Emotion Regulation Questionnaire ERQ Chinese revised version Wang Li

The most widely used emotion regulation measurement tool in China, the revised Chinese version of ERQ completed by Wang Li's team in 2007, strictly corresponds to the dual dimensions of cognitive reappraisal and expressive suppression of Gross' original scale, has a streamlined structure of 10 questions, and has reliability and validity that conforms to psychometric standards (total scale Cronbach's The alpha coefficient is 0.82, the cognitive reappraisal dimension is 0.85, the expressive suppression sub-dimension is 0.77, and the test-retest reliability is 0.82 and 0.79 respectively), making it a commonly used standardized tool in the domestic scientific research and practical fields for Chinese native speakers over 14 years old. It is also one of the most commonly used Chinese emotion regulation scales in international cross-cultural emotion research.

The first time I came into contact with this scale was in 2019 when I helped the Office of Academic Affairs of the university to select tools for the psychological general test for freshmen. At that time, there were three or four tools of the same type on the table, including a locally developed scale with more than 40 questions, and an ERQ version revised by other teams. In the end, the whole group unanimously selected the Wang Li version. The reason is very practical: there are few questions. The 10 questions are all multiple-choice questions. Even the most impatient high school students can complete the questionnaire in 3 minutes. The effectiveness of the general test is nearly 15% higher than that of other long forms, saving a lot of effort in screening invalid data in the later stage.

Don't tell me, it is easy to use. It has encountered many pitfalls in the past few years, and the academic circles have never stopped controversies about it. The most commonly mentioned problem is that "the Western framework is not adapted to the local environment." After all, the original scale was developed based on Western individualistic culture. During the revision, Wang Li's team did not add new dimensions in order to maintain comparability with the original scale. However, the emotional regulation logic of Chinese people is different from that of Westerners. I was previously visited by a corporate EAP, and the expression suppression score measured by the scale ranked in the top 10%. According to the explanation of the original scale, "long-term suppression of emotions has a high risk of psychological problems." However, after in-depth conversation, I found out that she works as a client, and was taught by her family "not to bring negative emotions to others."

Not everyone thinks this is a problem. I know several junior students who do cross-cultural comparative research. Every time they do research, they must choose this version of ERQ. The reason is that it is completely consistent with the original scale structure. The generated data can be directly compared with samples from other countries in Europe, America, and East Asia. When the SSCI is issued, almost no reviewers will question the comparability of the tool. If other scales with added local dimensions are used, hundreds of words will have to be written just to explain the rationality of the tool. It’s interesting to say that teachers who do local psychology research look down on this, and feel that “in order to benchmark against international standards, the Western framework is applied, and the measured results are inherently biased.” Each side has its own reasons, and no results have been reached after so many years. Anyway, everyone can just get what they need.

Oh, by the way, there is another pitfall that is particularly easy to fall into. Many non-professional users will directly equate the score with "emotional regulation ability". If they see a high cognitive reappraisal score, they will say that the person is emotionally mature, and if they see a high expressive inhibition score, they will say that the person has a depressed personality, regardless of the situation. I encountered this situation when I was training psychology teachers in a middle school last year. A teacher said that there was a student in the class who had a very low cognitive reappraisal score and must not be able to regulate his emotions. It turned out that the student's grandmother had just passed away a week before he filled out the questionnaire. How could you ask him to "think about the problem from a different perspective" at that time? In such a major trauma scenario, forced cognitive reappraisal may lead to emotional avoidance. Appropriate emotional expression or even temporary "not wanting to think about it" is a more adaptive choice. The scale score only reflects his commonly used strategies at that time, not his level of ability at all.

When I do case evaluation, I only use the ERQ score as a reference. I never rely on the score alone to make a judgment. Sometimes when I encounter a case with a particularly extreme score, I will ask a few more questions, "What scenario did you have in mind when you filled in this question?" This can often dig out a lot of unspoken information. To put it bluntly, the scale is just a screwdriver. The version of ERQ revised by Wang Li has been popular for so many years not because it is the most perfect, but because it just meets the current domestic use needs: the scientific research data is solid enough, and it is easy to use in practice. You need to twist a small screw and use it just fine. If you want to tighten a larger nut, of course there are other tools. There is no need to hold it as the truth, and there is no need to beat it to death just because it has flaws.