Personality and Individual Differences 39 (2005) 1249–1260

www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

Cognitive emotion regulation in the prediction of

depression, anxiety, stress, and anger
Ryan C. Martin, Eric R. Dahlen *

Department of Psychology, The University of Southern Mississippi, 118 College Drive #5025,
Hattiesburg, MS 39406-5025, USA

Received 14 October 2004; accepted 6 June 2005

Available online 2 August 2005

Abstract

Cognitive coping processes have long been implicated in the experience and expression of emotion.
Recently, a new instrument, the cognitive emotion regulation questionnaire (CERQ; Garnefski, Kraaij,
& Spinhoven, 2001), was developed to measure nine different cognitive coping strategies people often
use when faced with a negative event: self-blame, other blame, rumination, catastrophizing, acceptance,
putting into perspective, positive refocus, refocus on planning, and positive reappraisal. Although there
is substantial research exploring the relationships between these processes and depression, the research
on other negative emotions is much sparser. This study addresses this limitation by exploring the relation-
ships between the CERQ and depression, anxiety, stress, and anger. Results supported the convergent and
discriminant validity of the CERQ and demonstrated that, independent of respondent gender, self-blame,
rumination, catastrophizing, and positive reappraisal were among the most valuable predictors of negative
emotions.
Ó 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Emotion regulation; Coping; Anger; Anxiety; Depression; Stress

*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 601 266 4601; fax: +1 601 266 5580.
E-mail address: eric.dahlen@usm.edu (E.R. Dahlen).

0191-8869/$ - see front matter Ó 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.paid.2005.06.004
1250 R.C. Martin, E.R. Dahlen / Personality and Individual Differences 39 (2005) 1249–1260

0. Introduction

Coping has long been considered relevant to both the experience and treatment of emotional
and physical distress (Lazarus, 1993; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Adaptive coping is associated
with the implementation of effective health behaviors (Lee-Baggley, DeLongis, Voorhoeave, &
Greenglass, 2004) and has important implications for living with physical illness (Ridder & Schr-
eurs, 2001). In addition, coping is inversely related to psychological distress (Bouchard, Guille-
mette, & Landry-Leger, 2004), and coping deficits are observed in a variety of mental disorders
(e.g., Ball & Lee, 2000; Britton, 2004). In fact, certain coping styles appear to predict treat-
ment-seeking (Avants, Warburton, & Margolin, 2000). Finally, it is not surprising that most
empirically supported psychosocial treatments for emotional disorders emphasize the acquisition
of coping skills or that clientsÕ coping skills are associated with treatment outcome (Beutler,
Moos, & Lane, 2003).
Lazarus and Folkman (1984) defined coping as the ‘‘constantly changing cognitive and behav-
ioral efforts to manage specific external and/or internal demands that are appraised as taxing or
exceeding the resources of the person’’ (p. 141). Lazarus (1993) distinguished between problem-
focused coping (i.e., attempting to minimize distress through modifying oneself or oneÕs envi-
ronment) and emotion focused coping (i.e., utilizing cognitive coping strategies to change the
meaning of stressful events and lessen subsequent emotional distress). Both forms of coping are
adaptive, and the most beneficial approach appears to depend on the nature of the stressful sit-
uation (Folkman & Moskowitz, 2004; Ridder & Schreurs, 2001). Moreover, it is clear that emo-
tional responses to stressful events can be regulated via the use of cognitive coping strategies
(Folkman & Moskowitz, 2004; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Ridder & Schreurs, 2001).
Instruments to assess both forms of coping (e.g., Coping Inventory for Stressful Situations,
Ways of Coping Questionnaire, COPE, etc.) have focused on the behavioral (e.g., turning to reli-
gion, alcohol-drug use, etc.) and cognitive aspects (e.g., acceptance, positive reinterpretation, etc.)
of coping. A relatively new scale, the Cognitive Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (CERQ; Gar-
nefski et al., 2001), was developed to assess cognitive coping associated with emotion regulation.
The CERQ stands out from previous instruments in its inclusion of a broader set of cognitive cop-
ing processes. Specifically, the CERQ measures nine cognitive coping processes: (1) self-blame; (2)
blaming others; (3) acceptance; (4) refocus on planning (i.e., addressing the steps necessary to han-
dle the situation); (5) positive refocusing (i.e., focusing on positive experiences); (6) rumination;
(7) positive reappraisal (i.e., giving the event some sort of positive significance); (8) putting into
perspective (i.e., downgrading the importance of the event); and (9) catastrophizing. The authors
characterize self-blame, blaming others, rumination, and catastrophizing as maladaptive coping
styles. Acceptance, refocus on planning, positive refocusing, positive reappraisal, and putting into
perspective are described as adaptive coping styles (Garnefski et al., 2001).
As the CERQ was designed to measure the cognitive processes involved in affect regulation, val-
idation studies should focus on the relationships between the subscales and the experience of dif-
ferent emotions (Folkman & Moskowitz, 2004). Most of the CERQ research to date has focused
on depression (e.g., Garnefski, Boon, & Kraaij, 2003; Garnefski et al., 2002; Garnefski et al.,
2001; Garnefski, Teerds, Kraaij, Legerstee, & Van Den Kommer, 2004). Despite some variation
across studies, self-blame, rumination, and catastrophizing are consistently associated with
depressive symptoms. In addition, positive reappraisal appears to be inversely related to depres-
 R.C. Martin, E.R. Dahlen / Personality and Individual Differences 39 (2005) 1249–1260 1251

sion. A smaller number of studies have implicated self-blame, rumination, and catastrophizing in
state anxiety (Garnefski et al., 2001; Kraaij, Garnefski, & Van Gerwen, 2003).
Surprisingly, no published research has examined the role of the cognitive coping processes mea-
sured by the CERQ in anger. This is an important omission, as oneÕs appraisal of oneÕs ability to
cope with provocation is thought to exacerbate the experience of anger (Deffenbacher, 1996). Fur-
ther, several of the specific coping processes measured by the CERQ (e.g., catastrophization, blam-
ing others, and rumination) are theoretically related to anger (Beck, 1999; Deffenbacher, 1996).
The present study was designed to examine relationships among the cognitive coping styles
measured by the CERQ and the experience and expression of anger. It was expected that self-
blame, blaming others, rumination, and catastrophizing would be positively related to mal-
adaptive anger and inversely related to adaptive anger control. In addition, we expected that
acceptance, refocus on planning, positive refocusing, positive reappraisal, and putting into per-
spective would be inversely related to dysfunctional anger and positively related to anger control.
Depression, anxiety, and stress were also assessed to confirm previously reported findings, largely
involving samples outside the United States. Given the paucity of prior research on cognitive
coping in anger and the overlap between anger, depression, anxiety, and stress, we did not make
predictions about how various CERQ subscales might differentially relate to various forms of
negative affect.

1. Methods

1.1. Participants

A sample of 362 (286 female, 76 male) participants (Mdn age = 19, M age = 20.46,
Range = 18–55) college student volunteers was recruited from undergraduate psychology courses
through a combination of classroom announcements and an on-line recruitment system. Racial
backgrounds were as follows: 52.8% Caucasian, 42.0% African American, 1.4% Asian/Pacific Is-
lander, 2.5% Hispanic, and 1.1% other. Students received course credit for their participation.

1.2. Instruments

1.2.1. The Cognitive Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (CERQ)

The 36-item CERQ (Garnefski et al., 2001) assesses individual differences in coping across nine
4-item subscales: self-blame, blaming others, acceptance, refocusing on planning, positive refocus-
ing, rumination, positive reappraisal, putting into perspective, and catastrophizing. Likert-type
items (1 = ‘‘almost never’’ to 5 = ‘‘almost always’’) are rated so that higher scores represent greater
use of the coping strategy. Internal consistencies range from .68 to .93, and evidence of convergent
and discriminant validity has been provided through relationships with depression and anxiety
(Garnefski et al., 2001, 2002, 2004; Kraaij et al., 2003).

1.2.2. State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory-2 (STAXI-2)

Five of the subscales from the STAXI-2 (Spielberger, 1999) were used to measure the experience
and expression/control of anger. The 10-item trait anger scale (T-Ang) assesses oneÕs propensity to
1252 R.C. Martin, E.R. Dahlen / Personality and Individual Differences 39 (2005) 1249–1260

experience anger. Likert-type items (1 = ‘‘not at all’’ to 4 = ‘‘very much so’’) yield total scores
from 10 to 40, with higher scores representing higher levels of trait anger. Internal consistencies
are impressive for both normal adults (as = .84 to .86) and psychiatric patients (a = .87) (Spielber-
ger, 1999). The four 8-item anger expression and control scales were also used to assess anger
expression-in (AX-I), anger expression-out (AX-O), anger control-in (AC-I), and anger control-
out (AC-O). AX-I measures unhealthy anger suppression, while AX-O reflects aggressive anger
expression. AC-I assesses the control of angry feelings by relaxing and cooling off, and AC-O de-
scribes the control of anger by not expressing it toward other people or objects. Internal consis-
tencies range from .73 to .93, and support for validity comes from relationships with other
measures of anger and hostility (Spielberger, 1999; Deffenbacher, 1992). The 15-item state anger
scale (S-Ang) was not used in the present study.

1.2.3. Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS)

The 21-item version of the DASS (Lovibond & Lovibond, 2002) was used to measure the
experience of depression, anxiety, and stress. It consists of three 7-item Likert-type scales
(0 = ‘‘did not apply to me at all’’ to 3 = ‘‘applied to me very much, or most of the time’’). Items
in each scale are summed and then multiplied by 2 to produce a range of 0–42. Alpha coefficients
are all above .85, and validity has been supported through its correlations with other measures
of depression and anxiety (Antony, Bieling, Cox, Enns, & Swinson, 1998; Lovibond & Lovi-
bond, 2002). In fact, Antony et al. (1998) suggest that the 21-item DASS has several advantages
over the 42-item version, including a cleaner factor structure and smaller correlations between
the three scales.

1.3. Procedure

Following informed consent, participants completed questionnaires in groups of 40–100. Ques-

tionnaire packets contained a brief demographic form, followed by the CERQ, the DASS, and the
T-Ang and anger expression/control scales from the STAXI-2.

2. Results

2.1. Preliminary analyses

Because of previously reported gender differences on the CERQ (Garnefski et al., 2004), a
one-way (gender) Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) was computed on all vari-
ables. A significant multivariate gender effect was found, F(17, 344) = 2.33, p = .00 (g2 = .10).
Small univariate gender differences were found on blaming others, rumination, catastrophizing,
positive refocusing, refocusing on planning, positive reappraising, and total positive (g2s ranged
from .01 to .02). Women scored higher on rumination, catastrophizing, positive refocusing,
refocusing on planning, positive reappraising, and total positive. Men scored higher on blam-
ing others. Alpha coefficients, means, standard deviations, and univariate Fs are presented in
Table 1.
 R.C. Martin, E.R. Dahlen / Personality and Individual Differences 39 (2005) 1249–1260 1253

Table 1
Means, standard deviations, and univariate Fs from one-way (gender) MANOVA (N = 362)
Variable Males Females a F(1, 360)
M SD M SD
DASS
Dep 8.74 8.58 8.46 9.17 .87 .05
Anx 7.12 7.27 7.04 8.10 .80 .00
Str 12.74 9.46 12.86 9.63 .86 .01
STAXI-2
T-Ang 20.54 6.78 19.08 5.68 .87 3.64
AX-O 16.57 4.23 15.92 4.20 .78 1.40
AX-I 17.63 4.15 17.46 4.69 .77 .08
AC-O 21.74 5.35 22.71 5.21 .86 2.06
AC-I 20.42 5.07 21.50 5.65 .91 2.27
CERQ
SB 12.36 2.04 12.25 2.63 .72 .11
BO 10.46 2.54 9.78 2.58 .75 4.16*
Rum 12.13 2.82 13.13 2.69 .67 8.03**
Cat 9.71 2.70 10.45 3.02 .74 3.81*
Acc 13.01 2.67 13.37 2.47 .65 1.19
PP 13.87 2.78 14.35 2.86 .79 1.71
P-Ref 11.38 2.93 12.26 2.69 .77 6.10**
R-Plan 13.37 2.56 14.29 2.62 .70 7.56**
P-Reap 14.07 3.24 15.16 2.88 .81 8.26**
Note. Dep = Depression, Anx = Anxiety, Str = Stress, T-Ang = Trait Anger Scale, AX-O = Anger Expression-Out,
AX-I = Anger Expression-In, AC-O = Anger Control-Out, AC-I = Anger Control-In, SB = Self-Blame, BO = Blam-
ing Others, Rum = Rumination, Cat = Catastrophizing, Acc = Acceptance, PP = Putting into Perspective, P-
Ref = Positive Refocus, R-Plan = Refocus on Planning, P-Reap = Positive Reappraisal.
*
p < .05.
**
p < .01.

2.2. Partial correlations

Partial correlations, controlling for gender, among all variables are presented in Table 2. Self-
blame, blaming others, rumination, and catastrophizing were positively correlated with T-Ang
and AX-I. Blaming others, rumination, and catastrophizing were also positively related to AX-
O. Blaming others and catastrophizing were inversely related to AC-O, and catastrophizing
was inversely related to AC-I. Putting into perspective, positive refocus, and positive reappraisal
were inversely related to T-Ang. Positive refocus and positive reappraisal were also inversely re-
lated to AX-O. In addition, positive reappraisal was inversely related to AX-I. Acceptance, putt-
ing into perspective, positive refocus, refocus on planning, and positive reappraisal were positively
related to both AC-O and AC-I. Surprisingly, acceptance was positively correlated with AX-I.
With one exception, the relationships among the CERQ subscales and depression, anxiety, and
stress were generally consistent with previous findings. Self-blame, blaming others, rumination,
and catastrophizing were positively correlated with depression, anxiety, and stress. In addition,
putting into perspective, positive refocus, refocus on planning, and positive reappraisal were
 1254
R.C. Martin, E.R. Dahlen / Personality and Individual Differences 39 (2005) 1249–1260
Table 2
Partial correlations between all variables controlling for gender (N = 362)
Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
1. Dep –
2. Anx .61** –
3. Str .69** .70** –
4. T-Ang .39** .32** .47** –
5. AX-O .23** .22** .34** .78** –
6. AX-I .38** .25** .30** .29** .24** –
7. AC-O .21** .17** .26** .54** .53** .03 –
8. AC-I .16** .12* .18** .42** .38** .04 .77** –
9. SB .32** .24** .30** .19** .10 .25** .01 .05 –
10. BO .23** .12* .21** .21** .17 **
.22** .15** .10 .05 –
11. Rum .33** .26** .41** .26** .17 **
.32** .02 .04 .50** .20** –
12. Cat .43** .31** .32** .32** .27 **
.28** .24** .23** .36** .38** .43** –
13. Acc .18** .06 .11* .08 .08 .19** .11* .20** .33** .00 .30** .14** –
14. PP .14** .14** .07 .11* .09 .02 .26 **
.34** .11* .09 .03 .24** .35** –
15. P-Ref .12* .07 .11 *
.14** .14** .08 .30 **
.38** .02 .03 .03 .08 .27** .48** –
16. R-Plan .11* .09 .01 .07 .04 .02 .31** .39** .14** .05 .23** .04 .24** .49** .51** –
17. P-Reap .22** .21** .14** .22** .14** .10 .39** .47** .09 .21** .11* .25** .41** .69** .55** .63** –
Note. Dep = Depression, Anx = Anxiety, Str = Stress, T-Ang = Trait Anger Scale, AX-O = Anger Expression-Out, AX-I = Anger Expression-In,
AC-O = Anger Control-Out, AC-I = Anger Control-In, SB = Self-Blame, BO = Blaming Others, Rum = Rumination, Cat = Catastrophizing,
Acc = Acceptance, PP = Putting into Perspective, P-Ref = Positive Refocus, R-Plan = Refocus on Planning, P-Reap = Positive Reappraisal.
*
p < .05.
**
p < .01.
 R.C. Martin, E.R. Dahlen / Personality and Individual Differences 39 (2005) 1249–1260 1255

Table 3
Hierarchical multiple regression analyses for cognitive coping strategies in predicting depression, anxiety, stress, and
trait anger
Variable B SE B b R2
Depression
Step 1 .00
Gender .32 1.05 .01
Step 2 .28**
**
Self-Blame .51 .20 .14
Blaming Others .22 .18 .06
Rumination .44 .20 .13*
Catastrophizing .70 .18 .23**
Acceptance .56 .20 .16**
Putting into Perspective .11 .21 .04
Positive Refocus .02 .20 .01
Refocus on Planning .20 .22 .06
Positive Reappraisal .70 .24 .23**
Anxiety
Step 1 .00
Gender .25 .99 .01
Step 2 .17**
*
Self-Blame .42 .19 .13
Blaming Others .10 .17 .03
Rumination .48 .18 .17**
Catastrophizing .38 .17 .14*
Acceptance .12 .19 .04
Putting into Perspective .05 .20 .02
Positive Refocus .28 .18 .10
Refocus on Planning .14 .21 .05
Positive Reappraisal .70 .23 .27**
Stress
Step 1 .00
Gender .25 1.15 .01
Step 2 .23**
*
Self-Blame .45 .22 .18
Blaming Others .30 .20 .08
Rumination 1.07 .21 .31**
Catastrophizing .25 .20 .08
Acceptance .12 .22 .03
Putting into Perspective .25 .23 .07
Positive Refocus .13 .21 .04
Refocus on Planning .06 .24 .02
Positive Reappraisal .67 .26 .21**

Trait anger
Step 1 .01
Gender 1.38 .74 .10
(continued on next page)
1256 R.C. Martin, E.R. Dahlen / Personality and Individual Differences 39 (2005) 1249–1260

Table 3 (continued)
Variable B SE B b R2
Step 2 .18**
Self-Blame .09 .14 .04
Blaming Others .18 .13 .08
Rumination .32 .14 .15**
Catastrophizing .29 .13 .15**
Acceptance .22 .14 .09
Putting into Perspective .22 .15 .11
Positive Refocus .12 .14 .06
Refocus on Planning .08 .15 .03
Positive Reappraisal .58 .17 .29**
*
p < .05.
**
p < .01.

inversely related to depression. Putting into perspective and positive reappraisal were inversely re-
lated to anxiety, and positive refocus and positive reappraisal were also inversely related to stress.
In contrast, acceptance was positively correlated with both depression and stress.

2.3. Regressions

Four hierarchical multiple regressions were conducted to determine the best set of predictors
for depression, anxiety, stress, and trait anger. Gender was entered on Step 1 to control for its
effects, and the nine CERQ subscales were entered simultaneously on Step 2 (see Table 3). Inde-
pendent of gender, depression was predicted by self-blame, rumination, catastrophizing, accep-
tance, and low positive reappraisal. Anxiety was predicted by self-blame, rumination,
catastrophizing, and low positive reappraisal. Stress was predicted by self-blame, rumination,
and low positive reappraisal. Finally, trait anger was predicted by rumination, catastrophizing,
and low positive reappraisal.
Four additional regressions were conducted to determine the best set of predictors for each of
the anger expression/control scales. Variables were entered in the same manner described above
(see Table 4). AX-I was predicted by catastrophizing and low positive refocus while AX-O was
predicted by blaming others, rumination, acceptance, and low positive reappraisal. Both of the
anger control scales were predicted by low catastrophizing, positive refocus, and positive
reappraisal.

3. Discussion

The present findings generally confirmed previously reported relationships among CERQ sub-
scales and negative affect (e.g., Garnefski et al., 2003, 2002, 2001, 2004; Kraaij et al., 2003) but
also supported the utility of the CERQ in understanding anger and stress. In addition, results sug-
gest that the presumably adaptive role of acceptance needs to be reconceptualized.
The finding that individual differences in the propensity to experience angry feelings (i.e., trait
anger) were predicted by rumination, catastrophizing, and low positive appraisal supports the
 R.C. Martin, E.R. Dahlen / Personality and Individual Differences 39 (2005) 1249–1260 1257

Table 4
Hierarchical multiple regression analyses for cognitive coping strategies in predicting anger expression/control
Variable B SEB b R2
Anger expression-out
Step 1 .00
Gender .70 .55 .07
Step 2 .11**
Self-Blame .09 .10 .05
Blaming Others .12 .09 .07
Rumination .10 .10 .07
Catastrophizing .27 .09 .19**
Acceptance .18 .10 .11
Putting into Perspective .07 .11 .05
Positive Refocus .23 .10 .15**
Refocus on Planning .10 .11 .06
Positive Reappraisal .16 .12 .11
Anger expression-in
Step 1 .00
Gender .22 .57 .02
Step 2 .19**
Self-Blame .11 .11 .06
Blaming Others .20 .10 .11*
Rumination .35 .11 .21**
Catastrophizing .14 .10 .09
Acceptance .26 .11 .14*
Putting into Perspective .30 .11 .18
Positive Refocus .12 .11 .07
Refocus on Planning .04 .12 .02
Positive Reappraisal .32 .13 .21**
Anger control-out
Step 1 .01
Gender .26 .64 .02
Step 2 .21**
Self-Blame .08 .12 .04
Blaming Others .08 .11 .04
Rumination .12 .12 .06
Catastrophizing .37 .11 .21**
Acceptance .06 .12 .03
Putting into Perspective .13 .13 .07
Positive Refocus .28 .12 .15**
Refocus on Planning .18 .13 .09
Positive Reappraisal .44 .15 .25**
Anger control-in
Step 1 .01
Gender .24 .65 .02
Step 2 .28**
Self-Blame .13 .12 .06
Blaming Others .04 .11 .02
Rumination .08 .12 .04
(continued on next page)
1258 R.C. Martin, E.R. Dahlen / Personality and Individual Differences 39 (2005) 1249–1260

Table 4 (continued)
Variable B SEB b R2
**
Catastrophizing .38 .11 .20
Acceptance .05 .12 .02
Putting into Perspective .10 .13 .05
Positive Refocus .35 .12 .18**
Refocus on Planning .26 .13 .12*
Positive Reappraisal .51 .15 .27**
*
p < .05.
**
p < .01.

prominent role of these processes in cognitive theories of anger (e.g., Beck, 1999; Deffenbacher,
1996). Similarly, catastrophizing was implicated in aggressive anger expression, while blaming
others, rumination, acceptance, and reduced positive reappraisal were involved in maladaptive
anger suppression. Both anger control subscales were predicted by positive refocus, positive
reappraisal, and reduced catastrophizing. The adaptive control of angry feelings through relaxing
and other means of managing oneÕs arousal was also predicted by refocus on planning. These find-
ings fit well with previous research on the role of irrational beliefs and cognitive distortions in
anger (e.g., Lopez & Thurman, 1986; Martin & Dahlen, 2004; Zwemer & Deffenbacher, 1984).
As maladaptive anger expression is known to be associated with a variety of negative conse-
quences (Deffenbacher, Oetting, Lynch, & Morris, 1996), increased understanding of negative
coping styles of deficiencies in adaptive coping that help to explain anger expression are likely
to be useful.
One unexpected finding concerned the role of the CERQÕs blaming others subscale. Blaming
others is often emphasized in theories of negative emotions, particularly the experience and
expression of anger (Beck, 1999; Deffenbacher, 1993; Eckhardt & Kassinove, 1998). Although
the present study found that blaming others was positively correlated with the experience and
expression of anger and inversely correlated with one form of adaptive anger control, it did
not emerge as a significant predictor in the regressions. At this point, it is difficult to know if this
reflects a limitation of the CERQ or is simply a result of high correlations between blaming others
and CERQ other subscales that were significant predictors (e.g., positive reappraisal, catastro-
phizing, etc.).
The present findings also supported the utility of the CERQ in predicting stress, another var-
iable in which the potential utility of the CERQ had not previously been assessed. Stress was pre-
dicted by rumination, low positive appraisal, and self-blame. Coping theory predicts that those
who engage in maladaptive cognitive coping strategies will experience greater stress than those
who engage in adaptive cognitive coping strategies (Lazarus, 1993; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984).
The present findings support this claim and show, specifically, which cognitive coping strategies
appear to be most problematic with regard to stress.
Cognitive coping theory predicts that negative thoughts about oneself, blaming others, rumina-
tion, and catastrophizing are related to the experience of emotional distress (Beck, 1967; Lazarus
& Folkman, 1984). Thus, the present finding that all four of the negative coping strategies were
related with all four of the negative emotions (e.g., depression, anxiety, stress, and anger) supports
to the validity of the CERQ as a measure of negative coping styles. Independent of respondent
 R.C. Martin, E.R. Dahlen / Personality and Individual Differences 39 (2005) 1249–1260 1259

gender, depression was predicted by self-blame, rumination, catastrophic thinking, acceptance of

outcomes or tolerating what has happened, and reduced positive appraisal. Other than the unex-
pected finding of a relationship between acceptance and depression, these results mirror those of
Garnefski et al. (2004). Similarly, anxiety was predicted by self-blame, rumination, catastrophic
thinking, and reduced positive appraisal. Again, with the exception of positive appraisal, these re-
sults are consistent with previous research utilizing the CERQ (Garnefski et al., 2001; Kraaij et al.,
2003).
One implication of the present study is that it may not be appropriate to consider the accep-
tance subscale as an adaptive form of coping, as suggested by Garnefski et al. (2001). Although
we found partial support for the adaptive role of acceptance in that it was positively correlated
with adaptive anger control, acceptance was positively related to depression, stress, and unhealthy
anger suppression. A possible explanation is that the items that make up the acceptance subscale
(e.g., ‘‘I think that I cannot change anything about it,’’ ‘‘I think that I must learn to live with it,’’
etc.) may reflect a degree of hopelessness. Thus, acceptance may be adaptive only in certain cir-
cumstances, possibly depending on the type of mood under consideration. Pending replication,
future researchers are advised to interpret this subscale with caution. Whether it is adaptive or
maladaptive is an empirical question that remains to be determined.
The present study was limited by its reliance on self-report data, and future research should
consider implementing other methods of measuring negative emotions (e.g., informant ratings,
etc.). Additionally, the fact that all participants were recruited from undergraduate classes at
the University of Southern Mississippi limits the generalizability of results to a similar population
of college students. Future research should focus on attempting to replicate these findings with a
non-college student population. Of particular interest would be clinical samples, as this would in-
crease the variability in both coping styles and negative emotions. Finally, it is important to note a
specific limitation concerning the CERQ. Although subscale internal consistencies were generally
adequate, the rumination and acceptance subscales both fell below .70 and would benefit from
improvement. Given the brevity of the CERQ subscales (4 items each), it seems likely that the
addition of relevant items would both increase internal consistency and expand the content do-
main measured by each subscale.
In summary, this study contributes to the coping literature by providing additional support for
the validity of the CERQ, replicating previous findings for depression and anxiety and expanding
the utility of the CERQ to anger and stress. Present findings highlight the predictive utility of
rumination and positive reappraisal in explaining emotional distress.

References

Antony, M. M., Bieling, P. J., Cox, B. J., Enns, M. W., & Swinson, R. (1998). Psychometric properties of the 42-item
and 21-item versions of the depression anxiety stress scales in clinical groups and a community sample. Psychological
Assessment, 10, 176–181.
Avants, S. K., Warburton, L. A., & Margolin, A. (2000). The influence of coping and depression on abstinence from
illicit drug use in methadone-maintained patients. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 26, 399–416.
Ball, K., & Lee, C. (2000). Relationship between psychological stress, coping, and disordered eating: A review.
Psychology and Health, 14, 1007–1035.
Beck, A. T. (1967). Depression. New York, NY: Harper and Row.
1260 R.C. Martin, E.R. Dahlen / Personality and Individual Differences 39 (2005) 1249–1260

Beck, A. T. (1999). Prisoners of hate: The cognitive basis of anger, hostility, and violence. New York, NY: Harper Collins
Publishers.
Beutler, L. E., Moos, R. H., & Lane, G. (2003). Coping, treatment planning, and treatment outcome: A discussion.
Journal of Clinical Psychology, 59, 1151–1167.
Bouchard, G., Guillemette, A., & Landry-Leger, N. (2004). Situational and dispositional coping: An examination of
their relation to personality, cognitive appraisals, and psychological distress. European Journal of Personality, 18,
221–238.
Britton, P. C. (2004). The relation of coping strategies to alcohol consumption and alcohol-related consequences in a
college sample. Addiction Research and Theory, 12, 103–114.
Deffenbacher, J. L. (1992). Trait anger: theory, findings, and implications. In C. D. Spielberger & J. N. Butcher (Eds.).
Advances in Personality Assessment (vol. 9, pp. 177–201). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Deffenbacher, J. L. (1993). General anger: characteristics and clinical implications. Psicologia Conductual, 1, 49–67.
Deffenbacher, J. L. (1996). Cognitive-behavioral approaches to anger reduction. In K. S. Dobson & K. D. Craig (Eds.),
Advances in cognitive-behavioral therapy (pp. 31–62). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Deffenbacher, J. L., Oetting, E. R., Lynch, R. S., & Morris, C. D. (1996). The expression of anger and its consequences.
Behaviour Research and Therapy, 34, 575–590.
Eckhardt, C., & Kassinove, H. (1998). Articulated cognitive distortions and cognitive deficiencies in martially violent
men. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy, 12, 231–248.
Folkman, S., & Moskowitz, J. T. (2004). Coping: Pitfalls and promise. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 745–774.
Garnefski, N., Boon, S., & Kraaij, V. (2003). Relationship between cognitive strategies of adolescents and depressive
symptomatology across different types of life events. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 32, 401–408.
Garnefski, N., Kraaij, V., & Spinhoven, P. (2001). Negative life events, cognitive emotion regulation and emotional
problems. Personality and Individual Differences, 30, 1311–1327.
Garnefski, N., Teerds, J., Kraaij, V., Legerstee, J., & Van Den Kommer, T. (2004). Cognitive emotion regulation
strategies and depressive symptoms, differences between males and females. Personality and Individual Differences,
36, 267–276.
Garnefski, N., Van Den Kommer, T., Kraaij, V., Teerds, J., Legerstee, J., & Onstein, E. (2002). The relationship
between cognitive emotion regulation strategies and emotional problems, Comparison between a clinical and non-
clinical sample. European Journal of Personality, 16, 403–420.
Kraaij, V., Garnefski, N., & Van Gerwen, L. (2003). Cognitive coping and anxiety symptoms among people who seek
help for fear of flying. Aviation, Space, & Environmental Medicine, 74, 273–277.
Lazarus, R. S. (1993). Coping theory and research: Past, present, and future. Psychosomatich Medicine, 55, 234–247.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal and coping. New York, NY: Springer Publishing Company.
Lee-Baggley, D., DeLongis, A., Voorhoeave, P., & Greenglass, E. (2004). Coping with the threat of severe acute
respiratory syndrome: Role of threat appraisals and coping responses in health behaviors. Asian Journal of Social
Psychology, 7, 9–23.
Lopez, F. G., & Thurman, C. W. (1986). A cognitive-behavioral investigation of anger among college students.
Cognitive Therapy and Research, 10, 245–256.
Lovibond, S. H., & Lovibond, P. F. (2002). Manual for the depression anxiety stress scales (2nd ed.). Sydney:
Psychology Foundation.
Martin, R. C., & Dahlen, E. R. (2004). Irrational beliefs and the experience and expression of anger. Journal of Rational
Emotive and Cognitive-Behavior Therapy, 22, 3–20.
Ridder, D., & Schreurs, K. (2001). Developing interventions for chronically ill patients: is coping a helpful concept?
Clinical Psychology Review, 21, 205–240.
Spielberger, C. D. (1999). State-trait anger expression inventory-revised. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment
Resources, Inc.
Zwemer, W. A., & Deffenbacher, J. L. (1984). Irrational beliefs, anger, and anxiety. Journal of Counseling Psychology,
31, 391–393.