A., & Cornoni-Huntley, J. (1993). Two shorter forms of the CES-D (Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression) depression symptoms index. Journal of Aging and Health , 5 (2), 179–193. https://doi.org/10.1177/089826439300500202 Kroenke, K., Spitzer, R. L., & Williams, J. B. W. (2001). The PHQ-9. Journal of General Internal Medicine , 16 (9), 606–613. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1525-1497.2001.016009606.x Lakey, B., & Orehek, E. (2011). Relational regulation theory: A new approach to explain the link between perceived social support and mental health. Psychological Review , 118 (3), 482–495. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023477 Lakey, B., Vander Molen, R. J., Fles, E., & Andrews, J. (2016). Ordinary Social Interaction and the Main Effect Between Perceived Support and Affect. Journal of Personality , 84 (5), 671–684. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12190 Lamoreau, R., Park, J. eun, Skov, H., Pequet, A., & Gray, S. A. O. (2023). Intimate partner violence and preschool self-regulation: Examining the role of maternal emotion socialization in Black families. Social Development , 32 (4), 1280–1301. https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12691 Lepore, S. J., Ragan, J. D., & Jones, S. (2000). Talking facilitates cognitive-emotional processes of adaptation to an acute stressor. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 78 (3), 499–508. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.78.3.499 Levy-Gigi, E., & Shamay-Tsoory, S. G. (2017). Help me if you can: Evaluating the effectiveness of interpersonal compared to intrapersonal emotion regulation in reducing distress. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry , 55 , 33–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbtep.2016.11.008 Lovibond, P. F., & Lovibond, S. H. (1995). The structure of negative emotional states: Comparison of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS) with the Beck Depression and Anxiety Inventories. Behaviour Research and Therapy , 33 (3), 335–343. https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-7967(94)00075-u Marroquín, B. (2011). Interpersonal emotion regulation as a mechanism of social support in depression. Clinical Psychology Review , 31 (8), 1276–1290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2011.09.005 Marroquín, B., & Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (2015). Emotion Regulation and Depressive Symptoms: Close Relationships as Social Context and Influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 109 (5), 836–855. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000034 Niven, K. (2017). The four key characteristics of interpersonal emotion regulation. Current Opinion in Psychology , 17 , 89–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.06.015 Niven, K., Totterdell, P., Stride, C. B., & Holman, D. (2011). Emotion Regulation of Others and Self (EROS): The Development and Validation of a New Individual Difference Measure. Current Psychology , 30 (1), 53–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-011-9099-9 Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CES-D Scale: A Self-Report Depression Scale for Research in the General Population. Applied Psychological Measurement , 1 (3), 385–401. https://doi.org/10.1177/014662167700100306 Rempel, J. K., Holmes, J. G., & Zanna, M. P. (1985). Trust Scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology . Reynolds, W. M. (1991). Psychometric Characteristics of the Adult Suicidal Ideation Questionnaire in College Students. Journal of Personality Assessment , 56 (2), 289. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa5602_9 Rimé, B. (2007). Interpersonal Emotion Regulation. In J. J. Gross (Ed.), Handbook of Emotion Regulation (pp. 466–485). Guilford Press. Rimé, B. (2009). Emotion Elicits the Social Sharing of Emotion: Theory and Empirical Review. Emotion Review , 1 (1), 60–85. https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073908097189 Russell, D. W., & Cutrona, C. E. (1984). Social Provisions Scale . Iowa State University. Russell, D. W., Peplau, L. A., & Cutrona, C. E. (1980). The revised UCLA Loneliness Scale: Concurrent and discriminant validity evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 39 (3), 472–480. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.39.3.472 Sbarra, D. A., & Coan, J. A. (2018). Relationships and Health: The Critical Role of Affective Science. Emotion Review , 10 (1), 40–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073917696584 Schaefer, M. T., & Olson, D. H. (1981). Assessing Intimacy: The Pair Inventory*. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy , 7 (1), 47–60. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-0606.1981.tb01351.x Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the Fit of Structural Equation Models: Tests of Significance and Descriptive Goodness-of-Fit Measures. Methods of Psychological Research , 8 (2). https://www.psycharchives.org/en/item/1a8dea48-0285-4dac-a612-9dc0ff2532f6 Shenk, C. E., & Fruzzetti, A. E. (2011). The Impact of Validating and Invalidating Responses on Emotional Reactivity. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology , 30 (2), 163–183. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.2011.30.2.163 Spitzer, R. L., Kroenke, K., Williams, J. B. W., & Löwe, B. (2006). A Brief Measure for Assessing Generalized Anxiety Disorder: The GAD-7. Archives of Internal Medicine , 166 (10), 1092. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.166.10.1092 Taylor, S. E. (2012). Social Support: A Review. In The Oxford Handbook of Health Psychology . Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195342819.013.0009 Treynor, W., Gonzalez, R., & Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (2003). Rumination Reconsidered: A Psychometric Analysis. Cognitive Therapy and Research , 27 (3), 247–259. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023910315561 UCSF Stress Measurement Network. (2017). Stress in Context (SIC) . UCSF Stress Measurement Network. https://www.stressmeasurement.org/stress-in-context Wei, M., Russell, D. W., Mallinckrodt, B., & Vogel, D. L. (2007). The Experiences in Close Relationship Scale (ECR)-Short Form: Reliability, Validity, and Factor Structure. Journal of Personality Assessment , 88 (2), 187–204. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223890701268041 Weiss, N. H., Thomas, E. D., Schick, M. R., Reyes, M. E., & Contractor, A. A. (2022). Racial and ethnic differences in emotion regulation: A systematic review. Journal of Clinical Psychology , 78 (5), 785–808. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.23284 Williams, W. C., Morelli, S. A., Ong, D. C., & Zaki, J. (2018). Interpersonal emotion regulation: Implications for affiliation, perceived support, relationships, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 115 (2), 224–254. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000132 Xu, M., Corbeil, T., Bochicchio, L., Scheer, J. R., Wall, M., & Hughes, T. L. (2024). Childhood sexual abuse, adult sexual assault, revictimization, and coping among sexual minority women. Child Abuse & Neglect , 151 , 106721. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2024.106721 Zaki, J. (2020). Integrating Empathy and Interpersonal Emotion Regulation. Annual Review of Psychology , 71 , 517–540. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010419-050830 Zaki, J., & Williams, W. C. (2013). Interpersonal emotion regulation. Emotion , 13 (5), 803–810. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033839 Tables Tables 1 to 6 are available in the Supplementary Files section Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files Tables.docx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Published Journal Publication published 05 Jul, 2025 Read the published version in Cognitive Therapy and Research → Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 27 Apr, 2025 Reviews received at journal 26 Apr, 2025 Reviews received at journal 24 Apr, 2025 Reviews received at journal 09 Apr, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 04 Apr, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 04 Apr, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 02 Apr, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 02 Apr, 2025 Reviewers invited by journal 02 Apr, 2025 Editor assigned by journal 02 Apr, 2025 Submission checks completed at journal 02 Apr, 2025 First submitted to journal 01 Apr, 2025 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-6356709","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":445415791,"identity":"ea49aa66-1aec-4ad2-8fe7-b5f73577887e","order_by":0,"name":"Mariah Xu","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Connecticut","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Mariah","middleName":"","lastName":"Xu","suffix":""},{"id":445415793,"identity":"56a303ba-0f62-4dd5-ae2a-1d1e53b452cb","order_by":1,"name":"Grace Cho","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Massachusetts Amherst","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Grace","middleName":"","lastName":"Cho","suffix":""},{"id":445415795,"identity":"9b874665-3cb6-4010-b8a1-d0ac731a5115","order_by":2,"name":"Cindy Veldhuis","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Northwestern University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Cindy","middleName":"","lastName":"Veldhuis","suffix":""},{"id":445415796,"identity":"3057ce84-b03c-491a-9593-feefc1d8abf5","order_by":3,"name":"Regina Miranda","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Hunter College","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Regina","middleName":"","lastName":"Miranda","suffix":""},{"id":445415800,"identity":"58d46a5a-dbad-4332-b846-072f2d7d6a9e","order_by":4,"name":"Brett Marroquín","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Solid Ground CBT","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Brett","middleName":"","lastName":"Marroquín","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-04-02 02:08:22","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6356709/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6356709/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[{"content":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10608-025-10622-0","type":"published","date":"2025-07-05T15:57:22+00:00"}],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":86178965,"identity":"a32ff918-7cab-492d-ae68-efe0f85e1daf","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-07 16:13:15","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1177829,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6356709/v1/8acd907a-9a5b-49e3-9610-7cc7dfad8049.pdf"},{"id":81265506,"identity":"a3b09f4d-57c7-4f16-b182-c6fd0add313a","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-04-24 07:24:58","extension":"docx","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":51932,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Tables.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6356709/v1/eebbac1c01dee89580eac5b7.docx"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Capturing Interpersonal Resources for Emotion Regulation: Development and Validation of the External Emotion Regulation Questionnaire ","fulltext":[{"header":"INTRODUCTION","content":"\u003cp\u003eEmotion regulation (ER) refers to the processes by which individuals monitor, evaluate, and modify their emotional states in the service of goals (Gross, 2015). ER research has long emphasized \u003cem\u003eintrapersonal\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eprocesses\u0026mdash;for example, attentional deployment, cognitive appraisals, and management of emotional expression\u0026mdash;that occur within an individual to modify emotional states. There is abundant evidence that intrapersonal ER processes play a key role in everyday functioning and in coping with stress (Gross, 2015), and that disruptions in adaptive ER processes are implicated in a range of psychopathologies (e.g., Cludius et al., 2020).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRecent research in psychological science has expanded to incorporate social contexts in which people regulate emotions. The broad term \u003cem\u003einterpersonal emotion regulation\u003c/em\u003e (IER) encompasses the variety of ways people pursue emotional goals in the context of social relationships or interactions (Barthel et al., 2018; Dixon-Gordon et al., 2015; Niven, 2017; Zaki \u0026amp; Williams, 2013). Not unlike the role of intrapersonal ER in mental health, maladaptive IER processes may also contribute to affective psychopathology, given that social relationships influence cognitive and affective processes in both everyday interactions and in times of distress (e.g., Lakey et al., 2016; Sbarra \u0026amp; Coan, 2018). Maladaptive IER processes may underlie affective psychopathology, just as maladaptive intrapersonal ER does (e.g., Dixon-Gordon et al., 2016; Hofmann, 2014; Marroqu\u0026iacute;n, 2011).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDespite the characterization of IER as dyadic, dynamic, and iterative (Dixon-Gordon et al., 2015; Niven, 2017; Zaki \u0026amp; Williams, 2013), empirical evidence has yet to catch up with theory, in part due to gaps in measurement tools. The majority of IER research has focused on \u003cem\u003einternal\u003c/em\u003e processes, including individuals\u0026rsquo; regulatory efforts aimed at modifying their own emotional state (\u003cem\u003eintrinsic\u003c/em\u003e IER) and their efforts aimed at modifying another individual\u0026rsquo;s emotional state (\u003cem\u003eextrinsic\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eIER; Zaki \u0026amp; Williams, 2013). However,\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003ethe other side of the dyadic process\u0026mdash;emotion regulation resources \u003cem\u003ereceived from others\u003c/em\u003e, is less understood. Here, we refer to this element as \u003cem\u003eexternal\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eIER. Individuals, while capable of managing emotions with internal ER resources such as intrapersonal ER strategies or support-seeking, are impacted by external social resources as well\u0026mdash;and sometimes quite strongly. At the most basic level, close others\u0026rsquo; or social supporters\u0026rsquo; behavior can promote either positive or negative emotions. These external influences almost certainly interact with internal ER resources, but both their direct and indirect influences on affective and psychopathology outcomes are surprisingly obscure.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe field\u0026rsquo;s focus on internal processes belies the inherently dyadic and interactive nature of IER. Others\u0026rsquo; responses to individuals\u0026rsquo; emotions, the specific behaviors used for regulation, and the effects of those behaviors are integral aspects of the social and emotional experience. To facilitate our understanding of external IER, the current study developed and validated a novel self-report measure of external IER, the External Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (EERQ).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eInterpersonal Influences on Psychopathology\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;The idea that external IER can contribute to psychopathology (for better or worse) is now well-described in theoretical work and increasingly supported by empirical evidence (Dixon-Gordon et al., 2016; Hofmann, 2014; Marroqu\u0026iacute;n, 2011). In depression, for example, close others may influence key mechanisms such as negative attentional bias and cognitive reappraisal in both adaptive and maladaptive ways (Marroqu\u0026iacute;n, 2011). For example, a well-meaning social supporter might effectively cheer up an individual by distracting them or emphasizing positive aspects of an event. Conversely, they might promote less helpful IER strategies such as over-analyzing negative events (e.g., co-rumination). Indeed, research indicates that among couples, co-rumination was more strongly associated with psychopathology, above and beyond intrapersonal rumination (Horn \u0026amp; Maercker, 2016). These types of dyadic influences may contribute to the development or maintenance of mood, anxiety, and other psychiatric disorders (for reviews, see Hofmann, 2014; Marroqu\u0026iacute;n, 2011).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe emotion socialization literature, which we drew upon to develop the EERQ, provides further evidence that interpersonal factors and specific types of emotion-regulatory behaviors affect psychopathology. Parental emotion socialization, encompassing the modeling of emotions, parenting practices around emotions, and responses to children\u0026apos;s emotions (Eisenberg et al., 1998) have long established interpersonal influences in the developmental context, and might be considered a long-term form of IER that has far-reaching and transdiagnostic implications into adulthood (for a review, see Chronis-Tuscano et al., 2022). For example, parents\u0026rsquo; invalidation of children\u0026rsquo;s emotions is associated with child psychopathology (Buckholdt et al., 2014). As Rim\u0026eacute; (2007) and Marroqu\u0026iacute;n (2011) have argued, it is very unlikely that analogous IER behaviors are exclusive to parent-child relationships or disappear in adulthood.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIt is important to note, however, that certain IER strategies may be more effective in different situations, for different populations, and for different relationship contexts. A regulating behavior that may be helpful during a given time frame (e.g., immediately after a potentially traumatic event) may be maladaptive in another situation (e.g., in a safe environment years after the event; Xu et al., 2024). In the emotion socialization literature, as described above, parents\u0026rsquo; invalidation of emotions is typically considered to be associated with negative outcomes for children (Buckholdt et al., 2014; Eisenberg et al., 1996). However, it may actually be adaptive in certain contexts, e.g., as a down-regulating strategy. Recent research suggests that in Black families, invalidating or suppressive responses to children\u0026rsquo;s emotions may serve a protective or buffering role in conversations about racism (Dunbar et al., 2022) and in environments with high family conflict (Lamoreau et al., 2023). Relatedly, the effect of IER may change depending on the specific relationship in which it occurs. For example, an effective strategy utilized by a current romantic partner may have been unhelpful from a previous partner because of the unique dynamics within each relationship. A true reflection of IER as a dyadic, relational phenomenon must acknowledge that interpersonal interactions and outcomes depend greatly on characteristics of the two specific individuals and their specific relationship, rather than broad characterizations of \u0026ldquo;others\u0026rdquo; (Lakey \u0026amp; Orehek, 2011). The EERQ may help us to better understand the circumstances in which specific IER behaviors are helpful or harmful, which may, in turn, guide us in improving relationships and mental health interventions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eImportantly, the types of social interactions discussed here (e.g., co-rumination, invalidation of emotions) may be but are not necessarily initiated as an internal process. That is, IER happens \u003cem\u003eto\u003c/em\u003e someone, regardless of whether they elicited such behavior. As evidenced by the research outlined above, it can influence individuals\u0026rsquo; emotions and psychological well-being, independently of the intrapersonal ER skills at their disposal. Further, interpersonal emotion regulation may, at times, be more effective than intrapersonal emotion regulation at reducing distress (Levy-Gigi \u0026amp; Shamay-Tsoory, 2017). However, the current dearth of knowledge about external IER, including basic descriptive information such as the types of IER close others actually provide, their frequency, and their effects precludes a full understanding of a fundamentally dynamic process. Grasping the nuances of IER may also help to pinpoint which types of strategies are most effective in which situations. A better set of measurement tools is needed to clarify these dyadic interactions and inform effective interventions targeting relationships and affective distress.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMeasurement Challenges in IER Research\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIER is difficult to measure given its dynamic and interactive nature, and relatively recent theoretical emphasis in the literature. There is thus a great deal of diversity in how IER is measured and even defined. Existing self-report measures of IER represent several key constructs in the field, all relating to \u003cem\u003einternal\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eIER processes, whether intrinsic or extrinsic. The Interpersonal Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (IERQ; Hofmann et al., 2016) and Interpersonal Regulation Questionnaire (IRQ; Williams et al., 2018) capture individuals\u0026rsquo; \u003cem\u003egeneral tendencies\u003c/em\u003e to use IER to regulate their emotions (e.g., \u0026ldquo;I look to others for comfort when I feel upset\u0026rdquo;). The Emotion Regulation of Others and Self (EROS; Niven et al., 2011) captures extrinsic IER (regulating others\u0026rsquo; emotions, e.g., \u0026ldquo;I listened to someone\u0026rsquo;s problems\u0026rdquo;) and intrapersonal ER (e.g., \u0026ldquo;I thought about something nice\u0026rdquo;). The Difficulties in Interpersonal Regulation of Emotions scale (DIRE; Dixon-Gordon et al., 2018) was developed to capture specifically \u003cem\u003emaladaptive\u003c/em\u003e intrinsic IER, especially in relation to psychopathology. A recently developed measure, the Emotion Regulation Strategy Scale (ERSS; Kneeland et al., 2024), captures intrapersonal ER as well as interpersonal strategies for regulating individuals\u0026rsquo; emotions (e.g., \u0026ldquo;help me think about the situation differently\u0026rdquo;). The ERSS is the only existing measure that captures external IER and overlaps with the EERQ. However, the ERSS measures external IER resources broadly available from close others, having only been tested thus far in two samples of adults whose relationship status was unknown. The EERQ offers more precision in capturing enacted IER from individual relationship partners, including both romantic and non-romantic supporters, and address other critical aspects of dyadic interactions not currently represented in the current IER self-report toolbox.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDespite the considerable strengths of each, none of the existing measures of IER address the respondent\u0026rsquo;s perception of IER \u003cem\u003ereceived\u003c/em\u003e from another person within a \u003cem\u003especific relationship\u003c/em\u003e. First, most available measures capture only internal IER. A person\u0026rsquo;s choice to seek IER resources is important, but it is also critical to understand what the person actually receives from this interaction and how it can influence their mental and emotional states. Moreover, support-seeking is only the most obvious context for interpersonal influence; IER can be delivered even when the recipient does not actively turn to social resources (such as when a friend offers a hug\u0026mdash;or an invalidating criticism\u0026mdash;without prompting). Second, the measures are not keyed to a particular relationship partner, but rather to the respondent\u0026rsquo;s social resources in general. Although this is appropriate for research questions specifically involving individual differences in seeking out or initiating IER, a true reflection of IER as a dyadic, relational phenomenon must acknowledge that interpersonal interactions and outcomes depend greatly on characteristics of the two specific individuals and their specific relationship (Lakey \u0026amp; Orehek, 2011; Marroqu\u0026iacute;n \u0026amp; Nolen-Hoeksema, 2015). Lastly, most existing measures of intrinsic IER capture general beliefs and traits instead of recent IER behavior. As with intrapersonal ER, stable individual differences in IER are important, but the most important dimensions of IER may not be stable or generalizable to all situations. As such, current measures\u0026mdash;despite their substantial strengths\u0026mdash;miss important components of what we mean by IER, both theoretically and practically.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIt is important to note that IER is distinct from social support more generally. Social support can be conceptualized in many ways, including social network size and integration; subjective perceptions (e.g., feeling supported or connected); and the objective availability or \u0026ldquo;enactment\u0026rdquo; of social support (see Barrera Jr., 1986; Taylor, 2012). Of these, IER as we discuss it here is best considered a smaller construct within the phenomenon of enacted support. However, theoretically, IER is not redundant with enacted support more broadly, which includes non-emotional components like instrumental and informational support (e.g., helping a friend move) but is not specific to emotion-regulatory processes per se. As such, it is important to develop distinct tools to measure IER separately from general social support.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThe External Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (EERQ)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAcross four studies, we developed and validated a measure of IER to fill gaps in the existing self-report toolbox. Our broad goal was to develop a measure that (1) taps \u003cem\u003ereceived\u003c/em\u003e rather than \u003cem\u003esought\u003c/em\u003e IER from external social resources, (2) is keyed to a specific dyadic relationship rather than general \u0026ldquo;others,\u0026rdquo; and (3) is psychometrically valid across multiple populations and relationship types. Samples included adults in romantic relationships reporting on their partners (Study 1), LGBTQ+ adults in romantic relationships reporting on their partners (Study 2), single adults reporting on IER from their primary social supporter (Study 3), and ethnoracially diverse young adults with elevated clinical concerns reporting on the person they are most frequently with when feeling emotional (Study 4). Further, divergent and convergent validity were tested across all samples, to examine whether IER as measured by the EERQ is distinct from intrapersonal ER, social support, and other related constructs, while still having predictive value (e.g., correlating with relationship and psychological well-being measures).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOur measure is oriented around times of distress, when individuals are most likely to have ER needs, activate interpersonal resources to meet those needs, and receive regulatory input from relationship partners (Rim\u0026eacute;, 2009). Emphasizing these situations also maximizes application in clinical research and practice, as distress and psychopathology may be maintained through interpersonal interactions (Hofmann, 2014; Marroqu\u0026iacute;n, 2011).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe report how we determined statistical power, all data exclusions, all manipulations, and all measures in these studies. All studies were approved by their corresponding institutional review boards.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"STUDY 1: ITEM DEVELOPMENT \u0026 FACTOR ANALYSIS","content":"\u003cp\u003eWe developed initial items based on theoretical and empirical research on IER in a community sample of individuals in romantic relationships. We conducted an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to isolate well-performing items, identify underlying factors, and establish internal consistency. We also examined construct and convergent validity. We hypothesized that EERQ factors would be significantly correlated with social relationship availability and quality, intrapersonal ER, psychological well-being, and psychopathology symptoms, with directions differing depending on the type(s) of IER strategies represented by each factor. To review the full measure, see the supplementary materials. \u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMethods\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eParticipants and Procedure\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eParticipants in Study 1 (\u003cem\u003eN\u003c/em\u003e = 548) lived in the United States, were at least 18 years old, and were currently in a romantic relationship. Recruitment took place in March 2013 via Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (MTurk). Following recommended guidelines to ensure data quality and avoid influence of “bots” (Buhrmester et al., 2018), participants were required to have a 95% approval rate on previous MTurk tasks, and participants were excluded if they completed all measures unrealistically quickly (in less than 15 minutes) or if they failed a series of attention check questions distributed throughout the study. Participants completed the study on a secure online platform, where they provided informed consent, completed a battery of questionnaires, and were provided with a debriefing form and a link to mental health resources. \u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eParticipants reported that they were currently in various types of committed romantic relationships (31.9 % seriously dating and not engaged, married, or partnered; 8.0% engaged to be married or partnered; 58.2% married or partnered; and 1.8% other (e.g., non-monogamous relationships). Relationship lengths varied from less than 3 months to more than 20 years. Most participants (77.0%) reported cohabiting with their relationship partner. See Table 1 for participant demographics. \u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eMeasures\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDescriptive statistics and internal consistencies for all measures are reported in Table 3.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eInitial External Emotion Regulation Item Set. \u003c/strong\u003eAn initial set of 43 items was generated based on previous theory and empirical work identifying behaviors evident in IER and emotion-focused social support. Items were generated across three broad categories. The first category comprised partner support strategies hypothesized to target specific intrapersonal ER processes (Marroquín, 2011; Marroquín \u0026amp; Nolen-Hoeksema, 2015), including attentional deployment, cognitive reappraisal, co-rumination, and cheerleading. The second category included contextual features of support delivery predicted to facilitate effectiveness of specific strategies, including soothing, validation, cognitive empathy, and affective empathy (e.g., Fruzzetti \u0026amp; Iverson, 2006; Lepore et al., 2000). The third category included discrete constructs that characterize parental responses to children’s negative emotions, including expressive encouragement, parental distress, punitive reactions, emotion-focused reactions, problem-focused reactions, and minimization (Eisenberg et al., 1998). The latter category was included to capitalize on a more well-developed empirical base on IER in the developmental literature, as discussed earlier, and guided by the theory that IER processes in adulthood likely derive from processes earlier in development (e.g., Barthel et al., 2018; Rimé, 2007). Items in this third category were worded to be appropriate to relationships in adulthood. The EERQ was originally developed as part of a doctoral dissertation completed in 2014 [CITATION MASKED].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe initial item set, then, was intended to capture key mechanisms in IER as previously hypothesized and/or empirically supported in the field of IER, in the form of statements that would be accessible to self-report. It was not assumed that all possible IER processes would be captured; the intent was to represent the most important constructs and behaviors implicated in IER. It was also not predicted a priori that any one theory-specific component of IER (e.g., specific ER process being targeted versus a more general “approach” such as validation) would emerge as more structurally important or influential than any other.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFor each item, participants rated the extent to which the item described their partner’s behaviors when the participant feels “sad, blue, depressed, anxious, or under a lot of stress.” To target IER in the context of support provision, participants were instructed to focus not on times of conflict, but rather on how their partner responds when the participant is upset about other things. All question stems began with “When I am feeling upset, my partner…” followed by a partner behavior (e.g., “...encourages me to express whatever I’m feeling”; “...tells me that I am over-reacting”). The response scale ranged from 1 (\u003cem\u003ealmost never\u003c/em\u003e) to 5 (\u003cem\u003ealmost always\u003c/em\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eIntrapersonal “Relational” Measures\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThese measures capture general intrapersonal traits relevant to a person’s relationships (e.g., attachment style) that we hypothesized to be associated with IER. \u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSocial isolation. \u003c/strong\u003eThe UCLA Loneliness Scale-Revised (Russell et al., 1980) is a 20-item measure of perceived social isolation (e.g., “There are people I can talk to”; “No one knows me really well.”). It has a total range of 20 to 80. \u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAttachment. \u003c/strong\u003eThe Experiences in Close Relationships Scale–Short Form (ECR-S; Wei et al., 2007) is a 12-item measure of adult attachment style in romantic relationships in general. The measure has two 6-item factors: \u003cem\u003eattachment anxiety\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eattachment avoidance\u003c/em\u003e. Each has a possible range of 6 to 42. \u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRelational self-construal.\u003c/strong\u003e The 11-item Relational-Interdependent Self-Construal Scale (RISC; Cross et al., 2000) measures the tendency to think of oneself in terms of relationships with close others, as opposed more independent self-construal (e.g. “When I think of myself, I often think of my close friends or family also”). Scores range from 11 to 77. \u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eRelationship-Specific Measures\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThese measures were worded specifically about participants’ current romantic relationship partners, capturing the specific relationship they also reported on for the EERQ.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eIntimacy.\u003c/strong\u003e This study used the 6 items of the emotional intimacy subscale and 6-item intellectual intimacy subscale of the Personal Assessment of Intimacy in Relationships Scale (PAIR; Schaefer \u0026amp; Olson, 1981). A total intimacy score was computed across the 12 items, for a total possible score of 12 to 60. \u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTrust. \u003c/strong\u003eThe Trust Scale(Rempel et al., 1985)is a 17-item measure of trust in the relationship, including predictability, dependability, and faith/confidence in the partner. It has a total range of -51 to 51. \u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCloseness.\u003c/strong\u003e The Unidimensional Relationship Closeness Scale (URCS; Dibble et al., 2012) is a 12-item measure of closeness with the relationship partner. The scale has a total range from 12 to 84. \u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRelationship satisfaction. \u003c/strong\u003eThe 32-item Couple Satisfaction Index (CSI; Funk \u0026amp; Rogge, 2007) is a measure of relationship satisfaction, including global assessment of satisfaction, couples’ agreement and disagreement in various areas, commitment, and enjoyment. Scores can range from 0 to 161, with higher scores indicating greater satisfaction. \u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eIntrapersonal Emotion Regulation Measures\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe measured a range of intrapersonal ER strategies, all with well-established measures, to capture both adaptive and maladaptive aspects of participants’ own regulation of their own emotion. All measures were presented with trait wording, i.e., they reflected the individuals’ ER tendencies, in general.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eIntrapersonal emotion regulation. \u003c/strong\u003eThe Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (ERQ; Gross \u0026amp; John, 2003) measures trait \u003cem\u003ecognitive reappraisal \u003c/em\u003ewith 6 items (ranges from 6 to 42) and \u003cem\u003eexpressive suppression\u003c/em\u003e with 4 items (ranges from 4 to 28). \u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRumination.\u003c/strong\u003e The 5-item \u003cem\u003ebrooding\u003c/em\u003e subscale of the Ruminative Response Scale (RRS; Treynor et al., 2003) measures the tendency to focus passively on the causes and consequences of one’s negative mood states. A 4-item scale gives a possible range of 5 to 20. \u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAvoidance.\u003c/strong\u003e The Acceptance and Action Questionnaire (AAQ-II; Bond et al., 2011) is a measure of \u003cem\u003eexperiential avoidance\u003c/em\u003e, the tendency to experience discomfort around and avoid emotional experience. The 7-item scale has a possible range of 7 to 49. \u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCognitive emotion regulation.\u003c/strong\u003e The Cognitive Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (CERQ; Garnefski \u0026amp; Kraaij, 2007)measures the tendency to use 9 different cognitive ER strategies when experiencing negative events. The scales are: \u003cem\u003eself-blame, acceptance, rumination, positive refocusing, focus on planning, positive reappraisal, putting into perspective, catastrophizing\u003c/em\u003e, and \u003cem\u003eblaming others\u003c/em\u003e. Total scores for each 4-item scale range from 4 to 20. \u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEmotion regulation difficulties. \u003c/strong\u003eThe Difficulties with Emotion Regulation Scale (DERS; Gratz \u0026amp; Roemer, 2004) measures multiple areas of emotion dysregulation\u003cem\u003e,\u003c/em\u003e including in awareness, understanding, and modulation of emotion. For the present study, scores for all 36 items were totaled (possible range from 36 to 180), representing overall difficulties with ER. \u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003ePsychopathology and Well-being Measures\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDepressive symptoms.\u003c/strong\u003e Depressive symptoms within the past 2 weeks were measured with the 21-item Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II; Beck et al., 1996). The total score has a possible range of 0 to 63, with scores of 14 or higher indicating at least mild symptoms.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAnxiety symptoms. \u003c/strong\u003eThe Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-item (GAD-7) questionnaire (Spitzer et al., 2006) measures symptoms of generalized anxiety disorder (anxiety, worry, restlessness, and irritability) over the last 2 weeks on a scale from 0 to 21. The suggested cutoffs of 5 for mild anxiety and 10 for moderate symptoms indicate a potential GAD diagnosis. \u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLife satisfaction. \u003c/strong\u003eThe Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS; Diener et al., 1985) is a widely-used measure of general psychological well-being without tapping state affect and distinct from psychopathology. Possible scores range from 5 to 35.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eAnalytic Plan\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy (KMO = .97) and Bartlett’s test of sphericity (\u003cem\u003ep \u003c/em\u003e\u0026lt; .001) both indicated our observed data for the set of items for consideration in the EERQ were suitable for exploratory factor analysis (EFA). Thus, we subjected all 43 items to a principal components analysis (PCA) with direct oblimin rotation to allow for correlations between the factors. As we were not certain how many factors would best underlie our data, we set initial PCA to extract factors with Eigenvalues greater than 1. After identifying the most satisfactory factor structure, we conducted correlation analyses between EERQ subscales and related interpersonal, relationship-specific, ER, and psychological well-being measures to test convergent and divergent validity.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eResults and Discussion\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn this initial specification, six factors had Eigenvalues greater than 1. In the six-factor solution, the first factor explained 44.8% of the variance, with subsequent factors accounting for 7.4%, 4.7%, 3.8%, 2.5%, and 2.4% respectively. While six factors had eigenvalues greater than 1, we examined factor loadings alongside prior theory to determine how many factors to retain. We evaluated four-, five-, and six-factor solutions. The four-factor model contained multiple items that cross-loaded onto two factors. To avoid creating indistinct subscales and difficult-to-interpret factors, we dropped the four-factor model. The six-factor model contained a factor with only two items, which was dropped to form the final five-factor model. \u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eUsing a factor loading threshold of (\u0026gt;.4) and attempting to avoid cross-loadings, the results led to the identification of a 32-item instrument with five subscales: 1) \u003cem\u003eProblem-solving/Reappraisal\u003c/em\u003e, 2) \u003cem\u003eInvalidation\u003c/em\u003e, 3) \u003cem\u003eEmpathy\u003c/em\u003e, 4) \u003cem\u003eAvoidance\u003c/em\u003e, and 5) \u003cem\u003eDistraction/Soothing\u003c/em\u003e. See Table 2 for items in each subscale and their factor loadings. To aid in interpretability, we reverse-scored the Invalidation and Avoidance subscales for reliability analyses. The 32-item measure demonstrated excellent internal consistency both as a full scale (α = .96) and separately for each factor: Problem-solving/Reappraisal (α = .91), Invalidation (α = .81), Empathy (α = .84), Avoidance (α = .89), and Distraction/Soothing (α = .92). In analyses, we use subscale scores independently to reflect the multidimensional nature of these constructs. \u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAlthough our approach was primarily empirically driven, theoretical frameworks also supported our five-factor model. Each of the subscales captures robust constructs in the intrapersonal emotion regulation or emotion socialization literature. Problem-solving, reappraisal, and distraction/soothing are commonly used coping and ER strategies employed by individuals (e.g., Gross, 2015) and their social supporters (Marroquín, 2011). Invalidating responses and environments have also been shown to impact individuals’ emotional states (Crowell et al., 2009; Shenk \u0026amp; Fruzzetti, 2011). Empathy is another well-studied construct in social relationships that has been more recently integrated into the IER literature (for a review, see Zaki, 2020). Eisenberg (1998) also outlined parent socialization of emotion practices that are relevant to the EERQ, including supportive or unsupportive responses to children’s emotions (e.g., problem-solving/reappraisal, invalidation). In sum, results from our factor analysis suggest that our theoretically-derived IER constructs were also empirically grouped into Problem-solving/Reappraisal, Invalidation, Empathy, Avoidance, and Distraction/Soothing subscales. \u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eConvergent and Divergent Validity\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eResults indicated theoretically consistent convergence and divergence between EERQ factors and social/relational, relationship-specific, intrapersonal ER, and psychological wellbeing constructs (see Table 3). Results suggest that IER received from others is mildly associated with aspects of overall social relationships—for example, EERQ Invalidation was correlated with loneliness as well as anxious and avoidant attachment. External IER appeared to have a modest association with the quality of the specific relationship as well. For example, partners’ problem-solving/reappraisal was positively correlated with intimacy, trust, closeness, and couple satisfaction, while partner’s avoidance of emotions was negatively correlated with the same variables. Further, results indicate that external IER, as captured by the EERQ, is a related but distinct construct from intrapersonal ER. EERQ subscales were weakly correlated with intrapersonal ER strategies and difficulties. As expected, the Problem-solving/Reappraisal, Empathy, and Distraction/Soothing EERQ subscales were broadly associated with typically adaptive intrapersonal ER strategies, including greater use of cognitive reappraisal, planning, and perspective-taking, while the Invalidation and Avoidance subscales were associated with greater rumination and avoidance, as well as difficulties in ER. Lastly, the EERQ was weakly or modestly correlated with psychopathology and wellness measures, in the expected directions. Specifically, greater partner Problem-solving/Reappraisal, Empathy, and Distraction/Soothing scores correlated with lower symptomatology and greater life satisfaction, whereas opposite associations were observed for partner Invalidation and Avoidance. \u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"STUDY 2: CONFIRMATORY ANALYSIS","content":"\u003cp\u003eIn Study 2, we conducted a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to test the fit of the five-factor structure identified in Study 1. To assess the generalizability of the EERQ to diverse compositions of couple relationships, we chose to use a community sample of LGBTQ+ people in romantic relationships (e.g., same-gender couples, one or more transgender partners, etc.). As in Study 1, EERQ subscales were examined for convergent and divergent validity with measures of ER difficulties, relationship satisfaction, attachment, and psychological wellbeing.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMethods\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eParticipants and Procedures\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eData for Study 2 come from a study of LGBTQ+ people who are in relationships. Participants were recruited between May 2021\u0026ndash;March 2022 using social media and web-based paid advertising. Advertisements were aimed at people who identified as queer, nonbinary, and/or transgender, who were 18 or over, and who were in a relationship with someone who identified as queer, nonbinary, and/or transgender. Interested individuals were given a link to the survey that included a brief description of the study; those who clicked through to the survey were considered to have consented. The survey took approximately 45 minutes to complete; participants were not offered compensation.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA total of 1,204 people completed the survey. Participants were excluded if they had over 75% or more missing data. In addition, some participants were in relationships with other participants in the study; of these participants, one partner was randomly removed from the data. The final sample size was 1,012. Participants ranged from 18 to 66 in age, and relationship length ranged from 1 month to over 40 years, with an average of about 5 years. For additional participant demographics, see Table 1.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eMeasures\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDescriptive statistics and internal consistencies for all measures are reported in Table 4.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEERQ.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eThe same pool of 43 potential EERQ items was administered as in Study 1.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDepressive symptoms.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp; Depressive symptoms were measured in two ways: first, the 11-item Center for Epidemiologic Studies Short Depression Scale\u0026ndash;Revised (CES-DR; Kohout et al., 1993; Radloff, 1977) with total scores ranging from 0 to 33; second, the Patient Health Questionnaire\u0026ndash;9 (PHQ-9; Kroenke et al., 2001), with total scores ranging from 0 to 27.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eStress in context.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eExperiences of stress and stressors were with the Adulthood Stress in Context scale (SIC; UCSF Stress Measurement Network, 2017). The SIC was designed to overcome limitations of extant measures of stress by taking context and chronicity into account. The scale comprises 18 questions, such as how often people feel: \u0026ldquo;life is stable and predictable,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;emotionally unsafe,\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;socially isolated.\u0026rdquo; Total potential scores ranged from 17 to 68.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePerceived stress.\u003c/strong\u003e The Perceived Stress Scale (PSS; Cohen et al., 1983) is a 10-item scale used to measure past-month psychological stress levels. Total scores ranged from 0 to 40.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEmotion regulation and relationship measures.\u003c/strong\u003e As in Study 1, Study 2 also used the DERS, CSI, and ECR.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eResults and Discussion\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo examine the five-factor structure of the EERQ established in Study 1 in a novel dataset, we conducted a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) with maximum likelihood estimation in Mplus (Version 8.1). Based on liberal estimates of five participants for each parameter accounting for factor loadings and residual variances (Jackson, 2003), the sample size of 1,012 provided sufficient power to reliably estimate the model. We estimated a model of five oblique factors (i.e., allowing for covariances between factors) with independent measurement errors.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBased on recommended model fit thresholds (Schermelleh-Engel et al., 2003), the five-factor model provided acceptable fit to the data based on two of three fit indices, but mediocre fit based on the third (CFI =.799, SRMR = .073, RMSEA = .076). However, fit improved (CFI = .850, SRMR = .072, RMSEA = .066) by allowing for two correlations between error terms based on modification indices. The first pair of items was between \u0026ldquo;feels the same things I feel in the moment\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;experiences the same emotions I am experiencing.\u0026rdquo; Both these items were in the named \u0026ldquo;empathy\u0026rdquo; factor. As both items measure sharing the feelings of another, this modification was deemed conceptually sensible. After implementing this modification, absolute model fit of the instrument improved (CFI = .834, SRMR = .070, RMSEA = .070). Further, results indicated that the overall fit of the model with the addition of these correlated measurement errors was statistically significantly better than the original model (\u0026Delta; \u0026chi;2 = 462.44, p \u0026lt; .001). The second modification was correlating the measurement errors between the items \u0026ldquo;encourages me to express what I\u0026rsquo;m feeling\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;encourages me to talk about why I\u0026rsquo;m feeling upset.\u0026rdquo; Both items were on the named \u0026ldquo;problem solving/validation factor.\u0026rdquo; As both items are about motivating another to communicate their feelings, this modification was also deemed conceptually sensible and was implemented. Results indicated overall improvement of the model (\u0026Delta; \u0026chi;2 = 219.63, p \u0026lt; .001). Given some discrepancy between fit indices is common in CFA and cut-off thresholds are inconsistently applied across the field (Goretzko et al., 2024; Schermelleh-Engel et al., 2003), we considered the five-factor structure after modifications to have an adequate fit to the data for this stage of measurement development and in consideration of other reliability factors. Assessment of composite reliability (\u003cem\u003eCR\u003c/em\u003e) of the latent factors demonstrated acceptable reliability and internal consistency with values above the threshold of .70: (\u003cem\u003eCR\u003csub\u003eproblemsolving\u003c/sub\u003e =\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e.83, \u003cem\u003eCR\u003csub\u003einvalidation\u003c/sub\u003e =\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e.84, \u003cem\u003eCR\u003csub\u003eempathy\u003c/sub\u003e =\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e.74, \u003cem\u003eCR\u003csub\u003eavoidance\u003c/sub\u003e =\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e.75, \u003cem\u003eCR\u003csub\u003edistraction\u003c/sub\u003e =\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e.83\u003cem\u003e).\u003c/em\u003e Internal consistency was good for the full scale (\u0026alpha; = .89) and for each factor: Problem-solving/Reappraisal (\u0026alpha; = .83), Invalidation (\u0026alpha; = .83), Empathy (\u0026alpha; = .78), Avoidance (\u0026alpha; = .71), and Distraction/Soothing (\u0026alpha; = .82).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eConvergent and Divergent Validity.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eResults indicated that the EERQ had theoretically consistent convergent and divergent validity in Study 2, similar to Study 1 (see Table 4). In general, Problem-solving/Reappraisal, Empathy, and Distraction/Soothing subscales were associated with lower levels of ER difficulties, insecure attachment, depressive symptoms, and stress, as well as greater couples satisfaction and use of ER strategies. The Invalidation and Avoidance subscales were broadly related to these variables in the opposite direction. Similar to Study 1, the EERQ subscales had weak to moderate correlations to measures of intrapersonal ER, relationship, and psychological wellbeing\u0026mdash;indicating these constructs are related but theoretically and empirically distinct.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"STUDY 3: MEASURE VALIDITY WITH NON-ROMANTIC IER PARTNERS","content":"\u003cp\u003eGiven that individuals are strongly influenced by non-romantic relationships (e.g., friends, family) in addition to romantic ones (Caron et al., 2012) and that diverse social support networks are important to emotional well-being (Cheung et al., 2015), it is theoretically and practically important to capture IER with non-romantic close others. To test the utility of the EERQ in non-romantic relationships, we conducted Study 3 using a sample of single/unpartnered participants. Whereas in Studies 1 and 2, participants completed EERQ items with respect to their partner (who may or may not have been their primary source of IER support), in Study 3 participants were asked to identify the specific person they relied on most for social support, whatever their relationship to that person. This allowed tests of the EERQ\u0026rsquo;s structure and validity in an entirely different relational context in which IER and support provision occur, and an examination of generalizability of the measure.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMethods\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eParticipants and Procedure\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe sample included 208 participants who self-identified as not currently in a romantic relationship. Similar to Study 1, participants were recruited online via MTurk from March 2013. To review participant demographics, see Table 1. After indicating their single relationship status and prior to completing questionnaires, participants were asked to identify the \u0026ldquo;one person you are most likely to talk to when you are going through a difficult time,\u0026rdquo; excluding professionals such as therapists or religious professionals. Here, we refer to this identified person as their \u0026ldquo;primary supporter.\u0026rdquo; To review wording for the questionnaire instructions, see the supplementary materials. Most participants (58.2%) reported that their primary supporter was a friend, with other participants identifying a parent (18.8%), sibling (11.5%), cousin (2.4%), other relative (6.7%), or some other person (2.4%). All measures referencing a particular support provider reminded the participant to refer specifically to the person they had identified.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMeasures\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll measures from Study 1 were also administered in Study 3, except for the Couple Satisfaction Index (due to the unpartnered nature of the sample). Measure instructions and item wording for EERQ candidate items and relationship-specific measures were modified to specify the primary supporter rather than a partner. Otherwise, all procedures and measures were the same as in Study 1. The full set of 43 candidate items for the EERQ was included. Descriptive statistics and internal consistencies for all measures are reported in Table 5.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eResults and Discussion\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe EERQ was found to be a reliable measure in individuals reporting on non-romantic social supporters. It had strong internal consistency as a full scale (\u0026alpha; = .92), and for all factors: Problem-solving/Reappraisal (\u0026alpha; = .90), Invalidation (\u0026alpha; = .81), Empathy (\u0026alpha; = .81, Avoidance (\u0026alpha; = .84), and Distraction/Soothing (\u0026alpha; = .85). Patterns of convergent and divergent validity were overall similar to Studies 1 and 2, though some differences between the partnered (Study 1) and unpartnered samples (Study 3) were observed as described below. Weak to moderate correlations with the intrapersonal and relationship variables tested in Study 3 indicate that the EERQ is related to these constructs, but not so strongly that they are measuring the same thing. See Table 5 for correlations between the EERQ subscales and the variables examined.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe found that EERQ subscales appeared to have more associations with the relational, relationship-specific, intrapersonal ER, and psychological wellbeing variables in Study 1 compared to Study 3. While the direction of association between EERQ subscales and measures of interest were consistent across Studies 1 and 3, we found fewer statistically significant correlations in Study 3, and some of the significant associations were weaker. For example, although EERQ Invalidation and Avoidance were significantly negatively associated with certain CERQ subscales, such as planning and positive reappraisal, among partnered Study 1 participants, these relationships were not found in Study 3. Results suggest that IER from non-romantic compared to romantic social supporters might have fewer, smaller effects on intrapersonal and relationship characteristics such as ER, attachment style, and psychopathology. One potential explanation for these smaller effects is that individuals may have larger networks of friends and family who may provide support, so the impact of a single supporter may not be as central as that from a romantic partner. Another possibility is that the generally higher levels of closeness, intimacy, and interdependence in romantic relationships magnify the power of interpersonal influence from partners relative to other close others (Marroquin \u0026amp; Nolen-Hoeksema, 2015). Results suggest that, as theory predicts, (1) the EERQ structure captures IER phenomena in non-romantic as well as romantic relationships, and (2) external IER appears to have greater influence from romantic partners compared to other social supporters.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"STUDY 4: MEASURE VALIDITY IN A DIVERSE CLINICAL SAMPLE","content":"\u003cp\u003eStudies 1, 2, and 3 provide support for the 5-factor, 32-item EERQ, including evidence of divergent validity with measures of intrapersonal ER and ER-related characteristics such as attachment style. However, the possibility remains that our measure captures more general processes of social support, rather than the more specific processes of IER. We thus examined the EERQ\u0026rsquo;s associations with perceived support (i.e., the individual\u0026rsquo;s perception of available social support) and received support (i.e., actual support behavior by others). Moreover, it is possible that our measure of external IER support is redundant or overlapping with internal, intrinsic IER (e.g., received IER vs. support-seeking tendencies). In Study 4, we tested divergent validity with respect to these associated constructs. Moreover, we were interested in testing if the EERQ could be applicable in populations at risk for clinical concerns, and whether it was valid in ethnoracially minoritized and socioeconomically disadvantaged populations. As such, in Study 4, we recruited a diverse sample of individuals at high risk for affective psychopathology.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMethods\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eParticipants and Procedure\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eParticipants (\u003cem\u003eN\u003c/em\u003e = 193) were recruited from an introductory psychology course in a large, public commuter college in Northeastern U.S. from November 2019 to April 2020. Eligible students were 18 or older and scored above 18 on the Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale (Lovibond \u0026amp; Lovibond, 1995). This cutoff was selected to meet the threshold for moderate depression, severe anxiety, or moderate stress. After providing informed consent, participants completed the online survey. Participants were compensated with course credit or a $10 Amazon gift card.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eParticipant ages ranged from 18 to 41 (M = 19.51, SD = 2.72), and the sample was ethnoracially and socioeconomically diverse. Of the 146 participants that reported family income, 24.7% of students reported $24,999 or less in family income, 34.2% reported $25,000\u0026ndash;$49,999, 18.5% reported $50,000\u0026ndash;$74,999, and 22.6% reported $75,000 or greater. To review additional participant demographics, see Table 1.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eMeasures\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDescriptive statistics and internal consistencies for all measures are reported in Table 6.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEERQ.\u003c/strong\u003e To provide additional confirmation of the EERQ, all 43 initially generated items were administered. In this study, the instructions asked participants to identify one individual who is \u0026ldquo;most often with you when you are emotional\u0026rdquo; and to respond to items with this person in mind. This was done to ensure the EERQ is relevant to external ER influences regardless of a particular relationship type (e.g., romantic, as in Studies 1 and 2) or role as an explicitly positive supporter (as in Study 3). In other words, the instruction set captured the most general version of IER and may better capture a range of beneficial to detrimental IER effects (see supplemental materials).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTendencies to seek interpersonal ER.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eThe Interpersonal Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (IERQ; Hofmann et al., 2016) is a 20-item self-report questionnaire measuring tendencies to reach out to others to regulate emotions. The IERQ has four subscales with 5 items each (enhancing positive affect, perspective taking, soothing, social modeling). Possible scores ranged from 5 to 25 for each subscale and 20 to 100 total.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePerceived social support.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eThe Social Provisions Scale (SPS) is a 24-item questionnaire measuring the extent to which respondents feel supported in their social relationships (Russell \u0026amp; Cutrona, 1984). Total scores ranged from 24 to 96.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eReceived social support.\u003c/strong\u003e The Inventory of Socially Supportive Behaviors (ISSB; Barrera et al., 1981) contains 40 items measuring emotional, informational, and practical support behaviors provided by others. Respondents indicated how often they received each form of social support over the past four weeks, with total scores ranging from 40 to 200.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDepressive symptoms.\u003c/strong\u003e Depressive symptoms and severity were measured using the 20-item self-report Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D; Radloff, 1977). Participants indicated how often they experienced each symptom within the past week. Total scores range from 0 to 60, with scores of 15 or above indicating at least mild depression.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAnxiety symptoms.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eThe GAD-7 (Spitzer et al., 2006) was given, as in Studies 1 and 3. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSuicidal ideation.\u003c/strong\u003e The 25-item Adult Suicidal Ideation Questionnaire (ASIQ; Reynolds, 1991) was used to measure severity of suicide ideation in the past month. Respondents indicated frequency of thoughts, for a total score of 0 to 125.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eResults and Discussion\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eResults indicate that the EERQ retains its reliability and validity in a racially/ethnically and socioeconomically diverse sample with elevated depression and anxiety symptoms. We found that total (\u0026alpha; = .94) and subscale EERQ reliability scores (Problem-solving/Reappraisal \u0026alpha; = .91, Invalidation \u0026alpha; = .80, Empathy \u0026alpha; = .80, Avoidance \u0026alpha; = .89, and Distraction/Soothing \u0026alpha; = .88) were very good in this sample.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOverall, we found theoretically-consistent convergent and divergent validity for the EERQ in this sample, with external IER constructs overlapping with support-seeking and social support variables in theoretically consistent ways (see Table 6). Correlations indicated that the tendency to seek social resources to help regulate emotions, as measured by the IERQ, appears to be associated with actually receiving certain types of IER responses (i.e., problem-solving and distraction). At the same time, the modest effect indicates that external and internal IER differ meaningfully. Moderate correlations with the SRS and ISSB scales indicate that received IER is related to objective and perceived social support, as expected.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eUnlike in the previous studies, we did not find that the EERQ was significantly correlated with depression or anxiety symptoms. It is possible that this is due to less variation within the sample, which was selected for elevated mental health concerns. Alternatively, it is possible that associations between IER and psychopathology are weaker among ethnoracially minoritized individuals. However, we found that Problem-solving/Reappraisal was negatively correlated with suicide ideation severity, while Avoidance was positively correlated with it, suggesting that different types of IER may impact suicide-related risk differentially.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"GENERAL DISCUSSION","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe EERQ is a novel 32-item measure of interpersonal emotion regulation received from close others capturing behaviors across five subscales: 1) Problem-solving/Reappraisal, 2) Invalidation, 3) Empathy, 3) Avoidance, and 5) Distraction/Soothing. In Study 1, we developed a set of 43 initial items and conducted an exploratory factor analysis in a sample of adults in current romantic relationships. In Study 2, we confirmed the five-factor structure found in Study 1 in a sample of LGBTQ+ adults in romantic relationships. Study 3 validated the EERQ among single adults with non-romantic primary supporters, and Study 4 validated it among ethnoracially and socioeconomically diverse young adults with elevated depression and anxiety symptoms. The EERQ had very good to excellent reliability and validity across all four studies.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFindings support convergent and divergent validity of all five EERQ scales. Each subscale related in theoretically consistent ways across social/relational, social support, couples-specific, intrapersonal ER, support-seeking, and mental health/well-being variables. Strengths of associations were in the small to moderate range in most cases, indicating that the EERQ relates to other theoretically relevant constructs as expected, but is not redundant with any of them. The strongest associations seen in partnered samples (Studies 1 and 2) were with couple-specific variables, suggesting that the EERQ was particularly sensitive to the specific relationship as opposed to intrapersonal or social factors more broadly\u0026mdash;as was intended. Lastly, we found more and stronger correlations in partnered samples (Sample 1) compared to non-partnered ones (Sample 3), suggesting that external IER may play a larger role in both relationship-specific and intrapersonal characteristics within romantic relationships. The current studies suggest that IER resources vary between specific relationships, and that these processes have important connections with interpersonal and psychological functioning.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIt is important to note, however, that while IER and intrapersonal processes (e.g., intrapersonal ER, rumination) are significantly correlated across all four studies, the causal relationships between them are yet unknown. For example, interactions with others may cause changes in intrapersonal ER, but internal forces may also drive the individual\u0026rsquo;s behaviors eliciting (or avoiding) IER from others and their responses to any IER received. Further, it seems plausible that external and internal regulatory processes mutually and iteratively influence each other, but further research is necessary to draw concrete conclusions.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eImplications\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe EERQ fills an important gap in the self-report measurement toolbox by capturing \u003cem\u003eexternal\u003c/em\u003e interpersonal emotion regulation: individuals\u0026rsquo; perception of a specific support partner\u0026rsquo;s behaviors and responses to their emotions. Existing IER self-report measures only capture internal processes (e.g., reaching out to others more often, choosing a different support partner, changing behavior to elicit a different response, etc.), which are obvious targets for intervention. However, external IER influences can be just as impactful on emotion regulation and health, and our currently incomplete understanding of them presents a one-sided picture of an intrinsically dynamic and dyadic interpersonal process\u0026mdash;and they may be modifiable through intervention as well (e.g., couples or family therapy). The EERQ may help to identify IER mechanisms that contribute to psychopathology and negative relationship dynamics, as well as highlight those that might improve them and support psychological well-being.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo deliver more effective and tailored interventions, the EERQ may be useful in identifying which types of support are most adaptive in which circumstances and for whom. Emotion may be perceived, experienced, expressed, and regulated differently across ethnoracial backgrounds (Weiss et al., 2022), and these factors may play a role in how IER is received by individuals of different identities and cultures. As the only measure of IER that has been validated with a majority ethnoracially minoritized sample and an LGBTQ+ sample, the EERQ is a useful tool for better understanding how culture and identity impact IER. Further, the EERQ, which measures a variety of IER resources without assigning a positive or negative valence to each type, can capture the nuances in how social influences impact emotion regulation in disparate circumstances. Future research may inform clinical applications and potential interventions for individuals, couples, and families.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLimitations\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDespite the strengths of the EERQ, certain limitations should be considered when using it. First, as a self-report measure, it captures only the respondent\u0026rsquo;s perspective. Their perceptions may not match up with actual IER received, or with the perceptions of their support partner. Further, it may be subject to response bias, capturing more about how respondents feel about support partners rather than the types of received IER resources. Though research indicates that perception of support, not necessarily actually received support, is more closely associated with health outcomes (Haber et al., 2007), conclusions from self-report data should be drawn with caution. Other research methodologies, such as behavioral observation or dyadic studies, may be used in conjunction with EERQ for a clearer picture of relationship dynamics.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn terms of limitations in EERQ psychometrics, it should be noted that our Sample 2 CFA showed only adequate fit overall, with one of three fit indices evaluated (CFI) showing less than adequate fit based on rule-of-thumb cut-off thresholds (Schermelleh-Engel et al., 2003). Due to the smaller sample size of Studies 3 and 4, we were unable to conduct reliable CFAs in these samples. While there is variation in how cut-off thresholds are used and fit indices are commonly discrepant even within the same model (Goretzko et al., 2024; Schermelleh-Engel et al., 2003), the factor structure of the EERQ presented in this paper may not be the best fit for all samples and caution in its application is advised. In addition, the phrasing of the negatively-valanced items (e.g., \u0026ldquo;Does not do things to calm or comfort me\u0026rdquo;) requires the participant to report on the absence of a behavior, which may have led to interpretation issues. The two negatively-valanced factors had lower Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s alphas than two of the positively-valanced factors, but were within acceptable threshold limits.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eConstraints on Generality\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe EERQ factor structure was derived using a relatively racially homogenous sample: we performed both the EFA and CFA on samples that were around 80% non-Hispanic White. As such, the EERQ factors described here may not be the optimal organization of IER constructs outside of non-Hispanic White populations. One finding of note was that we did not find that the EERQ was significantly associated with psychopathology symptoms in Study 4, which utilized an ethnoracially diverse sample. We did find significant relationships between external IER and suicidal ideation in this sample. While this may be due to pre-selection of participants for high depression and anxiety symptoms, associations between IER and these variables may also be different in ethnoracially minoritized populations. Still, we found the EERQ to be overall valid and reliable in Study 4, which offsets some of these limitations.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGiven the weaker fit of the CFA in Study 2, it is possible that the current EERQ factor structure is strongest in predominantly White, heterosexual, cisgender samples similar to the one we used for the EFA. The CFA, by contrast, was conducted in a sample of LGBTQ+ individuals, who may relate to their support partners or engage in IER in different ways than do heterosexual, cisgender individuals. More research is necessary to better understand these potential differences. However, considering the EERQ\u0026rsquo;s strong internal consistency and theoretically consistent divergent and convergent validity in Sample 2, evidence indicates that it can reliably and validly capture IER in LGBTQ+ populations.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe EERQ is a valid and reliable tool to measure external interpersonal emotion regulation in a variety of social contexts, and with diverse populations. Validated across four studies, the EERQ has good psychometric properties and is theoretically consistent with existing relationship and emotion regulation research. The EERQ is a valuable tool for advancing the study of IER as an iterative and dyadic process, and potentially identifying modifiable targets for interventions targeting affective psychopathology.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eMX and BM wrote the main manuscript text, with additional support from GC and CV. BM provided major theoretical contributions, including primary conceptualization for the measure and initial item development; MX made additional theoretical contributions through further conceptualization and interpretation of results. GC led statistical analyses, in collaboration with MX, and also provided key instrumental support. BM, CV, and MX designed and conducted the studies presented in the current work. RM and CV procured grant funding which partially supported this study. RM provided professional connections that made this collaboration possible, and served as an advisor throughout the process. MX was the primary project manager and correspondent for the study. All authors reviewed the manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAcknowledgement\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe authors acknowledge the supervisory and mentorship role of Dr. Susan Nolen-Hoeksema during the early stages of this work. They also acknowledge the contributions of Dr. Nathan Huff from the Center for Research on Families at UMass Amherst as a statistical consultant.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eData Availability\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eData for Studies 1, 3, and 4 are not publicly available, but will be provided upon request. For Study 2, the full dataset cannot be made available due to identifiability of responses, but study materials and syntax will be provided upon request.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBarrera Jr., M. (1986). Distinctions between social support concepts, measures, and models. \u003cem\u003eAmerican Journal of Community Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e14\u003c/em\u003e(4), 413\u0026ndash;445. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00922627\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBarrera, M., Sandler, I. N., \u0026amp; Ramsay, T. B. (1981). Preliminary development of a scale of social support: Studies on college students. \u003cem\u003eAmerican Journal of Community Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e9\u003c/em\u003e(4), 435\u0026ndash;447. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00918174\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBarthel, A. L., Hay, A., Doan, S. N., \u0026amp; Hofmann, S. G. (2018). Interpersonal Emotion Regulation: A Review of Social and Developmental Components. \u003cem\u003eBehaviour Change; Bowen Hills\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e35\u003c/em\u003e(4), 203\u0026ndash;216. https://doi.org/10.1017/bec.2018.19\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBeck, A. T., Steer, R. A., \u0026amp; Brown, G. (1996). Beck Depression Inventory\u0026ndash;II. \u003cem\u003ePsychological Assessment\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.1037/t00742-000\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBond, F. W., Hayes, S. C., Baer, R. A., Carpenter, K. M., Guenole, N., Orcutt, H. K., Waltz, T., \u0026amp; Zettle, R. D. (2011). Preliminary Psychometric Properties of the Acceptance and Action Questionnaire\u0026ndash;II: A Revised Measure of Psychological Inflexibility and Experiential Avoidance. \u003cem\u003eBehavior Therapy\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e42\u003c/em\u003e(4), 676\u0026ndash;688. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2011.03.007\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBuckholdt, K. E., Parra, G. R., \u0026amp; Jobe-Shields, L. (2014). Intergenerational Transmission of Emotion Dysregulation Through Parental Invalidation of Emotions: Implications for Adolescent Internalizing and Externalizing Behaviors. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Child and Family Studies\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e23\u003c/em\u003e(2), 324\u0026ndash;332. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-013-9768-4\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBuhrmester, M. D., Talaifar, S., \u0026amp; Gosling, S. D. (2018). An Evaluation of Amazon\u0026rsquo;s Mechanical Turk, Its Rapid Rise, and Its Effective Use. \u003cem\u003ePerspectives on Psychological Science\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e13\u003c/em\u003e(2), 149\u0026ndash;154. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617706516\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCaron, A., Lafontaine, M.-F., Bureau, J.-F., Levesque, C., \u0026amp; Johnson, S. M. (2012). Comparisons of close relationships: An evaluation of relationship quality and patterns of attachment to parents, friends, and romantic partners in young adults. \u003cem\u003eCanadian Journal of Behavioural Science / Revue Canadienne Des Sciences Du Comportement\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e44\u003c/em\u003e(4), 245\u0026ndash;256. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028013\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCheung, E. O., Gardner, W. L., \u0026amp; Anderson, J. F. (2015). Emotionships: Examining People\u0026rsquo;s Emotion-Regulation Relationships and Their Consequences for Well-Being. \u003cem\u003eSocial Psychological and Personality Science\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e6\u003c/em\u003e(4), 407\u0026ndash;414. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550614564223\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eChronis-Tuscano, A., Bui, H. N. T., \u0026amp; Lorenzo, N. E. (2022). Transdiagnostic Implications of Parental Socialization of Child and Adolescent Emotional Development: Commentary and Future Directions. \u003cem\u003eResearch on Child and Adolescent Psychopathology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e50\u003c/em\u003e(2), 269\u0026ndash;282. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-021-00872-3\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCludius, B., Mennin, D., \u0026amp; Ehring, T. (2020). Emotion regulation as a transdiagnostic process. \u003cem\u003eEmotion\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e20\u003c/em\u003e(1), 37\u0026ndash;42. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000646\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCohen, S., Kamarck, T., \u0026amp; Mermelstein, R. (1983). A Global Measure of Perceived Stress. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Health and Social Behavior\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e24\u003c/em\u003e(4), 385\u0026ndash;396. https://doi.org/10.2307/2136404\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCross, S. E., Bacon, P. L., \u0026amp; Morris, M. L. (2000). The relational-interdependent self-construal and relationships. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Personality and Social Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e78\u003c/em\u003e(4), 791\u0026ndash;808. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.78.4.791\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCrowell, S. E., Beauchaine, T. P., \u0026amp; Linehan, M. M. (2009). A Biosocial Developmental Model of Borderline Personality: Elaborating and Extending Linehan\u0026rsquo;s Theory. \u003cem\u003ePsychological Bulletin\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e135\u003c/em\u003e(3), 495\u0026ndash;510. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015616\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDibble, J. L., Levine, T. R., \u0026amp; Park, H. S. (2012). The Unidimensional Relationship Closeness Scale (URCS): Reliability and validity evidence for a new measure of relationship closeness. \u003cem\u003ePsychological Assessment\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e24\u003c/em\u003e(3), 565\u0026ndash;572. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026265\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDiener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., \u0026amp; Griffin, S. (1985). The Satisfaction With Life Scale. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Personality Assessment\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e49\u003c/em\u003e(1), 71\u0026ndash;75. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDixon-Gordon, K. L., Bernecker, S. L., \u0026amp; Christensen, K. (2015). Recent innovations in the field of interpersonal emotion regulation. \u003cem\u003eCurrent Opinion in Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e3\u003c/em\u003e, 36\u0026ndash;42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.02.001\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDixon-Gordon, K. L., Haliczer, L. A., Conkey, L. C., \u0026amp; Whalen, D. J. (2018). Difficulties in Interpersonal Emotion Regulation: Initial Development and Validation of a Self-Report Measure. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e40\u003c/em\u003e(3), 528\u0026ndash;549. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-018-9647-9\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDixon-Gordon, K. L., Whalen, D. J., Scott, L. N., Cummins, N. D., \u0026amp; Stepp, S. D. (2016). The Main and Interactive Effects of Maternal Interpersonal Emotion Regulation and Negative Affect on Adolescent Girls\u0026rsquo; Borderline Personality Disorder Symptoms. \u003cem\u003eCognitive Therapy and Research\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e40\u003c/em\u003e(3), 381\u0026ndash;393. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10608-015-9706-4\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDunbar, A. S., Zeytinoglu, S., \u0026amp; Leerkes, E. M. (2022). When is Parental Suppression of Black Children\u0026rsquo;s Negative Emotions Adaptive? The Role of Preparation for Racial Bias and Children\u0026rsquo;s Resting Cardiac Vagal Tone. \u003cem\u003eResearch on Child and Adolescent Psychopathology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e50\u003c/em\u003e(2), 163\u0026ndash;176. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-021-00779-z\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eEisenberg, N., Cumberland, A., \u0026amp; Spinrad, T. L. (1998). Parental Socialization of Emotion. \u003cem\u003ePsychological Inquiry\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e9\u003c/em\u003e(4), 241\u0026ndash;273.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eEisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., \u0026amp; Murphy, B. C. (1996). Parents\u0026rsquo; Reactions to Children\u0026rsquo;s Negative Emotions: Relations to Children\u0026rsquo;s Social Competence and Comforting Behavior. \u003cem\u003eChild Development\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e67\u003c/em\u003e(5), 2227\u0026ndash;2247. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1996.tb01854.x\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eFruzzetti, A. E., \u0026amp; Iverson, K. M. (2006). Intervening With Couples and Families to Treat Emotion Dysregulation and Psychopathology. In \u003cem\u003eEmotion regulation in couples and families: Pathways to dysfunction and health\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 249\u0026ndash;267). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/11468-012\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eFunk, J. L., \u0026amp; Rogge, R. D. (2007). Testing the ruler with item response theory: Increasing precision of measurement for relationship satisfaction with the Couples Satisfaction Index. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Family Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e21\u003c/em\u003e(4), 572\u0026ndash;583. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.21.4.572\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGarnefski, N., \u0026amp; Kraaij, V. (2007). The Cognitive Emotion Regulation Questionnaire. \u003cem\u003eEuropean Journal of Psychological Assessment\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e23\u003c/em\u003e(3), 141\u0026ndash;149. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759.23.3.141\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGoretzko, D., Siemund, K., \u0026amp; Sterner, P. (2024). Evaluating Model Fit of Measurement Models in Confirmatory Factor Analysis. \u003cem\u003eEducational and Psychological Measurement\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e84\u003c/em\u003e(1), 123\u0026ndash;144. https://doi.org/10.1177/00131644231163813\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGratz, K. L., \u0026amp; Roemer, L. (2004). Multidimensional Assessment of Emotion Regulation and Dysregulation: Development, Factor Structure, and Initial Validation of the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e26\u003c/em\u003e(1), 41\u0026ndash;54. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JOBA.0000007455.08539.94\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGross, J. J. (2015). The Extended Process Model of Emotion Regulation: Elaborations, Applications, and Future Directions. \u003cem\u003ePsychological Inquiry\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e26\u003c/em\u003e(1), 130\u0026ndash;137. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2015.989751\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGross, J. J., \u0026amp; John, O. P. (2003). Individual differences in two emotion regulation processes: Implications for affect, relationships, and well-being. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Personality and Social Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e85\u003c/em\u003e(2), 348\u0026ndash;362. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.2.348\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHaber, M. G., Cohen, J. L., Lucas, T., \u0026amp; Baltes, B. B. (2007). The relationship between self-reported received and perceived social support: A meta-analytic review. \u003cem\u003eAmerican Journal of Community Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e39\u003c/em\u003e(1), 133\u0026ndash;144. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-007-9100-9\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHofmann, S. G. (2014). Interpersonal Emotion Regulation Model of Mood and Anxiety Disorders. \u003cem\u003eCognitive Therapy and Research\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e38\u003c/em\u003e(5), 483\u0026ndash;492. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10608-014-9620-1\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHofmann, S. G., Carpenter, J. K., \u0026amp; Curtiss, J. (2016). Interpersonal Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (IERQ): Scale Development and Psychometric Characteristics. \u003cem\u003eCognitive Therapy and Research\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e40\u003c/em\u003e(3), 341\u0026ndash;356. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10608-016-9756-2\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHorn, A. B., \u0026amp; Maercker, A. (2016). Intra- and interpersonal emotion regulation and adjustment symptoms in couples: The role of co-brooding and co-reappraisal. \u003cem\u003eBMC Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e4\u003c/em\u003e(1), 51. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-016-0159-7\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eJackson, D. L. (2003). Revisiting Sample Size and Number of Parameter Estimates: Some Support for the N:q Hypothesis. \u003cem\u003eStructural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e10\u003c/em\u003e(1), 128\u0026ndash;141. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM1001_6\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKneeland, E. T., Hay, A., Curtiss, J., Hennessey, A., Vanderlind, W. M., Joormann, J., \u0026amp; Clark, M. S. (2024). The development of a novel scale to assess intra- and interpersonal emotion regulation strategies: The Emotion Regulation Strategy Scale (ERSS). \u003cem\u003eEmotion (Washington, D.C.)\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e24\u003c/em\u003e(7). https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0001375\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKohout, F. J., Berkman, L. F., Evans, D. A., \u0026amp; Cornoni-Huntley, J. (1993). Two shorter forms of the CES-D (Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression) depression symptoms index. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Aging and Health\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e5\u003c/em\u003e(2), 179\u0026ndash;193. https://doi.org/10.1177/089826439300500202\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKroenke, K., Spitzer, R. L., \u0026amp; Williams, J. B. W. (2001). The PHQ-9. \u003cem\u003eJournal of General Internal Medicine\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e16\u003c/em\u003e(9), 606\u0026ndash;613. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1525-1497.2001.016009606.x\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLakey, B., \u0026amp; Orehek, E. (2011). Relational regulation theory: A new approach to explain the link between perceived social support and mental health. \u003cem\u003ePsychological Review\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e118\u003c/em\u003e(3), 482\u0026ndash;495. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023477\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLakey, B., Vander Molen, R. J., Fles, E., \u0026amp; Andrews, J. (2016). Ordinary Social Interaction and the Main Effect Between Perceived Support and Affect. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Personality\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e84\u003c/em\u003e(5), 671\u0026ndash;684. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12190\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLamoreau, R., Park, J. eun, Skov, H., Pequet, A., \u0026amp; Gray, S. A. O. (2023). Intimate partner violence and preschool self-regulation: Examining the role of maternal emotion socialization in Black families. \u003cem\u003eSocial Development\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e32\u003c/em\u003e(4), 1280\u0026ndash;1301. https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12691\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLepore, S. J., Ragan, J. D., \u0026amp; Jones, S. (2000). Talking facilitates cognitive-emotional processes of adaptation to an acute stressor. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Personality and Social Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e78\u003c/em\u003e(3), 499\u0026ndash;508. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.78.3.499\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLevy-Gigi, E., \u0026amp; Shamay-Tsoory, S. G. (2017). Help me if you can: Evaluating the effectiveness of interpersonal compared to intrapersonal emotion regulation in reducing distress. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e55\u003c/em\u003e, 33\u0026ndash;40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbtep.2016.11.008\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLovibond, P. F., \u0026amp; Lovibond, S. H. (1995). The structure of negative emotional states: Comparison of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS) with the Beck Depression and Anxiety Inventories. \u003cem\u003eBehaviour Research and Therapy\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e33\u003c/em\u003e(3), 335\u0026ndash;343. https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-7967(94)00075-u\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMarroqu\u0026iacute;n, B. (2011). Interpersonal emotion regulation as a mechanism of social support in depression. \u003cem\u003eClinical Psychology Review\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e31\u003c/em\u003e(8), 1276\u0026ndash;1290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2011.09.005\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMarroqu\u0026iacute;n, B., \u0026amp; Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (2015). Emotion Regulation and Depressive Symptoms: Close Relationships as Social Context and Influence. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Personality and Social Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e109\u003c/em\u003e(5), 836\u0026ndash;855. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000034\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eNiven, K. (2017). The four key characteristics of interpersonal emotion regulation. \u003cem\u003eCurrent Opinion in Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e17\u003c/em\u003e, 89\u0026ndash;93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.06.015\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eNiven, K., Totterdell, P., Stride, C. B., \u0026amp; Holman, D. (2011). Emotion Regulation of Others and Self (EROS): The Development and Validation of a New Individual Difference Measure. \u003cem\u003eCurrent Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e30\u003c/em\u003e(1), 53\u0026ndash;73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-011-9099-9\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRadloff, L. S. (1977). The CES-D Scale: A Self-Report Depression Scale for Research in the General Population. \u003cem\u003eApplied Psychological Measurement\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e1\u003c/em\u003e(3), 385\u0026ndash;401. https://doi.org/10.1177/014662167700100306\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRempel, J. K., Holmes, J. G., \u0026amp; Zanna, M. P. (1985). Trust Scale. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Personality and Social Psychology\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eReynolds, W. M. (1991). Psychometric Characteristics of the Adult Suicidal Ideation Questionnaire in College Students. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Personality Assessment\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e56\u003c/em\u003e(2), 289. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa5602_9\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRim\u0026eacute;, B. (2007). Interpersonal Emotion Regulation. In J. J. Gross (Ed.), \u003cem\u003eHandbook of Emotion Regulation\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 466\u0026ndash;485). Guilford Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRim\u0026eacute;, B. (2009). Emotion Elicits the Social Sharing of Emotion: Theory and Empirical Review. \u003cem\u003eEmotion Review\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e1\u003c/em\u003e(1), 60\u0026ndash;85. https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073908097189\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRussell, D. W., \u0026amp; Cutrona, C. E. (1984). \u003cem\u003eSocial Provisions Scale\u003c/em\u003e. Iowa State University.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRussell, D. W., Peplau, L. A., \u0026amp; Cutrona, C. E. (1980). The revised UCLA Loneliness Scale: Concurrent and discriminant validity evidence. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Personality and Social Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e39\u003c/em\u003e(3), 472\u0026ndash;480. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.39.3.472\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSbarra, D. A., \u0026amp; Coan, J. A. (2018). Relationships and Health: The Critical Role of Affective Science. \u003cem\u003eEmotion Review\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e10\u003c/em\u003e(1), 40\u0026ndash;54. https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073917696584\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSchaefer, M. T., \u0026amp; Olson, D. H. (1981). Assessing Intimacy: The Pair Inventory*. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Marital and Family Therapy\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e7\u003c/em\u003e(1), 47\u0026ndash;60. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-0606.1981.tb01351.x\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSchermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., \u0026amp; M\u0026uuml;ller, H. (2003). Evaluating the Fit of Structural Equation Models: Tests of Significance and Descriptive Goodness-of-Fit Measures. \u003cem\u003eMethods of Psychological Research\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e8\u003c/em\u003e(2). https://www.psycharchives.org/en/item/1a8dea48-0285-4dac-a612-9dc0ff2532f6\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eShenk, C. E., \u0026amp; Fruzzetti, A. E. (2011). The Impact of Validating and Invalidating Responses on Emotional Reactivity. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Social and Clinical Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e30\u003c/em\u003e(2), 163\u0026ndash;183. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.2011.30.2.163\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSpitzer, R. L., Kroenke, K., Williams, J. B. W., \u0026amp; L\u0026ouml;we, B. (2006). A Brief Measure for Assessing Generalized Anxiety Disorder: The GAD-7. \u003cem\u003eArchives of Internal Medicine\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e166\u003c/em\u003e(10), 1092. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.166.10.1092\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTaylor, S. E. (2012). Social Support: A Review. In \u003cem\u003eThe Oxford Handbook of Health Psychology\u003c/em\u003e. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195342819.013.0009\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTreynor, W., Gonzalez, R., \u0026amp; Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (2003). Rumination Reconsidered: A Psychometric Analysis. \u003cem\u003eCognitive Therapy and Research\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e27\u003c/em\u003e(3), 247\u0026ndash;259. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023910315561\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eUCSF Stress Measurement Network. (2017). \u003cem\u003eStress in Context (SIC)\u003c/em\u003e. UCSF Stress Measurement Network. https://www.stressmeasurement.org/stress-in-context\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWei, M., Russell, D. W., Mallinckrodt, B., \u0026amp; Vogel, D. L. (2007). The Experiences in Close Relationship Scale (ECR)-Short Form: Reliability, Validity, and Factor Structure. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Personality Assessment\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e88\u003c/em\u003e(2), 187\u0026ndash;204. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223890701268041\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWeiss, N. H., Thomas, E. D., Schick, M. R., Reyes, M. E., \u0026amp; Contractor, A. A. (2022). Racial and ethnic differences in emotion regulation: A systematic review. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Clinical Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e78\u003c/em\u003e(5), 785\u0026ndash;808. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.23284\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWilliams, W. C., Morelli, S. A., Ong, D. C., \u0026amp; Zaki, J. (2018). Interpersonal emotion regulation: Implications for affiliation, perceived support, relationships, and well-being. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Personality and Social Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e115\u003c/em\u003e(2), 224\u0026ndash;254. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000132\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eXu, M., Corbeil, T., Bochicchio, L., Scheer, J. R., Wall, M., \u0026amp; Hughes, T. L. (2024). Childhood sexual abuse, adult sexual assault, revictimization, and coping among sexual minority women. \u003cem\u003eChild Abuse \u0026amp; Neglect\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e151\u003c/em\u003e, 106721. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2024.106721\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eZaki, J. (2020). Integrating Empathy and Interpersonal Emotion Regulation. \u003cem\u003eAnnual Review of Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e71\u003c/em\u003e, 517\u0026ndash;540. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010419-050830\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eZaki, J., \u0026amp; Williams, W. C. (2013). Interpersonal emotion regulation. \u003cem\u003eEmotion\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e13\u003c/em\u003e(5), 803\u0026ndash;810. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033839\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"},{"header":"Tables","content":"\u003cp\u003eTables 1 to 6 are available in the Supplementary Files section\u003c/p\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":true,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"cognitive-therapy-and-research","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"cotr","sideBox":"Learn more about [Cognitive Therapy and Research](http://link.springer.com/journal/10608)","snPcode":"10608","submissionUrl":"https://www.editorialmanager.com/cotr/default.aspx","title":"Cognitive Therapy and Research","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Springer Hybrid","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false},"keywords":"interpersonal emotion regulation, emotion regulation, psychopathology, measurement, dyadic processes, relationships ","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6356709/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6356709/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003ePurpose\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDespite the strong effects of social relationships on psychopathology, interpersonal emotion regulation (IER) is understudied compared to \u003cem\u003eintra\u003c/em\u003epersonal emotion regulation (ER). In particular, external IER (e.g., ER influences \u003cem\u003ereceived from others within interpersonal interactions\u003c/em\u003e) is less understood than internal IER (e.g., intrinsic or self-generated ER that involves other people, such as support-seeking). To fill this gap, we developed the External Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (EERQ) and validated it across four studies.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eMethods\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWe generated an initial set of items and conducted an exploratory factor analysis in a sample of 548 adults reporting on IER from their romantic partners (Study 1). A confirmatory factor analysis was conducted in a sample of 1,012 LGBTQ\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;individuals with romantic partners (Study 2). We further validated the EERQ among 214 single adults (Study 3) and 193 ethnoracially diverse young adults with elevated psychopathology symptoms (Study 4).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eResults\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe 32-item measure includes five subscales: 1) Problem-solving/Reappraisal, 2) Invalidation, 3) Empathy, 3) Avoidance, and 5) Distraction/Soothing. The EERQ had strong internal consistency (α\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.71 \u0026ndash; .96) and construct validity across all four studies.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eConclusions\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe EERQ showed good psychometric properties among diverse populations, in both clinically elevated and general samples, and with romantic and non-romantic support partners, making it a relationship-specific yet broadly applicable measure of IER. Theoretical and clinical implications are discussed.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Capturing Interpersonal Resources for Emotion Regulation: Development and Validation of the External Emotion Regulation Questionnaire","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-04-24 07:24:53","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6356709/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2025-04-27T10:54:14+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-04-26T14:41:40+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-04-24T18:17:24+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-04-09T08:19:18+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"268775306141096550722728597705702075831","date":"2025-04-04T20:44:44+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"276711331633738781262273232784124250543","date":"2025-04-04T19:13:14+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"259066483389537729245084423081729843362","date":"2025-04-02T20:59:16+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"98028834053825935614185323535109414299","date":"2025-04-02T19:14:52+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2025-04-02T19:10:21+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2025-04-02T05:18:53+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2025-04-02T05:16:24+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Cognitive Therapy and Research","date":"2025-04-02T02:06:25+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"cognitive-therapy-and-research","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"cotr","sideBox":"Learn more about [Cognitive Therapy and Research](http://link.springer.com/journal/10608)","snPcode":"10608","submissionUrl":"https://www.editorialmanager.com/cotr/default.aspx","title":"Cognitive Therapy and Research","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Springer Hybrid","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"f48491c4-cca6-4426-9343-e37f30761c89","owner":[],"postedDate":"April 24th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"published-in-journal","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-07-07T16:01:30+00:00","versionOfRecord":{"articleIdentity":"rs-6356709","link":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10608-025-10622-0","journal":{"identity":"cognitive-therapy-and-research","isVorOnly":false,"title":"Cognitive Therapy and Research"},"publishedOn":"2025-07-05 15:57:22","publishedOnDateReadable":"July 5th, 2025"},"versionCreatedAt":"2025-04-24 07:24:53","video":"","vorDoi":"10.1007/s10608-025-10622-0","vorDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10608-025-10622-0","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-6356709","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-6356709","identity":"rs-6356709","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}