Regulating Others’ Emotions Scale (ROES)

Description

The Regulating Others’ Emotions Scale (ROES; MacCann et al., 2025) is designed to evaluate various strategies employed to regulate the emotions of others. Its development involved four studies, drawing upon Gross’s (1998) process model of emotion regulation and Niven et al.’s (2009) taxonomy of controlled extrinsic regulation strategies. The initial item pool was generated to represent strategies from both the process model and the taxonomy. In the item review process, eight researchers independently assigned each item to a list of strategies. This process resulted in an initial item pool of 96 items. The measure was administered online to two waves of adults from English-speaking countries. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses resulted in an eight-factor structure, retaining 32 items.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the ROES is to assess the strategies individuals use to regulate the emotions of other people.

Instrument

• Test Type: Original

• Format: Participants rate the 32 items on a 6-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree).

• Language Available: English

• Population Group: Human, Male, Female

• Age Group: Adulthood (18 years & older), Young Adulthood (18-29 years), Thirties (30-39 years), Middle Age (40-64 years), Aged (65 years & older)

• Population Details: The scale was administered to English-speaking adults, with an age range of 18-76, located in the United Kingdom and other English-speaking countries.

• Test Methodology: The scale was evaluated using test validity, convergent validity, criterion validity, discriminant validity, test reliability, internal consistency, test-retest reliability, factor analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, and exploratory factor analysis.

Validity

The ROES demonstrates strong structural validity, as indicated by confirmatory factor analyses supporting the eight-factor model. It also exhibits reasonable discriminant validity in relation to broad personality traits (HEXACO and dark triad traits) and convergent validity with existing scales of extrinsic emotion regulation. Furthermore, the scales demonstrated criterion-related validity by predicting important social and emotional outcomes (regulator well-being, target emotions, relationship quality). These links to social and emotional outcomes were mainly (but not solely) for the three highest engagement strategies (valuing, cognitive reframing, and responsive listening), with the strongest and most consistent associations for valuing.

Reliability

The internal consistency of the ROES is good, with Cronbach’s alpha ranging from .78 to .90 for Wave 1 and .75 to .92 for Wave 2. Test-retest reliability over a 3-week period was > .70 for 50% of the strategies, with a range of .59–.80.

Factor Analysis

Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted, and the first eight factors were considered for inclusion. Items were selected based on salient loadings (≥ .30) on the target factors and the absence of salient cross-loadings on other factors. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) demonstrated a good fit for the eight-factor, 32-item model (comparative fit index = .951, root-mean-square error of approximation = .039, standardized root-mean-square residual = .055).

Keywords

Cognitive Reframing, Direct Action, Distraction, Downward Social Comparison, Expressive Suppression, Humor, Receptive Listening, Structural Validity, Valuing, Emotion Regulation Strategies, Emotional Regulation, Interpersonal Interaction, Strategies, Emotional Assessment, Social and Interpersonal Measures.

Authors

• MacCann, Carolyn (Author Identifier: http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7789-6368)

  • Affiliation: University of Sydney, School of Psychology

  • Email: [email protected]

• Double, Kit S.

  • Affiliation: University of Sydney, School of Psychology

• Olderbak, Sally

  • Affiliation: Ulm University, Institute for Psychology and Education

• Austin, Elizabeth J.

  • Affiliation: University of Edinburgh, School of Philosophy Psychology and Language Sciences

• Pinkus, Rebecca T.

  • Affiliation: University of Sydney, School of Psychology

• Walker, Sarah A.

  • Affiliation: Durham University, School of Education

• Kunst, Hannah

  • Affiliation: University of Sydney, University of Sydney Business School

• Niven, Karen

  • Affiliation: University of Sheffield, Sheffield University Management School

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

• Permissions: May be used for Research/Teaching

• Commercial Usage: No

• Fee: No

• Test Year: 2025

• Web Site: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.en

Correspondence Address

MacCann, Carolyn: University of Sydney, School of Psychology, 449 Brennan MacCallum Building (A18), Manning Road, Sydney, Australia, 2007, [email protected]

Email

[email protected]

Files

No data is Available

Reference’s

MacCann, C., Double, K. S., Olderbak, S., Austin, E. J., Pinkus, R. T., Walker, S. A., Kunst, H., & Niven, K. (2025). What do we do to help others feel better? The eight strategies of the Regulating Others’ Emotions Scale (ROES). Emotion, 25(2), 410–429. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0001459

Items of the Regulating Others’ Emotions Scale (ROES)

Regulating Others’ Emotions Scale (ROES)

Instructions: Please rate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements, describing how you typically act when trying to regulate the emotions of others. Use the scale below:

1 = Strongly disagree
2 = Disagree
3 = Somewhat disagree
4 = Somewhat agree
5 = Agree
6 = Strongly agree

Expressive suppression
I ask them to put a brave face on
I tell them to “turn that frown upside down”
I ask them not to look so irritated
I tell them not to frown or cry

Downward social comparison
I compare their situation to other people who are worse off
I help them to see how lucky they are compared to others
I tell them that things could be a lot worse
I talk about people who have even bigger problems

Humor
I make jokes to make them smile
I say comical, light-hearted things
I act silly to entertain them
I do something amusing

Distraction
I divert their attention to something else
I help them to focus on other things
I start talking about something more pleasant
I suggest something else for them to do

Direct action
I try to fix things for them
I do what I can to find an answer for them
I take action to change their situation
I try to modify their situation

Cognitive reframing
I discuss different ways of interpreting the situation
I help them to change the way they think about their problems
I discuss other ways that they could interpret events
I help them see events in a new way

Valuing
I tell them they are very important to me
I let them know how much they mean to me
I tell them how much I value them
I make them feel special or cared about

Receptive listening
I let them talk to me about their troubles
I let them talk to me about their troubles
I listen to them talk about their emotions
I help them to let off steam by talking to me