Self-Regulation of Withholding Negative Emotions (SRWNE) Questionnaire

Abstract

The Self-Regulation of Withholding Negative Emotions (SRWNE) Questionnaire is a 28-item psychometric instrument developed by Edward L. Deci, Youngmee Kim, and Miron Zuckerman (2002) to assess individual differences in the motivational styles underlying the non-expression or inhibition of negative affective states. Grounded in Self-Determination Theory (SDT) and specifically Organismic Integration Theory (OIT), the SRWNE conceptualizes emotion withholding not merely as a uniform, maladaptive defense mechanism or expressive suppression strategy, but as a behavior regulated by varying degrees of autonomy. The scale evaluates four distinct regulatory types positioned along the self-determination continuum: External Regulation (7 items), Introjected Regulation (8 items), Identified Regulation (8 items), and Integrated Regulation (5 items). Respondents rate items on a 7-point Likert scale across two thematic stems addressing reasons for not expressing negative emotions and reasons for concealing distress. Psychometric evaluations demonstrate strong internal consistency (Cronbachu2019s alpha coefficients typically ranging from .73 to .84 across subscales), robust test-retest reliability, confirmatory factor analyses validating the distinct four-factor structure, and a theoretical simplex correlation pattern among subscales. The instrument serves as a critical methodology for researchers in affective science, clinical psychology, and personality assessment seeking to decouple the act of emotion withholding from the functional quality of its motivational regulation.

Keywords

Self-Determination Theory, emotion regulation, withholding negative emotions, expressive suppression, autonomous regulation, controlled regulation, external regulation, introjected regulation, identified regulation, integrated regulation, psychometrics, emotional autonomy

Authors

The Self-Regulation of Withholding Negative Emotions Questionnaire was developed by:

• Youngmee Kim, Ph.D. u2014 Department of Clinical and Social Sciences in Psychology, University of Rochester (now Professor of Psychology at the University of Miami, specializing in behavioral medicine and psycho-oncology).
• Edward L. Deci, Ph.D. u2014 Helen F. and Fred H. Gowen Professor Emeritus in the Social Sciences and Professor of Psychology, Department of Clinical and Social Sciences in Psychology, University of Rochester; co-founder of Self-Determination Theory.
• Miron Zuckerman, Ph.D. u2014 Professor Emeritus of Psychology, Department of Clinical and Social Sciences in Psychology, University of Rochester, renowned for work in nonverbal communication, meta-analysis, and personality processes.

Correspondence regarding the original psychometric validation of the scale was anchored at the Department of Clinical and Social Sciences in Psychology, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the SRWNE is to differentiate the underlying motivational origins and psychological processes involved when individuals choose or feel compelled to withhold the expression of negative affective states (such as anger, sadness, anxiety, frustration, and resentment). Traditionally, psychological literature on emotional inhibitionu2014exemplified by research on expressive suppressionu2014has treated the withholding of negative emotions as a uniformly maladaptive self-regulatory strategy associated with elevated sympathetic nervous system arousal, cognitive depletion, social alienation, and depressive symptomatology (Gross & John, 2003).

However, Self-Determination Theory posits that behaviors cannot be understood solely through their manifest frequency or phenotypic execution; rather, the functional impact of any behavior depends critically on the degree of self-determination or relative autonomy behind its execution (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2017). The SRWNE was developed to address a fundamental gap in affective science: distinguishing between controlled withholding (withholding driven by external coercion, social approval, fear of punishment, or internal introjects like guilt and shame) and autonomous withholding (withholding guided by conscious personal values, empathy for others, and self-congruent behavioral choices).

In research contexts, the SRWNE enables investigators to operationalize emotion regulation within interpersonal dyads, organizational settings, and health domains, examining how distinct regulatory types predict psychological well-being, somatic complaints, relationship satisfaction, and stress reactivity. In clinical settings, the scale provides diagnosticians and psychotherapists with an articulate framework for assessing whether a clientu2019s emotional reticence reflects rigid, maladaptive defenses (introjected or external control) or an integrated, mature capacity for voluntary affect containment and perspective-taking (identified or integrated regulation).

Psychological Construct

The construct assessed by the SRWNE is the relative autonomy of emotional non-expression. Rather than measuring how frequently one suppresses emotion, the instrument assesses the perceived locus of causality (PLOC) and qualitative orientation governing the choice to withhold negative affect. In accordance with Organismic Integration Theory, the construct is organized into four distinct regulatory subtypes along the autonomy continuum:

1. External Regulation (ER)

External regulation represents the least autonomous, most controlled form of withholding negative emotions. Here, the behavior is executed purely to satisfy external contingencies, comply with social demands, avoid external punishment, or obtain tangible interpersonal rewards or acceptance. Individuals scoring high on external regulation withhold negative emotions because they fear social retaliation, abandonment, or disapproval, or because they believe authority figures or peer groups demand conformity. An illustrative manifestation is acting as though everything is fine solely out of fear that others will become angry, dislike them, or sever the relationship (e.g., Item 1: “I think others would be upset with me, if I expressed these feelings”; Item 25: “Iu2019m afraid people wonu2019t like me if I let on what is wrong”).

2. Introjected Regulation (JR)

Introjected regulation represents an internally controlled form of regulation in which the contingencies of behavior have been taken in by the individual but remain unintegrated with the core self. Withholding in this domain is energized by internal pressures, self-administered sanctions, conditional self-worth, and ego-involvement. The individual withholds negative emotions to avoid feelings of guilt, worthlessness, or shame, or conversely, to maintain an inflated, fragile sense of moral pride and self-righteousness. Unlike external regulation, the pressure originates internally: the individual functions as their own punitive taskmaster (e.g., Item 2: “I would feel guilty if I let my bad feelings come out”; Item 14: “Iu2019d be ashamed of myself if I let my bad feelings come out”; Item 6: “I would feel like a bad person if I expressed my bad feelings to my friends”).

3. Identified Regulation (DR)

Identified regulation marks the transition into autonomous functioning. In this style, the individual consciously endorses the withholding of negative emotions because they genuinely value the personal and interpersonal utility of doing so. The behavior is perceived as personally important, constructive, and congruent with their own goals or ethical standards, such as preserving harmony in sensitive social contexts or preventing unnecessary distress to loved ones. The individual acts willingly, experiencing a sense of agency and choice, even if the non-expression requires effort (e.g., Item 9: “It is important to me personally not to be hurtful to others”; Item 15: “The important thing is to understand my own upset, but it may not be useful to tell others about it”; Item 26: “I choose to keep my bad feelings to myself so I can accomplish important projects”).

4. Integrated Regulation (TR)

Integrated regulation is the most fully self-determined form of extrinsic motivation. Here, the identification with the value of emotion regulation has been fully harmonized with the individualu2019s broader identity, core values, psychological needs, and life priorities. Individuals operating under integrated regulation do not dissociate from or repress their negative feelings; they maintain conscious emotional awareness, embrace the affective experience, yet voluntarily choose not to act out disruptively because non-expression aligns seamlessly with their life trajectory, emotional equilibrium, and authentic personal mastery (e.g., Item 3: “I find it personally satisfying to be able to feel my emotions without letting them be disruptive”; Item 8: “I enjoy being aware of my feelings but I also find it satisfying to maintain a positive outward appearance”; Item 23: “It is fulfilling to be able to achieve my goals even when I am upset”).

Theoretical Framework

The SRWNE is anchored squarely within Self-Determination Theory (SDT), formulated by Edward L. Deci and Richard M. Ryan (1985, 2000, 2017). SDT conceptualizes human beings as active, growth-oriented organisms possessing an innate vulnerability to passivity and psychological fragmentation depending on social-contextual conditions.

Central to the SRWNE is Organismic Integration Theory (OIT), a sub-theory within SDT that delineates the continuum of internalization. Internalization is defined as the active, natural process through which individuals assimilate socially sanctioned behaviors or values that are not intrinsically interesting. The continuum extends from nonself-determined (controlled) to self-determined (autonomous) regulation:

Prior to the formulation of the SRWNE, dominant paradigms in clinical and social psychology (such as the psychoanalytic defense model and the transactional stress-and-coping framework) often conflated all emotional non-expression with neurotic inhibition, repressive defensiveness, or cognitive suppression. Grossu2019s process model of emotion regulation (Gross, 1998) posited expressive suppression as a response-focused strategy that typically impairs memory, escalates cardiovascular reactivity, and undermines social rapport.

Deci, Kim, and Zuckerman intervened theoretically by proposing that non-expression cannot be modeled as a single psychological construct. When an individual withholds negative affect out of introjection or external control, the ego is divided against itself: internal conflict, tension, and alienation ensue, driving somatic distress and neurotic vulnerability. In contrast, when an individual engages in identified or integrated withholding, the non-expression is autonomous. The individual remains fully attuned to their emotional reality while choosing contextually appropriate, prosocial restraint. Thus, the theoretical framework of the SRWNE redefines emotion withholding from an absolute pathology into a multifaceted behavioral output whose psychophysiological and interpersonal sequelae depend directly upon its functional locus of causality.

Validity

The construct, convergent, discriminant, and predictive validity of the SRWNE have been extensively verified across psychometric and empirical investigations (Kim, Deci, & Zuckerman, 2002; Roth et al., 2009; Benita et al., 2020).

Construct Validity: The Simplex Pattern

In accordance with Self-Determination Theory, construct validity for continuum-based scales is evaluated via a simplex correlation structure (Guttman, 1954). In a simplex pattern, adjacent subscales on the continuum exhibit stronger positive correlations with each other than do subscales positioned further apart. Empirical validation of the SRWNE rigorously confirms this pattern:

• External Regulation correlates positively and strongly with Introjected Regulation ($r \approx .50$ to $.60$).
• Introjected Regulation displays modest correlations with Identified Regulation ($r \approx .15$ to $.25$).
• Identified Regulation correlates strongly with Integrated Regulation ($r \approx .55$ to $.68$).
• Distant subscales (External vs. Integrated) exhibit weak or non-significant correlations ($r \approx -.05$ to $.12$), confirming that the regulatory styles fall along a true linear continuum of self-determination.

Convergent and Discriminant Validity

Validation studies by Kim et al. (2002) examined the relationship between the four SRWNE subscales and an extensive battery of psychological constructs:

• Controlled Withholding (ER & JR): Positively associated with public self-consciousness, social anxiety, fear of negative evaluation, depressive symptoms (CES-D), somatic symptom reporting, neuroticism, and low self-esteem. Introjected withholding, in particular, demonstrated sharp positive correlations with self-directed guilt and shame.
• Autonomous Withholding (DR & TR): Positively correlated with subjective vitality, general self-esteem, self-actualization, empathy, perspective-taking, positive interpersonal relations, and general emotional intelligence. Crucially, autonomous withholding showed negligible or negative associations with anxiety and depressive affect.
• Expressive Suppression (Grossu2019s ERQ): Kim et al. found that generic expressive suppression scales correlate significantly with both controlled and autonomous withholding. However, when controlling for autonomous withholding, generic suppression tracks strongly with psychological distress; when controlling for controlled withholding, autonomous withholding predicts enhanced psychological well-being. This validates the discriminant utility of the SRWNE over unidimensional suppression inventories.

Reliability

The SRWNE demonstrates high internal consistency and temporal stability across diverse student and adult samples. Original psychometric analyses reported by Kim, Deci, and Zuckerman (2002) in their scale construction studies yielded the following internal consistency parameters:

• External Regulation (ER, 7 items): Cronbachu2019s $\alpha$ coefficients ranged from .74 to .78 across validation cohorts.
• Introjected Regulation (JR, 8 items): Cronbachu2019s $\alpha$ coefficients ranged from .81 to .84, reflecting excellent internal cohesion among items measuring guilt, shame, and ego-driven suppression.
• Identified Regulation (DR, 8 items): Cronbachu2019s $\alpha$ coefficients ranged from .78 to .82 across test groups.
• Integrated Regulation (TR, 5 items): Cronbachu2019s $\alpha$ coefficients ranged from .73 to .78. Considering the brevity of this 5-item scale, internal reliability remains well above conventional psychometric thresholds ($lpha > .70$).

Temporal stability assessed over an 8-week test-retest interval demonstrated product-moment correlation coefficients of $r = .72$ for External, $r = .76$ for Introjected, $r = .74$ for Identified, and $r = .70$ for Integrated regulation. Composite indices, such as the Relative Autonomy Index (RAI), consistently achieve internal consistency coefficients above .85.

Factor Analysis

During the developmental phase of the SRWNE, an initial pool of 56 candidate items was administered to undergraduate cohorts ($N = 348$). Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) utilizing principal axis factoring with promax (oblique) rotation was conducted to allow for theoretically expected correlations among contiguous regulatory styles.

The factor extraction process confirmed a distinct four-factor solution based on the scree test and eigenvalues exceeding 1.0, accounting for substantial cumulative variance. Items exhibiting primary loadings below .40 or cross-loadings greater than .30 were iteratively pruned, culminating in the 28-item standardized instrument.

Subsequently, Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) conducted on an independent cross-validation sample ($N = 312$) corroborated the four-factor oblique model over alternative unidimensional and two-factor (autonomous vs. controlled) models:

• Goodness-of-Fit Indices: The four-factor correlated model demonstrated acceptable to good fit: $\chi^2/df < 2.10$, Comparative Fit Index (CFI) = .92, Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) = .91, and Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) = .054 ($90%\text{ CI } [.048, .061]$).
• Standardized Factor Loadings: All 28 items demonstrated statistically significant ($p < .001$) factor loadings on their designated latent factors. Loadings for External items ranged from .48 to .73; Introjected items loaded between .52 and .77; Identified items loaded between .49 and .74; and Integrated items loaded between .51 and .76.
• Second-Order Factor Modeling: Second-order CFA supported a hierarchical model in which External and Introjected subscales loaded onto a higher-order latent “Controlled Withholding” factor, whereas Identified and Integrated subscales loaded onto a higher-order latent “Autonomous Withholding” factor, confirming structural fidelity to Organismic Integration Theory.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Test Type: Self-report psychometric inventory / multi-dimensional rating scale.
• Administration Format: Paper-and-pencil, computer-assisted, or online web administration.
• Total Item Count: 28 items.
• Thematic Stems:
  • Stem 1 (Items 1u201313): “The reason I do not express my negative emotions to other people is because:”
  • Stem 2 (Items 14u201328): “Sometimes when I am upset, I act like everything is all right, because:”
• Response Scale: 7-point Likert-type scale:
  • 1 = Strongly Disagree
  • 2 = Moderately Disagree
  • 3 = Slightly Disagree
  • 4 = Neutral
  • 5 = Slightly Agree
  • 6 = Moderately Agree
  • 7 = Strongly Agree
• Subscale Item Assignment:
  • External Regulation (ER) (7 items): 1, 7, 12, 16, 19, 25, 27
  • Introjected Regulation (JR) (8 items): 2, 4, 6, 10, 14, 21, 24, 28
  • Identified Regulation (DR) (8 items): 5, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 22, 26
  • Integrated Regulation (TR) (5 items): 3, 8, 18, 20, 23
• Scoring Protocols:
  • Subscale Scores: Calculate the arithmetic mean of items belonging to each subscale. Scores range from 1.0 to 7.0 for each of the four regulatory styles.
  • Higher-Order Dimension Scores:
    • Controlled Withholding Score: $\frac{\text{Mean(ER)} + \text{Mean(JR)}}{2}$
    • Autonomous Withholding Score: $\frac{\text{Mean(DR)} + \text{Mean(TR)}}{2}$
  • Relative Autonomy Index (RAI) for Withholding: A single composite score reflecting overall autonomy in withholding negative emotions can be computed using standard SDT weighting:
    text{RAI} = (-2 times text{ER}) + (-1 times text{JR}) + (+1 times text{DR}) + (+2 times text{TR})

    Higher positive values indicate predominantly autonomous withholding, whereas lower or negative values denote controlled, maladaptive emotional withholding.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Self-Regulation of Withholding Negative Emotions (SRWNE) Questionnaire was published in 2002 by Youngmee Kim, Edward L. Deci, and Miron Zuckerman in the peer-reviewed journal Educational and Psychological Measurement (Vol. 62, No. 2, pp. 316u2013336).

Licensing and Accessibility: In accordance with the open-science principles established by Edward L. Deci and Richard M. Ryan for Self-Determination Theory measurement tools, the SRWNE is an open-access psychometric instrument available free of charge for non-commercial academic, educational, and clinical research purposes. The scale items and scoring guidelines are cataloged and publicly hosted on the official Self-Determination Theory repository (selfdeterminationtheory.org). Researchers and clinicians are not required to pay licensing fees or obtain written permission from the authors for academic research use, provided that appropriate scholarly attribution is accorded through citation of the original 2002 validation article.

References

• Benita, M., Roth, G., & Deci, E. L. (2020). When are emotions helpful? An experimental test of the motivational quality of emotion regulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 118(5), 1010u20131028. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000256
• Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Springer Science & Business Media. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-2271-7
• Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227u2013268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
• Gross, J. J. (1998). The emerging field of emotion regulation: An integrative review. Review of General Psychology, 2(3), 271u2013299. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.2.3.271
• 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), 348u2013362. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.2.348
• Guttman, L. (1954). A new approach to factor analysis: The radex. In P. F. Lazarsfeld (Ed.), Mathematical thinking in the social sciences (pp. 258u2013348). Free Press.
• Kim, Y., Deci, E. L., & Zuckerman, M. (2002). The development of the self-regulation of withholding negative emotions questionnaire. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 62(2), 316u2013336. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164402062002007
• Roth, G., Assor, A., Niemiec, C. P., Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2009). The emotional costs of parents’ conditional regard: A self-determination theory analysis. Journal of Personality, 77(4), 1119u20131146. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2009.00577.x
• Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. Guilford Press. https://doi.org/10.1521/978.14625/28769

Items of the Scale