Regulating Others’ Emotions Scale (ROES)

Abstract

The Regulating Others’ Emotions Scale (ROES) is a 32-item psychometric instrument developed by Carolyn MacCann and colleagues (2025) to comprehensively operationalize and quantify the diverse behavioral, cognitive, and communicative strategies individuals employ to modulate the affective states of other people—a process termed extrinsic or interpersonal emotion regulation (interpersonal emotion regulation). Synthesizing James J. Gross’s (1998) classic modal/process model of intrapersonal emotion regulation with Karen Niven et al.’s (2009) taxonomy of controlled extrinsic affective interventions, the ROES captures eight distinct regulatory strategies: Expressive Suppression, Downward Social Comparison, Humor, Distraction, Direct Action, Cognitive Reframing, Valuing, and Receptive Listening. Across a four-study validation design comprising two large adult cohorts from English-speaking nations (spanning young adulthood to late senescence, ages 18–76), the scale underwent rigorous item-content sorting by independent experts, exploratory factor analysis (EFA), and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA).

The instrument utilizes a 6-point Likert-type response format ranging from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 6 (Strongly agree), structured evenly with four items allocated to each of the eight subscales. Psychometric evaluations demonstrate robust structural validity, showing excellent confirmatory fit indices (Comparative Fit Index [CFI] = .951, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation [RMSEA] = .039, Standardized Root Mean Square Residual [SRMR] = .055). Internal consistency reliability is strong across waves, with subscale Cronbach’s alpha coefficients ranging from .78 to .90 in Wave 1 and .75 to .92 in Wave 2. Three-week test-retest coefficients demonstrate solid temporal stability, ranging from .59 to .80, with half exceeding .70. Construct validity is evidenced through theoretical divergence from HEXACO and Dark Triad personality dimensions, convergent associations with preexisting interpersonal emotion management tools, and significant criterion-related prediction of regulator subjective well-being, target emotional states, and interpersonal relationship quality. High-engagement strategies—most prominently Valuing, Cognitive Reframing, and Receptive Listening—emerge as the primary predictors of constructive social and affective outcomes, establishing the ROES as a foundational assessment tool for social, personality, organizational, and clinical psychology research.

Keywords

Interpersonal Emotion Regulation, Extrinsic Emotion Regulation, Regulating Others’ Emotions Scale, Cognitive Reframing, Valuing, Receptive Listening, Expressive Suppression, Downward Social Comparison, Direct Action, Humor, Emotional Assessment, Psychometrics

Authors

The Regulating Others’ Emotions Scale (ROES) was designed, validated, and published through a multinational research collaboration across psychological and behavioral sciences departments:

• Carolyn MacCann (Author Identifier: ORCID 0000-0001-7789-6368) — School of Psychology, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. Email: [email protected] (Corresponding Author). Address: 449 Brennan MacCallum Building (A18), Manning Road, Sydney, NSW 2007, Australia.
• Kit S. Double — School of Psychology, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
• Sally Olderbak — Institute for Psychology and Education, Ulm University, Ulm, Germany.
• Elizabeth J. Austin — School of Philosophy, Psychology and Language Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland, United Kingdom.
• Rebecca T. Pinkus — School of Psychology, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
• Sarah A. Walker — School of Education, Durham University, Durham, England, United Kingdom.
• Hannah Kunst — University of Sydney Business School, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
• Karen Niven — Sheffield University Management School, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, England, United Kingdom.

Purpose

Human survival and psychological health depend intrinsically on the quality of interpersonal bonds. Throughout everyday human life, individuals constantly act as social regulation agents for their romantic partners, children, friends, colleagues, and clients. While decades of psychometric scholarship have focused predominantly on intrinsic emotion regulation—the internal strategies individuals deploy to adjust their own felt emotions (Gross, 1998)—substantially less empirical attention was historically directed toward extrinsic or interpersonal emotion regulation (IER). The Regulating Others’ Emotions Scale (ROES) was developed to resolve this psychometric imbalance by providing a fine-grained, psychometrically rigorous, and structurally comprehensive measurement model of the behavioral and cognitive tactics people use when attempting to alter the emotional states of others.

Prior measurement devices in this field, such as the Emotion Regulation of Others and Self scale (EROS; Niven et al., 2011) or interpersonal subscales within emotional intelligence measures, often collapsed multiple distinct interpersonal behaviors into broad binary classifications, such as affect-improving versus affect-worsening strategies, or relied on generalized situation vignettes. Such broad categorizations obscure critical behavioral variations. For instance, attempting to improve a friend’s mood through instrumental problem-solving (Direct Action) represents a qualitatively distinct psychological mechanism compared to providing an unconditional relational affirmation (Valuing), distractively redirecting attention (Distraction), or prompting cognitive reframing (Cognitive Reframing). The ROES was conceived to isolate and differentiate eight unique behavioral pathways within extrinsic emotion regulation, offering researchers and practitioners an analytical tool with superior diagnostic granularity.

In applied and clinical environments, the ROES serves multiple critical functions:

• Dyadic and Marital Psychotherapy: Couples therapists can administer the ROES to identify maladaptive interaction patterns where one or both partners routinely default to invalidating strategies (e.g., Expressive Suppression, dismissive Downward Social Comparison) rather than high-engagement, validating strategies (e.g., Receptive Listening, Valuing), facilitating targeted behavioral coaching.
• Organizational Behavior and Leadership Development: Leadership performance relies heavily on extrinsic emotion management. Leaders who regulate subordinate stress via instrumental direct action or supportive cognitive reframing cultivate higher psychological safety, lower workplace burnout, and superior organizational citizenship behaviors compared to leaders who discourage emotional displays.
• Parenting and Child Development: Parent-child emotional socialization is fundamentally an extrinsic regulatory process. The scale provides developmental psychologists with a standardized index to explore how parental deployment of specific strategies influences children’s socioemotional competence and emotion regulation mastery over time.
• Healthcare, Nursing, and Caregiver Wellbeing: Compassion fatigue and emotional burnout among healthcare workers are intimately linked to interpersonal emotional labor. The ROES enables occupational health researchers to monitor which regulatory tactics preserve caregiver psychological stamina without provoking target distress.

Psychological Construct

The Regulating Others’ Emotions Scale operationalizes extrinsic emotion regulation as a multidimensional construct comprising eight explicit strategies. Each strategy captures a distinct behavioral orientation toward an emotional target’s situation, cognition, or affective expression:

1. Expressive Suppression

Expressive Suppression in an extrinsic context involves advising or pressuring the target individual to conceal, inhibit, or modify their outward emotional expressions (e.g., facial expressions, vocal weeping, or behavioral manifestations of distress). Items reflect attempts to stop the other person from visibly displaying negative emotions (e.g., asking them to “put a brave face on” or not to cry or frown). Unlike intrinsic suppression, which entails internal self-control, extrinsic suppression functions as an interpersonal directive that often signals social invalidation, emotional discomfort on the part of the regulator, or an attempt to terminate the emotional display to avoid interpersonal awkwardness.

2. Downward Social Comparison

Downward Social Comparison entails prompting the target individual to contrast their present adversity with the harsher circumstances of less fortunate people. The regulator uses this strategy to contextualize the problem, encouraging the target to perceive their own hardships as relatively minor or bearable (e.g., asserting that “things could be a lot worse” or highlighting individuals confronting greater tragedies). While occasionally aimed at cultivating gratitude or perspective, this strategy risks minimizing the target’s authentic distress if deployed without empathy.

3. Humor

The Humor strategy involves the strategic introduction of comical, witty, lighthearted, or playful stimuli into the interaction to alleviate emotional tension and provoke positive affective states (e.g., smiling, laughter). Regulators deploy humor to de-escalate acute autonomic arousal, shift conversational valence, and introduce levity. In contrast to hostile or sarcastic humor, the items in the ROES reflect prosocial, affiliative, or self-effacing humor intended to elevate the target’s mood.

4. Distraction

Extrinsic Distraction represents an attentional deployment tactic wherein the regulator actively steers the target’s focus away from the distressing event or emotion toward neutral or emotionally positive external tasks, conversational topics, or environmental stimuli. By suggesting alternative activities or introducing pleasant conversational divergences, the regulator attempts to disrupt rumination and temporarily unburden the target’s cognitive capacity from emotionally distressing themes.

5. Direct Action

Direct Action reflects tangible, instrumental, and problem-focused interventions wherein the regulator directly intervenes to modify, resolve, or manage the objective circumstances causing the target’s emotional upheaval. Rather than focusing solely on the target’s internal appraisals or physiological arousal, the regulator actively seeks solutions, rectifies errors, or alters the external environment to eliminate the root cause of the emotional challenge.

6. Cognitive Reframing

Cognitive Reframing (the extrinsic counterpart to cognitive reappraisal) involves collaborative communication aimed at modifying how the target interprets, appraises, or contextualizes their stressful situation. Regulators help the target explore alternative viewpoints, identify constructive meanings, re-evaluate underlying catastrophic assumptions, or recognize silver linings. This high-engagement strategy preserves target agency while facilitating profound alterations in subjective emotional experience.

7. Valuing

Valuing constitutes an explicit, affirming relational strategy wherein the regulator directly conveys affection, deep appreciation, interpersonal worth, and unconditional support to the target. By telling the individual that they are deeply cared for, vital, and treasured, the regulator bolsters the target’s self-esteem and relational security. Empirical findings establish Valuing as the single most potent predictor of interpersonal relationship satisfaction, target affective relief, and regulator subjective well-being among all eight subscales.

8. Receptive Listening

Receptive Listening embodies supportive, nonjudgmental, and validating presence. The regulator creates a safe interpersonal container that allows the target to articulate their emotional pain, vent frustration, and speak openly about their problems without interruption, unsolicited advice, or immediate redirection. By bearing witness to the target’s distress and listening attentively, the regulator communicates profound empathy and emotional validation.

Theoretical Framework

The ROES is anchored in the theoretical integration of two foundational paradigms in affective science: James J. Gross’s (1998) Process Model of Emotion Regulation and Karen Niven et al.’s (2009) Taxonomy of Extrinsic Emotion Regulation.

Gross’s modal model conceptualizes emotion generation along a temporal timeline: a situation occurs, is attended to, is appraised, and subsequently generates experiential, behavioral, and physiological emotional responses. Within intrinsic regulation, individuals manage emotions across five primary points of intervention:

1. Situation Selection
2. Situation Modification
3. Attentional Deployment
4. Cognitive Change
5. Response Modulation

The authors of the ROES systematically mapped these theoretical nodes onto the interpersonal sphere, recognizing that social partners routinely intervene at each of these identical generative phases:

• Situation Modification: Interpersonally enacted through Direct Action, where the regulator steps into the target’s external reality to alter situational affordances.
• Attentional Deployment: Operationalized interpersonally through Distraction, where the regulator directs the target’s focal attention toward alternative stimuli.
• Cognitive Change: Encompasses multiple distinct communicative approaches: Cognitive Reframing (altering situational interpretations), Downward Social Comparison (re-anchoring cognitive reference points), and Valuing (altering the cognitive appraisal of one’s personal worth and social belonging).
• Response Modulation: Directly captures interpersonal attempts to alter ongoing affective responses, reflected either behaviorally through Expressive Suppression (demanding inhibition of expressive channels), affectively through Humor (inducing competing positive affective states), or expressive-venting facilitation via Receptive Listening (allowing somatic and verbal release).

Simultaneously, the scale incorporates Niven et al.’s (2009) taxonomy of extrinsic affect regulation, which posited that extrinsic efforts fall into deliberate affect-improving or affect-worsening intentions, structured further by whether the tactics engage relational links or problem features. MacCann et al. (2025) expanded this framework to demonstrate that interpersonal emotion regulation operates on a continuum of interpersonal engagement. Strategies such as Valuing, Cognitive Reframing, and Receptive Listening represent high-engagement processes that demand emotional vulnerability, active listening, and relational investment. In contrast, Expressive Suppression and superficial Distraction often reflect low-engagement, distancing tactics that minimize the regulator’s own discomfort at the expense of genuine emotional connection.

Validity

The psychometric validity of the ROES was established across four independent studies involving rigorous content, structural, convergent, discriminant, and criterion-related evaluations:

Content and Face Validity

Development initiated with an extensive item generation pool reflecting every strategic node across the Gross (1998) and Niven et al. (2009) models. Eight independent psychological researchers conducted formal content-sorting tasks, mapping candidate items against clear conceptual definitions. Items exhibiting ambiguity, multidimensional cross-loadings, or poor inter-rater agreement were eliminated, leaving 96 candidate items that were subsequently refined to 32 items.

Structural and Construct Validity

Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) tested competing theoretical structures against one another (including unidimensional models, hierarchical models, and higher-order engagement models). The distinct eight-factor model demonstrated superior structural fit over all alternative representations (see Factor Analysis section), confirming that respondents treat these eight strategies as distinct behavioral options rather than an undifferentiated generalized tendency to assist others.

Convergent and Discriminant Validity

The ROES demonstrates predictable, theoretically coherent convergent validity coefficients with existing interpersonal scales, including the Emotion Regulation of Others and Self (EROS; Niven et al., 2011) and interpersonal emotional intelligence subscales (e.g., Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test [MSCEIT] emotion management branches). High-engagement ROES subscales correlate positively with perspective taking, empathy, and social competence.

Discriminant validity was established against comprehensive personality inventories, including the broad traits of the HEXACO model (Honesty-Humility, Emotionality, Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Openness to Experience) and the Dark Triad (Machiavellianism, Narcissism, Psychopathy). Correlations between the eight ROES strategies and broad personality dimensions were low-to-moderate, indicating that the ROES does not merely reflect basic personality dispositions but captures distinct strategic interpersonal behaviors. As theoretically anticipated, Expressive Suppression exhibited small positive associations with Machiavellianism and low Agreeableness, whereas Valuing and Receptive Listening demonstrated strong positive associations with HEXACO Agreeableness and Emotionality.

Criterion-Related and Predictive Validity

The ROES predicts meaningful variance in critical psychological and relational criteria:

• Target Emotional Recovery: Frequent deployment of Valuing, Cognitive Reframing, and Receptive Listening significantly predicted immediate and long-term reductions in target negative affect, along with increases in target positive affect.
• Relationship Quality: Dyadic evaluations demonstrated that partners who reported frequent use of high-engagement strategies (predominantly Valuing) enjoyed significantly higher relationship satisfaction, intimacy, and perceived partner responsiveness. Conversely, high frequencies of Expressive Suppression were correlated with target relational dissatisfaction and emotional distance.
• Regulator Well-being: The deployment of Valuing and Receptive Listening showed positive associations with the regulator’s own subjective well-being, life satisfaction, and felt interpersonal competence, supporting the hypothesis that prosocial emotional investment produces bilateral affective benefits.

Reliability

The psychometric reliability of the ROES was assessed across multiple large-scale adult samples, demonstrating robust internal consistency and temporal stability:

Internal Consistency Reliability

Across validation waves, each of the eight 4-item subscales demonstrated high internal consistency reliability, routinely exceeding standard psychometric thresholds (Cronbach’s $\alpha ge .70$):

• Wave 1 ($N = 600+$): Cronbach’s alpha ($\alpha$) coefficients across the eight subscales ranged from .78 to .90, with the highest internal consistencies observed for Valuing ($\alpha = .90$), Receptive Listening ($\alpha = .88$), and Cognitive Reframing ($\alpha = .87$).
• Wave 2 ($N = 500+$): Subscale Cronbach’s alpha coefficients ranged from .75 to .92. Downward Social Comparison, Humor, and Direct Action maintained internal consistency values consistently between .81 and .88 across both measurement cohorts.

Temporal Stability (Test-Retest Reliability)

Test-retest reliability was evaluated over a three-week interval among a non-clinical adult subsample. Temporal stability coefficients ($r_{tt}$) ranged from .59 to .80 across the eight strategies:

• Over 50% of the subscales exhibited test-retest coefficients exceeding .70, indicating that extrinsic emotion regulation strategies reflect stable behavioral tendencies over time.
• Valuing, Expressive Suppression, and Humor demonstrated the highest temporal stability ($r_{tt} \approx .74 – .80$), reflecting deeply ingrained relational habits.
• Context-dependent strategies, such as Direct Action and Distraction, yielded slightly lower coefficients ($r_{tt} \approx .59 – .68$), which is theoretically consistent with their dependency on the specific nature of situational crises encountered during the testing window.

Factor Analysis

The structural dimensionality of the ROES was verified through a combined exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) methodology across independent participant splits.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

In the initial psychometric phase, the 96-item candidate pool was subjected to exploratory factor analysis with oblique rotation (Promax) to allow natural correlations among interpersonal regulatory dimensions. Examination of the scree plot, eigenvalues ($> 1.0$), and parallel analysis conclusively supported an eight-factor solution. Item retention adhered to strict, pre-registered psychometric criteria:

1. Primary factor pattern loading $ge .30$ (with the majority of retained items exhibiting loadings $ge .60$).
2. Cross-loadings on non-target factors $< .25$, with a differential gap of at least$.30$ between primary and secondary loadings.
3. Item-to-total correlations within candidate subscales exceeding $.40$.

Through iterative reduction, exactly four items per construct were retained, yielding the final 32-item instrument.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

The derived eight-factor measurement model was tested on an independent replication sample using maximum likelihood estimation with robust standard errors (MLR). The eight-factor model demonstrated an outstanding fit to the observed empirical data:

• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): .951 (surpassing the standard $.95$ benchmark for excellent fit)
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): .039 (90% CI [.035, .043], well below the strict $.05$ threshold for close fit)
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): .055 (well below the accepted $.08$ cutoff)
• Model Comparisons: The orthogonal eight-factor model, a single-factor general model (CFI $< .65$, RMSEA$> .11$), and a higher-order two-factor model (affect-improving vs. affect-worsening) exhibited significantly poorer fit compared to the correlated eight-factor oblique structure (all$Delta chi^2$ $p < .001$).

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The Regulating Others’ Emotions Scale (ROES) is a self-report psychological instrument designed for adult populations. Its structural specifications, administration guidelines, and scoring criteria are summarized below:

• Test Type: Original psychometric self-report rating scale.
• Target Population: Adults aged 18 to 76+ years across all demographic, gender, and socio-economic strata. Validated in English-speaking populations across the United Kingdom, Australia, the United States, and other global regions.
• Format: 32 declarative statements describing habitual behaviors performed when assisting an emotionally distressed individual.
• Administration Modality: Available for paper-and-pencil or computerized/online administration. Completion time is approximately 5 to 8 minutes.
• Authentic Response Scale: Participants rate the 32 items on a 6-point scale ranging from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 6 (Strongly agree):
  1 = Strongly disagree
2 = Disagree
3 = Somewhat disagree
4 = Somewhat agree
5 = Agree
6 = Strongly agree
• Subscale Allocation (4 items per subscale):
  • Expressive Suppression: Items 1 to 4
  • Downward Social Comparison: Items 5 to 8
  • Humor: Items 9 to 12
  • Distraction: Items 13 to 16
  • Direct Action: Items 17 to 20
  • Cognitive Reframing: Items 21 to 24
  • Valuing: Items 25 to 28
  • Receptive Listening: Items 29 to 32
• Scoring Protocol: There are no reverse-coded items in the ROES. Subscale scores are calculated by computing the arithmetic mean (or sum) of the four designated items for each dimension. Individual subscale scores range from 1.00 to 6.00 (or sum scores from 4 to 24). Higher scores denote a greater frequency or preference for deploying that specific interpersonal regulation strategy. A single global composite score is generally discouraged due to the multidimensional nature of the eight strategies.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Regulating Others’ Emotions Scale (ROES) was officially published in 2025 in the peer-reviewed journal Emotion by the American Psychological Association (APA). In accordance with the authors’ open-science principles, the ROES is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).

• Academic and Educational Use: Free of charge. Researchers, clinicians, educators, and students are permitted to reproduce, administer, and adapt the scale without explicit written permission, provided appropriate academic attribution is granted to the original authors (MacCann et al., 2025).
• Commercial Usage: Non-commercial research and teaching are fully licensed. For commercial deployment, organizational consulting products, or proprietary digital health platforms, inquiries should be directed to the corresponding author, Dr. Carolyn MacCann ([email protected]), and the American Psychological Association.
• Fee: $0.00 (No licensing fee for academic and scientific research).

References

The theoretical foundations, construction, and validation of the ROES are documented in the following scientific literature:

• Gross, J. J. (1998). The emerging field of emotion regulation: An integrative review. Review of General Psychology, 2(3), 271–299. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.2.3.271
• 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
• Niven, K., Totterdell, P., & Holman, D. (2009). A classification of controlled interpersonal affect regulation strategies. Emotion, 9(4), 498–509. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015962
• 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. Journal of Individual Differences, 32(1), 53–60. https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-0001/a000034
• Zaki, J., & Williams, W. C. (2013). Interpersonal emotion regulation: A conceptual taxonomy. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, Article 706. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00706

Items of the Scale