10 1037@str0000035 PDF

International Journal of Stress Management
Regulating Emotions in the Teacher’s Workplace:

Development and Initial Validation of the Teacher Emotion-
Regulation Scale
Irena Burić, Zvjezdan Penezić, and Izabela Sorić
Online First Publication, July 14, 2016. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/str0000035
CITATION
Burić, I., Penezić, Z., & Sorić, I. (2016, July 14). Regulating Emotions in the Teacher’s Workplace:
Development and Initial Validation of the Teacher Emotion-Regulation Scale. International
Journal of Stress Management. Advance online publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/str0000035
International Journal of Stress Management © 2016 American Psychological Association
2016, Vol. 23, No. 3, 000 1072-5245/16/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/str0000035
Regulating Emotions in the Teacher’s Workplace:

Development and Initial Validation of the Teacher
Emotion-Regulation Scale
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Irena Burić, Zvjezdan Penezić, and Izabela Sorić

University of Zadar
The goals of this research were to explore emotion-regulation strategies typi-

cally used by teachers in their workplace and to operationalize them in a
conceptually meaningful and psychometrically sound way. Based on the as-
sumptions of the process model of emotion regulation and a series of three
empirical studies (N1 ⫽ 25, N2 ⫽ 611, N3 ⫽ 309), and by implementing the
mixed-method approach, a context-specific scale aimed at measuring five dis-
tinct emotion-regulation strategies, namely avoiding situations, active modifi-
cation strategy, reappraisal, suppression, and tension reduction, was developed.
All scales had adequate psychometric characteristics and were meaningfully
related to the external variables examined.
Keywords: teachers, work-related emotions, emotion-regulation strategies, self-
report instrument
When teachers are asked about what they find motivating or satisfying in their jobs, they
often spontaneously refer to feelings of joy, fascination, pride, wonder and enthusiasm . . .
This emotional dimension, however, also has another side. Teachers do not experience
only positive feelings. Teaching also implies feelings of powerlessness, frustration,
disappointment, disillusion, guilt and even anger and fear. (Kelchtermans, 2010, p. 65)
Research on teachers’ emotions conducted over the past several years

clearly indicates that emotions are core components of teachers’ lives (Schutz
& Zembylas, 2009). Teachers experience a wide variety of both positive and
negative emotions in relation to their professional roles and activities. For
example, teachers may feel love and affection toward their students, joy and
satisfaction when students learn and make progress, or frustration and anger
when students misbehave and when colleagues and parents are perceived as
uncooperative. Such emotions may influence teachers’ cognitive processes
Irena Burić, Zvjezdan Penezić, and Izabela Sorić, Department of Psychology, University
of Zadar.
This research is supported by grant from Croatian Science Foundation (Project 5035).
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Irena Burić, Department of
Psychology, University of Zadar, Obala kralja P. Krešimira IV broj 2, 23000 Zadar, Croatia.
E-mail: buric.irena@gmail.com
1
2 BURIĆ, PENEZIĆ, AND SORIĆ
and motivational processes as well as their relationships with students (Sutton

& Wheatley, 2003). Emotions determine teachers’ instructional effectiveness
and, consequently, students’ learning progress and achievement (Frenzel,
2014). Finally, some research indicates that teachers’ emotions, especially
those which are negative, intense, and repetitive, can lead to emotional
exhaustion, burnout, reduced well-being and increased risk of dropout from
the profession (Chang, 2009; Day & Gu, 2000).

Considering the indisputable relevance of emotions experienced at work

for teachers, teaching and students, it is important that teachers employ
effective strategies in order to regulate such emotions. Thus, the aim of this
research was to contribute to the base of knowledge on teachers’ emotion
regulation phenomenon—first, by identifying the most important and fre-
quently used teachers’ emotion-regulation strategies, and second, by devel-
oping and validating a self-report instrument which will capture these strat-
egies in a psychometrically sound way. In reaching this goal, we have
combined both qualitative and quantitative data from multiple studies and
been guided by the prominent contemporary definition of the emotion-
regulation construct.
Defining Emotion and Emotion Regulation
Emotions are recognized as one of the most powerful drivers of human

behavior and development. In the component process model of emotions,
Scherer (2005) distinguished five components of an emotional episode:
cognitive component (appraisal), neurophysiological component (bodily
symptoms), motivational component (action tendencies), motor expression
component (facial and vocal expression), and subjective feeling component
(emotional experience). The basic function of emotions is to provide indi-
vidual’s successful adaptation to the environmental requirements. Although
our emotional responses are often congruent with these requirements and
help us, sometimes they can be ill-matched to a particular situation and result
with more harm than good for adaptation. In this case, attempts to regulate
emotional responses in order to attain adaptation goals become crucial.
Emotion regulation is a heterogeneous set of physiological, behavioral,
and cognitive processes that individuals use to modulate the experience and
expression of emotions (Gross & John, 2003). According to the process
model of emotion regulation (Gross, 1998; Gross & Thompson, 2007), there
are five temporal points in the emotion-generative process that can be
targeted: situation selection, situation modification, attentional deployment,
cognitive change, and response modulation. These five points represent five
families of emotion regulation processes. The first four families of strategies
REGULATING EMOTIONS IN THE TEACHER’S WORKPLACE 3
are antecedent-focused because they are used before the emotion response is
completely activated, whereas the fifth set is used to modulate the aspects of
the fully developed emotional response (Gross & Thompson, 2007).
Situation selection, as the earliest point at which emotion can be regu-
lated, refers to taking actions that make it more or less likely that the person
will end up in a situation that will give rise to a certain emotion (e.g., a
teacher may choose not to participate in a discussion over a certain “hot”

topic in the staff room to avoid feelings of anger and ruffle). Situation
modification processes are aimed at changing the features of the situation
which evoke a certain emotion (e.g., a teacher modifies the situation by
investing special effort in creating interesting examples in his or her lesson
to avoid a feeling of frustration when students are restless and uninterested).
Attentional deployment refers to attempts to redirect one’s attention in order
to influence one’s emotion (e.g., a young teacher who is anxious about an
upcoming parent–teacher meeting starts to think about an interesting movie
he or she recently saw). Strategies aimed at one’s cognitive interpretation of
a situation fall into the category of cognitive change. The main purpose of
this strategy is to change the cognitive appraisal of a situation that evokes
emotional experience by modifying the way one thinks either about the
situation itself or about one’s capacity to manage it (e.g., a teacher who gets
infuriated by the rudeness and bad manners of a student reminds him/herself
of the difficult family circumstances of that particular child). Finally, the
components of emotional responses can be regulated through the set of
processes called response modulation. After the emotion has been triggered
and fully developed, a teacher can choose from a variety of strategies to
intensify, diminish, prolong, or curtail the physiological, experiential, or
behavioral responding. For example, a malicious comment from a colleague
in the staff room can make a teacher feel sad and hurt, but he or she may
decide to suppress these subjective feelings and their external signs. Or a
teacher who feels frustrated and helpless due to ongoing educational reform
can reduce these unpleasant emotions by asking for social support, engaging
in hobbies, sports, socializing with family and friends, and so forth.
Among the various emotion-regulation strategies that have been identi-
fied, most research has focused on only two of them—reappraisal and
suppression. This research generally suggests that reappraisal has more
favorable consequences than suppression. For example, reappraisal is found
to be positively associated with outcomes such as openness, positive emo-
tions, and adaptive outcomes, and negatively associated with negative emo-
tions and neuroticism (Gross, 1998; Gross & John, 2003; John & Gross,
2004). In contrast, suppression was found to be positively related to negative
emotions and maladaptive outcomes such as inauthenticity and venting, and
negatively related to positive emotions, efficacy of negative-mood regulation,
openness, and conscientiousness (Butler et al., 2003; Gross, 1998; Gross &
John, 2003; John & Gross, 2004). However, the effectiveness and suitability
of a certain emotion-regulation strategy should not be judged a priori as
adaptive or maladaptive. Instead, its appropriateness should be considered
within specific contextual circumstances (Butler & Gross, 2004; Urry, 2009).
Emotion Regulation, Coping, and Emotional Labor

Emotion regulation is seen as broader construct than coping. Coping

exclusively refers to responses to stress, while emotion regulation refer to
managing both positive and negative emotions that arise under normative,
nonstressful circumstances as well (Compas, Connor-Smith, Saltzman,
Thomsen, & Wadsworth, 2001). However, coping can be considered as a
special case of emotion regulation under stress (Eisenberg, Spinrad, &
Eggum, 2010). Moreover, Skinner and Zimmer-Gembeck (2007) noted that
all strategies of emotions regulation can be considered as ways of coping.
Indeed, antecedent-focused strategies of emotion regulation can be concep-
tually linked to preventative coping aimed at preventing potential stressors
and building resources for resisting them, while response modulation share
some elements with combative coping aimed at dealing with the stressors
once they have already emerged (Matheny, Aycock, Pugh, Curlette, & Silva
Cannella, 1986).
Emotional labor is another term that should be conceptually disentangled
from emotion regulation construct. Emotional labor can be defined as the
“effort, planning, and control needed to express organizationally desired
emotion during interpersonal transactions” (Morris & Feldman, 1996, p.
987). In the core of the emotional-labor construct is an individual conscious
effort to adhere to organizational expectations in terms of emotional display
(Liu, Siu, & Shi, 2010). In other words, emotions are managed in accordance
with prescribed display rules of the organization or job (Ekman & Friesen,
1974). Hochschild (1983) distinguished two different forms of emotional-
labor strategies: surface acting and deep acting. Surface acting involves
modifying the observable aspects of the undesirable, mostly negative, emo-
tion by suppressing its expression or by faking positive affect. On the
opposite, deep acting involves the management of inner feelings in order to
feel and express the emotions one is required to display. Grandey (2000,
2015) proposed that deep acting can be seen as antecedent-focused emotion
regulation, that is, reappraisal or cognitive change, while surface acting is a
type of response-focused emotion regulation, that is, expressive suppression.
Research generally indicates that surface acting is “bad” for personal well-
being in terms of job burnout and health, while deep acting is “good” for
job-related outcomes such as positive work attitudes and interpersonal per-
formance (Grandey, 2015; Hülsheger & Schewe, 2011).
Teachers’ Emotion Regulation
In the context of teaching profession, there are many emotions that

should be regulated. Teachers are motivated to down-regulate negative
emotions such as anger or disappointment to protect their well-being and
facilitate adaptive functioning. Also, teaching is a profession bounded with
certain emotional rules which indicate which emotions are appropriate and
should be publicly expressed, and which emotions should be suppressed
(Oplatka, 2009). A general emotional rule of the teaching profession is to
avoid expressing emotions that are too strong or too weak (Zembylas, 2005).
Moreover, in most transactions with students, teachers are expected to show
pleasant emotions (e.g., joy, happiness, love, affection) and suppress their
unpleasant emotions (e.g., anxiety, anger, frustration, sadness; Schaubroeck
& Jones, 2000). In view of the fact that the teaching profession is bound by
prescribed emotional and display rules, questions regarding emotion regula-
tion becomes even more interesting and challenging.
In spite of its relevance, and perhaps because of its complexity, there is
rather little empirical evidence regarding the phenomenon of teachers’ emo-
tion regulation. Most of the existing studies on ways teachers regulate their
negative affective experiences have been conducted within a theoretical
framework of stress and coping (Lewis, 1999) or in the context of emotional
labor (e.g., Hargreaves, 1998; Isenbarger & Zembylas, 2006). A few excep-
tions refer to empirical investigation of teachers’ emotion regulation while
teaching and interacting with students (Gong, Chai, Duan, Zhong, & Jiao,
2013; Sutton, 2004; Sutton, Mudrey-Camino, & Knight, 2009). However,
these studies employed exclusively qualitative methodology and neglected
the investigation of other possible situations in school that can give rise to
teachers’ emotions and emotion regulation, such as parent–teacher meetings,
interactions in the staff room or certain acts and decisions of the school
principal, to name just a few.
A substantial contribution in the field of teachers’ emotion and emotion
regulation comes from the empirical work of Sutton and her colleagues
(Sutton, 2004, 2007; Sutton & Harper, 2009; Sutton, Mudrey-Camino, &
Knight, 2009). In her qualitative study on a sample of American middle-
school teachers, Sutton (2004) revealed that teachers regulate their emotions
while in the classroom because it is part of the teacher’s role, or of being a
professional, because they wanted to avoid interpersonally disruptive emo-
tions such as anger and disgust and to increase prosocial emotions such as
happiness and affection. Teachers reported using a variety of strategies of
emotion regulation which could be grouped into either preventative catego-
ries, such as modifying the situation (e.g., extra preparation before class),
attentional deployment (e.g., thinking positive thoughts), cognitive change
(e.g., self-talk), or responsive strategies, such as physically moving away,

taking deep breaths, controlling facial features, and so forth. Similar findings
were obtained on a sample of Chinese teachers in a study conducted by Gong,
Chai, Duan, Zhong, and Jiao (2013); teachers used a variety of antecedent-
and response-focused strategies to control their emotions before, in and after
class. In general, Chinese teachers used response modulation most fre-
quently, followed by cognitive change in and after classroom teaching.

The Present Research
The aim of this research was twofold. First, we wanted to explore and
identify strategies that are often used by Croatian middle-school teachers in
order to regulate emotions typically experienced in teachers’ work-related
settings. In reaching this goal, we go beyond the classroom and interacting
with students, and focus also on regulation of emotion experienced in relation
to parents, members of the school staff, and the educational system in
general. In recent years, Croatian educational system was the subject of much
debate and controversy because of below average results of Croatian students
according to Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA),
Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), and other
international studies. Consequently, numerous nonsystematic and incoherent
reforms were applied (Vlahović Štetić & Vizek Vidović, 2005; Žiljak, 2013).
However, none of these reforms was substantial. Frequently changing rules
implied by authorities, accompanied by increasing workload and low salaries
in teaching profession often lead to strikes and other forms of expression of
discontent. Thus, it seemed essential to explore teachers’ emotions and
emotion regulation with respect to current educational context in Croatia.
Second, based on findings from an explorative phase of research, as well
as on the contemporary definition of the emotion-regulation construct, we
attempted to operationalize the most salient and conceptually meaningful
emotion-regulation strategies employed by teachers in their working envi-
ronment by developing and validating a multidimensional self-report instru-
ment: the Teacher Emotion-Regulation Scale (TERS). To date, specific
instruments to measure strategies that teachers implement in order to regulate
emotions they experience at work are completely lacking even though such
context-specific measures might result in greater explanatory power over a
wide variety of relevant outcomes.
In this research, we conceptualized teachers’ emotion-regulation strate-
gies in a trait-like manner following the premise that individuals differ
systematically in their dispositions to frequently or typically use particular
emotion-regulation strategies (Gross & John, 2003; John & Gross, 2004). We
believe that measures addressing trait-like emotion regulation can be more

useful to explain their influence on the teachers’ work performance, well-
being, and relationships with students. Moreover, emotion regulation that
happens in situ, may be problematic to operationalize through typical survey
methods and thus require more complicated administration of techniques
(e.g., experience-sampling method or diary studies). Finally, in attaining our
research aim, we employed both inductive and deductive, qualitative and

quantitative, as well as exploratory and confirmatory, approaches.
Study 1: Exploring the Teachers’ Emotion

Regulation Strategies
Research indicates that teachers experience a range of emotions of signifi-

cant intensity even beyond the classroom (e.g., in relation to teacher–parent
interactions; Lasky, 2000) or school-reform initiatives (Darby, 2008). These
emotions can sometimes have even stronger impact on teachers’ lives and work,
because the situations or events that trigger them are much less controllable by
the individual. Moreover, because perceptions of controllability are strongly
related to emotions (Pekrun, 2006), among all the potential sources of teachers’
emotions (students, parents, colleagues, school administrators, and educational
policy), teaching and interacting with students should be the one that triggers
positive emotions the most (due to the higher levels of perceived control), while
experience of negative emotions is expected to be more frequent and intense in
relation to other groups of emotional sources (due to the perception of low
control, e.g., over system-related initiatives). Thus, to ensure the inclusion of all
prevalent and salient strategies used by teachers to regulate emotions experienced
across diverse situations in the school context, we conducted a qualitative study
based on a semistructured interview technique. Also, self-report statements
provided by the study participants served as a basis for the construction of an
item pool for the TERS.
Method
A total of 25 middle-school teachers, employed at 12 different schools

located in three different towns in Croatia, voluntary participated in the study. On
average, the teachers were 43.4-years-old (SD ⫽ 7.5) and had 13.8 years of
teaching experience (SD ⫽ 7.2). Only two teachers were male, which reflects the
usual female dominance in the teaching profession in Croatia. Data was collected
through in-depth, semistructured, face-to-face interviews which were conducted
by an external expert, specialized in conducting qualitative research on emotional
processes. This expert was not a member of the research group and was hired
only for purposes of moderating interviews. However, an interview protocol was
designed and provided by researchers and covered questions and topics essential
for exploring teachers’ emotions and emotion regulation phenomenon. Teachers
were asked to report their views and experiences about the most frequent and/or
personally important emotions they experience in school settings and in relation
to students, colleagues, and school personnel, parents, and the educational system
and educational policy in general. They were asked to describe the situations
that trigger those emotions, their related thoughts and interpretations of
situations, subjective feelings, behaviors, the bodily changes they expe-
rience, their action tendencies associated with particular emotions, and
the strategies they employ in order to regulate emotions and cope with
them. For the purpose of this study, we focused primarily on the data
which refer to emotion regulation, that is, strategies that teachers imple-
ment in order to regulate emotions experienced in relation to their work
and professional activities. Interviews lasted between 61 min and 100 min
and were audiotaped with the informed consent of the participants. After
the verbatim transcription of the audiotaped data, we conducted thematic
analysis following guidelines proposed by Braun and Clarke (2006). After
familiarizing with the data, three researchers independently generated
initial codes in the data. In order to control the reliability of findings
(Willig, 2008), two researchers independently analyzed data for emergent
themes (through processes of searching, reviewing, defining, and labeling
themes). Before the final step, the researchers reached a consensus on
each case of disagreement in defining and labeling the themes.
Results and Discussion
Teachers in this study reported experiencing a wide variety of emotions of

significant intensity when teaching, interacting and dealing with students, par-
ents, and other members of the school staff, and in relation to the educational
system and educational policies in general. The most frequently mentioned and
important emotions, which were accompanied by the richest descriptions regard-
ing their components and sources, were joy, satisfaction, pride, exhaustion,
anger, frustration, hopelessness, anxiety, and disappointment. Furthermore, they
talked about strategies that they use in order to regulate emotions they experience
at work focusing primarily on negative emotions, which confirms the more
debilitating nature of such emotions and reflects the inner need to temper their
occurrence, intensity, and duration (Barrett, Gross, Christensen, & Benvenuto,
2001). The results which emerged from the qualitative analysis are summarized
and presented in Table 1.
Table 1
The Results of Qualitative Analysis on Teachers’ Emotion-Regulation Strategies (N ⫽ 25)
Emotion-regulation
category Examples of emotion-regulation strategies and techniques N
Antecedent-focused emotion-regulation strategies
Avoiding the Avoiding conflicting or emotionally disturbing situations in the 12
situation classroom and staff room; avoiding interactions with certain

colleagues, withdrawal from conflicting situations in the

school (e.g. discussion of certain “hot” topics).
“I step back. I don’t participate in certain situations or
conflicts. I just avoid mean colleagues. I don’t want to
create additional stress to myself by getting into discussions
with such people.” Female, 33 years
Active Developing professional skills and competences (e.g. reading 20
modification professional literature, attending courses, training); seeking
strategy additional information in order to solve a problem; adapting
teaching techniques and methods to a given situation in
order to preclude or solve a certain issue in the classroom;
consulting professionals (e.g. school psychologist) and
colleagues regarding problems confronted at work; solving
problems through argument and constructive discussion in
the staff room.
“When I get frustrated about something at school, I talk to my
colleagues, and I ask them: ‘What do you think? What
should I do?’” Female, 29 years
Attentional Fantasizing; thinking about something else (e.g. thinking about 5
deployment socializing with a friend after work when feeling frustrated
by a child’s disruptive behavior in the classroom).
“When they (students) get me mad, I look at the flower pot for
few seconds . . . so, I don’t have to face them right away.”
Female, 49 years
Reappraisal Positive thinking and turning to the future (e.g. a “things will 24
get better” attitude); prioritizing (e.g. reminding oneself of
other important people or things in life, such as family and
friends); evaluating the situation from another perspective
(e.g. acknowledging the difficult family circumstances of a
certain child when angry at his/her misbehavior); accepting
certain situations/events/people the way they are and/or as
an unavoidable part of the job (e.g. “I cannot change the
educational system, so I have to accept it and deal with it”);
undermining personal responsibility for a certain emotional
event (e.g. reminding oneself that the teacher is only
responsible in part for a child’s academic achievement);
finding a humorous aspect of the situation.
“I used to have health problems caused by stress . . . but now,
no. I learned to cope with it. You see things around you that
are three times worse (than my problems at work), so I
think: So what? Things could be worse in my life, you
know?” Female, 44 years
(table continues)
Table 1. (continued)
Emotion-regulation
category Examples of emotion-regulation strategies and techniques N
Response-focused emotion-regulation strategies

Suppression Hiding external signs of emotions; ignoring subjective 17
feelings; staying cool and sober-minded; repressing thoughts
regarding certain emotional events; avoiding talking about

and recalling an emotional event.

“I think I cope well (with negative emotions) in class. I hide
them successfully. I didn’t explode in class, not once . . . I
handle my emotions well to the outside.” Female, 42 years
Immediate tension Deep breathing; counting to 10 before reacting; getting out for 15
reduction a moment to take in fresh air and clear one’s thoughts;
changing the ongoing activity by opening a window or
walking round the classroom; muscle relaxation.
“When I get really angry with students, I sit down, look at the
window . . . take a deep breath to calm myself down . . . ”
Female, 37 years
Venting Yelling; crying; talking about problems at work and pouring 7
out troubles to friends or family members.
“One has to control himself when working with kids . . . But,
when I come home from work, I don’t have to control
myself anymore, I can yell at my husband!” (Laugh)
Female, 42 years
Other unspecific Socializing with friends, engaging in hobbies; exercising and 14
strategies doing sport; reading; going to a concert or cinema; resting
and sleeping; praying.
“I find joy in leisure activities . . . I go to the theater, rock
concerts . . . My colleagues practice yoga, ride a bike, run
. . . do sport. One has to find something that will relax
him.” Male, 45 years
As can been seen in Table 1, teachers reported different strategies that

can be roughly grouped into two broad categories in accordance with Gross’s
model (1998; Gross & John, 2003): antecedent- and response-focused emo-
tion-regulation strategies. Among antecedent-focused strategies, reappraisal
was the one most commonly used. Almost every teacher in the sample
employs some form of reappraisal, such us taking another perspective over a
certain issue, undermining the personal relevance of a given situation (re-
minding oneself of his or her own priorities, such as family or friends) or
responsibility for it (acknowledging that some situations are beyond teachers’
control) or simply accepting certain events, people or situations as a natural
part of the job. Considering that there are many aspects of the teachers’ jobs
which cannot be influenced by them to a significant extent (e.g., current
educational policies and legislation, family and social circumstances of
students, students’ capabilities, etc.), changing the situation cognitively be-
comes one of the most accessible and acceptable options for emotion regu-
lation.
Active context modification, or active attempts to change the features or

causes of a given emotional situation, was the next-most often-mentioned.
These include strategies such us developing one’s competences and skills in
order to more easily manage certain students or situations in the classroom,
professional counseling when encountering a problem at work, or changing
and adapting teaching methods to adjust to the specific needs of a class. And
although this group of strategies conceptually overlaps with situation modi-

fication as proposed by Gross (1998) to a great extent, it should be stressed

that teachers try to influence the emotions experienced not only by changing
external features of the situation, but also by changing the self, that is, their
own competences and skills which can help them to manage certain situations
at work. Described in this manner, this form of emotion-regulation strategy
is conceptually similar to active or problem-focused coping (Carver, Scheier,
& Weintraub, 1989; Folkman & Lazarus, 1980).
Twelve teachers talked about avoiding certain people, situations, or
events in the school which could give rise to negative emotional experiences.
This strategy can be considered as a variant of situation selection, the earliest
temporal point at which, according to Gross (1998), an emotion can be
regulated. It should be noted that teachers used this strategy most in order to
regulate emotions triggered by parents, staff, and the system in general, rather
than students in the classroom. This finding simply reflects the fact that
teachers are obliged to be in the classroom and interact with students, and at
most times there is no option to just avoid or select a certain emotional
situation. Finally, only five teachers in this sample reported that they redirect
attention from unpleasant stimuli in order to prevent a full-blown negative
emotional experience (e.g., start to think of something else when becoming
stressed by students’ misbehavior).
Among response-modulation strategies, teachers generally try to sup-
press the external signs of an emotion as well as its subjective feelings.
Suppression of external signs of an emotion is actually a natural consequence
of teachers’ awareness of appropriate emotional display in the school context
and their attitude regarding teachers as role models in the classroom (Schau-
broeck & Jones, 2000; Sutton, 2004). The next strategy often used by
teachers relates to behavioral tactics that teachers use to immediately reduce
the unpleasant tension which accompanies negative emotions. These tactics
include deep breathing, counting to 10, walking, opening a window, or
leaving the room for a couple of minutes, and are used mostly in the
classroom. The main function of this group of strategies is to help teachers to
remain calm in upsetting situations, and this can be seen as a logical
consequence of their need for concurrent suppression of external signs of
emotion in front of their students.
Seven teachers talked about implementing some sort of venting strategy,
such as yelling, crying, or pouring out troubles to a partner or friend.
However, it should be noted that very few of them mentioned that they yell
at students when angry or upset; in most cases venting behavior happened
after school, in front of family members and/or friends. Again, this finding is
in line with the notion of teachers as role models of appropriate behavior in
the classroom, where being ‘too emotional’ is seen as inappropriate. Finally,
teachers often talked about diverse strategies they implement after school in
order to cope with emotional demands at work, such as engaging in hobbies

and sport, socializing with friends, or simply resting.

To conclude, teachers in this sample reported using emotion-regulation
strategies that can be both linked conceptually to Gross’s model (1998; Gross
& John, 2003) and supported by findings from previous research (Gong et al.,
2013; Sutton, 2004).
Study 2: Operationalizing Teachers’ Emotion Regulation Strategies
In the next step, our efforts were directed to the operationalization of

emotion-regulation strategies used by teachers in the school context. In order
to make the TERS economical and easy to administer, we focused only on
emotion-regulation strategies that have a strong conceptual basis and empir-
ical support from the qualitative phase of the research. Also, we primarily
intended to operationalize those strategies that are specifically used by
teachers while at the workplace (e.g., classroom, staff-room, parent–teacher
meetings) for regulation of work-related emotions evoked by students, col-
leagues, parents, and the educational system in general. Thus, we omitted
strategies that are not specific to teachers and the school context and that can
be used by nonteachers, or by teachers in their nonwork lives (e.g., resting,
doing sport, socializing with friends), as well as those that are rarely used by
teachers in their workplace (e.g., crying or yelling). Guided by these deci-
sions, we included six emotion-regulation strategies in the TERS: avoiding
the situation, active modification strategy, attentional deployment, reap-
praisal, suppression, and tension reduction. It should be mentioned that,
although teachers rarely used attentional deployment to regulate emotion in
its narrow definition, we decided to include it due to its strong conceptual
basis.
After the final decision on the inclusion of emotion regulation strategies,
we attempted to operationalize them by constructing items based on concep-
tual definitions of certain strategies (an example of such item is: “When I feel
unhappy because of my job, I try to suppress that”), as well as on self-report
statements provided by participants from Study 1 (an example of such
statement is: “When I get ‘out of line’ at school, I count to ten”). In total, the
initial item pool consisted of 62 items. Based on independent sorting of each
item under the umbrella of the intended emotion-regulation strategy by three

researchers (with research experience in studying emotion regulation), we
ended up with 40 items intended to measure six emotion-regulation strate-
gies. More precisely, an item was retained for further analysis only if all three
researchers independently agreed that it undoubtedly belong to the same
conceptual category with respect to Gross’s model of emotion regulation
(Gross, 1998).
Method
The sample consisted of 611 elementary-school teachers employed at 43

schools located in 33 different towns and municipalities in Croatia. (Of the
teachers, 464 were female, 122 male, and 29 did not indicate their gender.)
On average, the teachers were 41.15-years-old (SD ⫽ 10.61) and had 11.17
years of teaching experience (SD ⫽ 10.15). All teaching subjects were
covered in the sample of teachers. The data was collected during spring.
Participation in the study was voluntary and anonymous. Besides demo-
graphic questions (gender, age, working experience, and subject taught),
teachers were asked to indicate their agreement with each of the 40 items of
the TERS on a 5-point Likert-type scale, with responses ranging from 1 to 5
(1 ⫽ strongly disagree, 2 ⫽ disagree, 3 ⫽ neither agree nor disagree, 4 ⫽
agree, 5 ⫽ strongly agree). All statements were written in Croatian language.
The instruction for the participants was formulated as follows: Here are some
statements describing strategies and techniques which you as a teacher can
use in order to regulate emotions you experience at work. Please rate the
degree of your agreement with each statement.
Exploring the Latent Structure of the TERS. In order to establish the

latent structure of the TERS, we randomly split the initial data set in two.
Sample 1 (N ⫽ 312) was used to run exploratory factor analysis (EFA) in
order to provide preliminary evidence regarding the underlying latent struc-
ture of the TERS, while Sample 2 (N ⫽ 299) served for confirmation of the
obtained latent structure by employing confirmatory factor analysis (CFA).
Prior to conducting EFA, the factorability of the correlation matrix was
checked through Bartlett’s test of sphericity (␹2 ⫽ 4405.86, df ⫽ 703, p ⬍
.01) and the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy (KMO ⫽
.89). Principal-axis factoring and promax rotation to allow for correlations
among factors were employed. In order to determine the number of factors
and items that would be retained, several different criteria were used: (a)
Keiser-Guttman rule, (b) Cattell scree-plot test, (c) simple structure, and (d)
conceptually interpretable factors with no fewer than three items as indicators
per factor (Brown, 2006). Upon initial extraction, nine factors accounted for
48.93% of the total variance of the measured variables. However, based on
the above-mentioned criteria, only the first five factors seemed to be empir-
ically justified. Moreover, items intended to assess attentional deployment

and reappraisal loaded on the same factor, indicating the unidimensional

underlying nature of these cognitive processes. Thus, in the next step, we
reran the EFA, including the 31 items which met the above criteria, and
obtained a five-factor structure which accounted for 42.29% of the total
variance. Initial eigenvalues, labels of factors, number of items retained, and
example item per factor are shown in Table 2. It should be noted that we
labeled the factor comprising items initially intended to measure both atten-
tional deployment and reappraisal as reappraisal, because this term better
describes the conceptual significance of the items which remained after the
final EFA procedure.
Factorial Validity of the TERS. In the next step, we tested the factor
structure of the TERS in Sample 2 (N ⫽ 299) by using CFA. We constructed
three models and tested them competitively. The first model was the five-
factor model obtained by EFA on Sample 1. The first factor, avoiding the
situation, is comprised of items that refer to avoiding and withdrawing from
situations which can trigger certain emotions. The second factor, active
modification strategy comprises items that include active attempts to change
the features of the situation or the self in order to cope better with the
situation and prevent negative emotions. Items of the third factor, labeled
reappraisal, refer to changing the cognitive appraisal of the situation. Sup-
pression comprised items that describe attempts to suppress subjective feel-
Table 2
Factors Extracted in EFA (N ⫽ 312)
Factor label Eigen value k Example item
Active modification strategy 7.88 8 I question my teaching methods when
I feel helpless because of a certain
student.
Tension reduction 3.26 6 When I get upset at school, first I take
a deep breath.
Suppression 2.03 5 I ignore the anger I feel while at
work.
Reappraisal 1.45 7 If I get furious at students’ behavior, I
remind myself that these are just
kids.
Avoiding the situation 1.27 5 I avoid engaging in discussions with
problematic parents.
Note. EFA ⫽ exploratory factor analysis; k ⫽ number of items per scale.
ings and thoughts as well as external signs of an emotion. Finally, the last
factor, tension reduction, is consisted of items that relate to behavioral
strategies, such as deep breathing and walking, aimed at instantly reducing
the subjective feelings of tension associated with certain negative emotion.
The second model was a model with a single first-order factor labeled as a
general emotion-regulation factor. And the third model was a hierarchical
model with a single second-order factor that accounts for the patterns of
relationships among the five first-order factors.

CFA was conducted using Mplus 6 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998 –2011) and
by utilizing the maximum-likelihood estimation method. Quality of model fit
was assessed by chi-square/degrees-of-freedom ratio (␹2/df), comparative fit
index (CFI), root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA) and stan-
dardized root mean-square residual (SRMR). Values of ␹2/df ⬍3, CFI above
.90, and RMSEA and SRMR between .05 and .08, are indicative of a good
model fit, and values of CFI and TLI above .95, RMSEA and SRMR less than
.05, are indicative of a very good model fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999).
Prior to conducting CFA, due to hierarchical nature of our sample
(teachers nested within schools), intraclass correlation coefficients were
calculated (see Appendix B). Because ICC values were pretty low (ICCmax ⫽
.052), and none of them did not exceed the threshold of .10 (Muthén, 1997),
the multilevel structure of the data was not modeled. First, we tested the
five-factor model on the whole set of 31 items as obtained by EFA, and this
revealed the following fit indices: ␹2 ⫽ 735.05, df ⫽ 424, p ⬍ .01, ␹2/df ⫽
1.73, CFI ⫽ .88, TLI ⫽ .87, RMSEA ⫽ .050 (90% CI [.043, .055]) and
SRMR ⫽ .057. Based on these values, it can be concluded that the five-factor
model fitted the data well or very well according to most of the fit indices.
However, CFI and TLI values were somewhat beneath the acceptable thresh-
old. By inspection of the size of the factor loadings and proposed modifica-
tion indices, we decided to drop items which had: (a) factor loadings lower
than 0.40 (n ⫽ 2); (b) relatively high cross-loadings (n ⫽ 1); and (c) high
residual covariance, mostly due to similar item wording (n ⫽ 3). We again
performed the CFA, including the remaining 25 items, in order to test the fit
of the trimmed model. The fit of this model and the other two competitors is
shown in Table 3.
Table 3
Fit Results for the Competing Models to the Latent Structure of the TERS (N2 ⫽ 299)
Model ␹2 df ␹2/df CFI TLI RMSEA [90% CI] SRMR
5 factors 402.27 265 1.52 .93 .92 .042 [.033, .050] .049
Hierarchical 449.94 270 1.67 .91 .90 .047 [.03, .055] .056
1 factor 1052.45 275 3.83 .59 .55 .097 [.091, .103] .092
Note. TERS ⫽ Teacher Emotion-Regulation Scale; CFI ⫽ Comparative Fit Index; TLI ⫽
Tucker-Lewis Index; RMSEA ⫽ root-mean-square error of approximation; CI ⫽ confidence
interval; SRMR ⫽ standardized root mean-square residual.
A cut-off criterion of ⌬CFI⬎.01 for evaluating differences between

models is considered as substantial. Thus, it can be concluded that the model
with five first-order factors showed superiority in model fit when compared
with the other two. However, the hierarchical model also demonstrated
adequate model fit, indicating that the relationships among the five emotion-
regulation strategies can be explained by the same underlying dimension of
emotion-regulation construct. Factor loadings and latent correlations are

depicted in Figure 1, while the content of all 25 items represented by the five
factors, is presented in the Appendix A.
As can be seen in Figure 1, correlations between latent factors repre-
senting the five different types of emotion-regulation strategies were all
statistically significant and small-to-moderate in size. Such patterns of cor-
relation confirm that all five strategies can be considered as distinct mani-
festations of the same construct, that is, emotion regulation. Also, the sizes of
the factor loadings were close to or greater than 0.50 (Brown, 2006),
indicating a sufficient proportion of the variance of particular items explained
by their respective a priori-designated latent factors. It can be concluded that
these results provide initial evidence of sufficient internal construct validity
of the TERS.
1 2 3 4 5
.57 .54 .56 .83 .61
Avoiding
the situation
1 .56 1
.48
.59 .55
2 .26 2
.50
Re-
Active .68
.57 appraisal .40 3
3 mod.
.62 .72 .64
.75 .30 4
4 .66 .50
.30 .34 .57
5
5
Sup- .34 Tension

pression reduction
.62 .51 .50 .76 .47 .75 .54 .76 .69 .77
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Figure 1. Factor loadings and correlations among latent factors for the five-factor model
(N2⫽299). All parameters are statistically significant at p ⬍ .001.
Table 4
Score distributions, Descriptive Statistics, and Reliability of TERS Subscales on the Total
Sample in Study 2 (N ⫽ 611)
Subscale M SD Skewness Std. error Kurtosis Std. error ␣
Avoiding the situation 3.29 .72 ⫺.36 .10 .60 .20 .88
Active modification strategy 3.96 .60 ⫺.66 .10 1.04 .20 .89
⫺.71
Reappraisal 3.68 .61 .10 1.41 .20 .85

Suppression 3.03 .72 ⫺.18 .10 .64 .20 .88
Tension reduction 2.63 .86 ⫺.11 .10 ⫺.41 .20 .88

Note. TERS ⫽ Teacher Emotion-Regulation Scale; Std. error ⫽ Standard error.
Score Distributions, Scale Statistics, and Reliability of TERS Sub-

scales. Scale statistics and reliability coefficients calculated on the total
sample of teachers (N ⫽ 611) are presented in Table 4. Most of the subscales
did not depart drastically from a normal distribution, with skewness values
ranging from ⫺.11 to ⫺.71, and kurtosis values ranging from ⫺0.41 to 1.42,
indicating a sufficient variation in scores. Also, the internal consistency
coefficients were all high enough (⬎.80) to consider the TERS scales as
reliable.
Study 3: Validation of the TERS
After establishing the internal structure of the TERS, and in order to

provide evidence of its initial construct and criterion validity, we conducted
another quantitative study on a new sample of teachers. The aim of this study
was to examine the relationships between TERS subscales and external
variables such as teachers’ demographics, emotions, emotional labor, and
teachers’ self-efficacy, job satisfaction, and measures of well-being. Based on
theoretical propositions and previous research findings presented in the
introduction, we expected positive patterns of relationships between reap-
praisal and positive emotions, deep acting, self-efficacy, job satisfaction and
measures of well-being. Similar expectations are made for the emotion-
regulation strategy of active modification, due to its conceptual overlap with
problem-focused coping, which is generally considered to be linked to more
desirable outcomes (e.g., Higgins & Endler, 1995; Reid, Dubow, & Carey,
1995). On the other hand, we expected less positive patterns of relationships
between suppression and criterion variables. More precisely, suppression is
expected to be positively correlated to negative emotions and surface acting,
and negatively to sense of efficacy, job satisfaction, and well-being. For the
remaining two emotion-regulation strategies, namely avoiding the situation
and tension reduction, the expectations regarding their relations to external
variables are less straightforward. For instance, avoiding the situation can be
seen as both an adaptive and a maladaptive way to regulate emotions. In

some circumstances, when all attempts to resolve the problematic situation in
a constructive manner have failed, avoiding certain situations can be effective
in order to regulate one’s emotions. On the other hand, avoiding the situation
can be maladaptive if teachers use it excessively, which may lead, in the long
run, to unresolved problems and accumulated negative outcomes. In such a
case, this emotion-regulation strategy can be seen as conceptually close to

coping using an avoidant approach, which is generally considered as mal-

adaptive (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Finally, tension reduction is operation-
ally defined as prompt behavioral and physiological actions that teachers
implement in order to reduce subjective feelings of unpleasantness, and as
such it is expected to correlate to negative emotions experienced at work.
Method
The sample consisted of 309 elementary-school teachers employed at 32

schools located in 19 different towns and municipalities in Croatia. (Of the
teachers, 238 were female, 61 male, and 10 did not indicate their gender.) On
average, the teachers were 41.78-years⫽old (SD ⫽ 10.43) and had 15.13
years of teaching experience (SD ⫽ 10.65). All teaching subjects were
covered by this sample of teachers, too. The study was conducted at the end
of the school year and on an entirely new sample of teachers. Besides
demographic questions (gender, age, working experience, and subject
taught), teachers were asked to fill out the following self-report measures:
1. Teachers’ emotion-regulation strategies were assessed by the newly

developed TERS. The fit of the five-factor model was again tested and
turned out satisfactory: ␹2 ⫽ 443.23, df ⫽ 265, p ⬍ .01, ␹2/df ⫽ 1.67,
CFI ⫽ .91, TLI ⫽ .90, RMSEA ⫽ .047 (90% CI [.039, .055]) and
SRMR ⫽ .060. Descriptive statistics and alpha reliability coefficients
are presented in Table 5.
2. The emotions that teachers experience when teaching and interacting
with students were assessed by the Teacher Emotion Questionnaire
(TEQ; Burić, Slišković, & Macuka, 2016). The TEQ is a self-report
instrument designed to measure emotions that teachers typically ex-
perience in relation to their students, parents, school staff, and edu-
cational system. The student-related part of the questionnaire mea-
sures emotions of joy (sample item: “I am happy when I achieve
teaching goals that are set;” n ⫽ 5; ␣ ⫽ .82); pride (“I feel like a
winner when my students succeed;” n ⫽ 6; ␣ ⫽ .87); exhaustion (“At
the end of my working day, I just want to rest;” n ⫽ 7; ␣ ⫽ .88);
anger (“Some students make me so angry that my face goes red;” n ⫽
5; ␣ ⫽ .76); and hopelessness (“I feel I cannot do anything more to

correct the behavior of some students;” n ⫽ 7; ␣ ⫽ .80). Teachers
responded on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 ⫽ completely disagree,
5 ⫽ completely agree).
3. Teacher’s self-efficacy was measured by the 24-item Teachers’ Sense
of Efficacy Scale (TSES; Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001), assessing
teachers’ self-efficacy in three areas: (a) instructional strategies (sam-

ple item: “To what extent can you use a variety of assessment
strategies?”); (b) classroom management (“How much can you do to
get children to follow classroom rules?”); and (c) student engagement
(“How much can you do to help students to value learning?”).
Participants responded on a 9-point Likert-type scale (1 ⫽ not at all
able to manage, 9 ⫽ fully able to manage). Cronbach’s alpha of the
whole scale was .91.
4. Job satisfaction was assessed by the Job Satisfaction Scale (Judge et
al., 2001), consisting of five items measuring overall job satisfaction
on a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 ⫽ completely disagree, 7 ⫽ com-
pletely agree), sample item: “I feel fairly satisfied with my present
job” (␣ ⫽ .81).
5. Emotional labor experienced by teachers in relation to their job was
assessed by two subscales of the Emotional Labor Scale (Brotheridge
& Lee, 2003), namely surface acting (e.g., “On the average day at
work, how frequently do you resist expressing your true feelings?;”
␣ ⫽ .60) and deep acting (e.g., “On the average day at work, how
frequently do you try to actually experience the emotions that you
must show?;” ␣ ⫽ .80). Participants responded on a Likert-type
format ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (always).
6. Subjective well-being was measured by two indicators: (a) the Satisfac-
tion with Life Scale (Diener et al., 1985), consisting of five items
measuring global life satisfaction, sample item: “In most ways my life is
close to my ideal” (␣ ⫽ .86); and (b) the Scale of Positive and Negative
Experiences (Diener et al., 2010), a 12-item questionnaire including six
items to assess positive feelings and six items to assess negative feelings
a person has experienced in the last 4 weeks. For both the positive and
negative items, three of the items are general (e.g., positive, negative) and
three per subscale are more specific (e.g., joyful, sad). Participants
responded on a Likert-type format ranging from 1 (very rarely or never)
to 5 (very often or always). Cronbach’s alpha for the positive experiences
subscale was .87, and for the negative experience subscale .86.
It should be noted that all scales used in this research were administered
in Croatian language and psychometrically performed well in this or the
previous studies conducted on Croatian samples of participants.
In order to provide some initial evidence of validity for the TERS

subscales, we calculated Pearson correlation coefficients between TERS
subscales and the examined external variables. The results are presented in
Table 5.
As can be seen in Table 5, most correlations between TERS subscales

and examined variables were small-to-moderate in size and mostly in line

with stated hypotheses. Female teachers tend to reappraise the situation in
order to regulate emotions to a greater extent than their male colleagues (r ⫽
.16, p ⬍ .01). Female teachers also suppress their emotions less than male
teachers (r ⫽ ⫺.13, p ⬍ .05). Research has shown that females more often
use all types of emotion-regulation strategies (Nolen-Hoeksema & Aldao,
2011; Tamres, Janicki, & Helgeson, 2002) hence the negative correlation
between gender and suppression. However, these effects were pretty small in
magnitude. Furthermore, teachers with more years of working experience
more intensely regulate their emotions using all the strategies analyzed
except the active modification strategy (avoiding the situation: r ⫽ .13, p ⬍
.05; reappraisal: r ⫽ .12, p ⬍ .05; suppression: r ⫽ .15, p ⬍ .01; tension
reduction: r ⫽ 23, p ⬍ .01). A variety of research findings suggest that older
adults prefer less cognitively demanding strategies to control their emotions
(Scheibe & Zacher, 2013), and employ less active, interpersonal, and prob-
lem-focused coping behavior, but more passive, intrapersonal, and emotion-
Table 5
Bivariate Pearson Correlations Between Emotion-Regulation Strategies and External
Variables in Study 3 (N ⫽ 309)
Avoiding Active Tension
the situation modification Reappraisal Suppression reduction
Sex .05 .10 .16** ⫺.13* .09
Working experience .13* ⫺.03 .12* .15** .23**
Joy .17** .41** .25** .04 .02
Pride .18** .40** .27** .09 .07
Exhaustion .16** .00 .08 .15** .30**
Anger .14** .05 .02 .19** .38**
Hopelessness .25** .07 .05 .23** .31**
Surface acting .21** ⫺.10 .00 .20** .16**
Deep acting .04 .21** .16** .01 .12*
Job satisfaction .05 .28** .18** ⫺.03 ⫺.04
Sense of efficacy .02 .25** .19** .02 .00
Life satisfaction .06 .17** .20** .04 ⫺.01
Positive experiences .08 .23** .17** .05 ⫺.02
Negative experiences .04 ⫺.21** ⫺.13** ⫺.01 .12*
M 3.41 4.00 3.91 3.09 2.68
SD .67 .53 .55 .77 .85
␣ .75 .73 .73 .81 .85
*
p ⬍ .05. **
p ⬍ .01.
focused strategies than younger adults (Folkman et al., 1987). Because active
modification strategy is similar to problem-focused coping, and other ana-
lyzed strategies can be seen as more passive and intrapersonal, it can be
stated that the results obtained in this study are in line with previous research
findings.
Regarding the relationships between emotion-regulation strategies and
the emotions teachers usually experience while teaching and interacting with
students, it can be concluded that teachers who, to a greater extent, use active
modification strategy and reappraisal also experience more joy (r ⫽ .41, p ⬍
.01 and r ⫽ .25, p ⬍ .01, respectively) and pride (r ⫽ .40, p ⬍ .01 and r ⫽
.27, p ⬍ .01). In contrast, suppression and tension reduction showed less
desirable patterns of relationships with emotions: Teachers who are more
prone to suppress their emotions, as well as those who employ behavioral and
physiological tactics to reduce the tension more intensely, also experience
higher levels of exhaustion (r ⫽ .15, p ⬍ .01 and r ⫽ .30, p ⬍ .01,
respectively), anger (r ⫽ .19, p ⬍ .01 and r ⫽ .38, p ⬍ .01, respectively) and
hopelessness (r ⫽ .23, p ⬍ .01 and r ⫽ .31, p ⬍ .01, respectively). Of course,
due to the cross-sectional design of this study, the opposite direction of
causality is also possible. Teachers who experience higher levels of ex-
haustion, anger, and hopelessness in the classroom also need to make
stronger efforts to suppress such emotions in front of students and to
promptly reduce the unpleasant tension associated with it in order to
successfully continue the class. Avoiding the situation can be considered
as ambivalent regarding the valence of related emotions, due to its
positive correlations with both positive and negative emotions. To con-
clude, these results are mostly in line with the hypotheses, and are an
expected empirical consequence of the tightly intertwined nature of
emotion-generative and emotion-regulatory processes (Gross, 1998).
Furthermore, teachers who use active modification strategy and reap-
praisal to a greater extent also report higher levels of perceived self-efficacy
(r ⫽ .25, p ⬍ .01 and r ⫽ .19, p ⬍ .01, respectively) and job satisfaction (r ⫽
.28, p ⬍ .01 and r ⫽ 18, p ⬍ .01, respectively). Teachers who regulate
emotions experienced at work by actively modifying the self or the situation
are more satisfied with their lives (r ⫽ .17, p ⬍ .01 and r ⫽ .20, p ⬍ .01,
respectively) and have more positive emotional experiences in their everyday
lives (r ⫽ .23, p ⬍ .01 and r ⫽ .17, p ⬍ .01, respectively). They also reported
experiencing fewer negative emotion in their everyday life (r ⫽ ⫺.21, p ⬍
.01 and r ⫽ ⫺.13, p ⬍ .01, respectively), indicating the protective nature of
these two strategies in terms of emotional experience that goes beyond the
workplace. Successful and adaptive regulation of emotions is proven to be
essential for adaptive functioning, while suboptimal or dysfunctional emotion
regulation is considered as counterproductive and resulting in adverse con-
sequences, including poor well-being (Gross & Muñoz, 1995). To conclude,
the revealed relationships between newly developed subscales and criterion

variables provides initial empirical evidence of the criterion validity of the
TERS.
At last, the subscales of the TERS correlated to emotional labor strate-
gies in a conceptually meaningful and expected way. Teachers who imple-
ment surface acting to regulate their emotions at work are also more prone to
avoiding certain situations (r ⫽ .21, p ⬍ .01), suppression of emotions (r ⫽

.20, p ⬍ .01), and behavioral and physical tactics of tension reduction (r ⫽

.16, p ⬍ .01). On the other hand, teachers who use deep acting to a greater
extent also report implementing active modification strategy (r ⫽ .21, p ⬍
.01) and reappraisal (r ⫽ .16, p ⬍ .01) more often. These results are in line
with the propositions that deep acting can be seen as antecedent-focused
emotion regulation, that is, reappraisal or cognitive change, while surface
acting is a type of response-focused emotion regulation, namely expressive
suppression (Grandey, 2000, 2015). Active modification strategy is also
antecedent-focused, and tension reduction is response-focused: Hence, the
similar patterns of correlations of these two emotion-regulation strategies
with surface and deep acting. However, even though avoiding the situation is
also antecedent-focused, it was positively correlated with surface acting
instead of deep acting. Again, this result demonstrates the ambivalent nature
of this emotion-regulation strategy. It should be noted that, on the one hand,
positive and expected correlations between emotion-regulation subscales and
emotional-labor strategies provide evidence for convergent validity of the
TERS.
General Discussion
Although the existing research demonstrates the richness of teachers’

emotional lives in the workplace as well as its indisputable importance for a
variety of important outcomes, research on the regulation of such emotions,
as necessary prerequisite of buffering their potential negative impact, is still
largely lacking. Advances in this field of research may be stimulated by the
development of suitable measurement instruments for assessing those teacher
emotion-regulation strategies that stand out against the most-used, but con-
ceptually distinct, constructs of coping and emotional labor. Bearing this in
mind, through a series of three studies, using independent samples of middle-
school teachers, and by utilizing both qualitative and quantitative approaches,
we have developed a context-specific multidimensional self-report instru-
ment aimed at capturing five distinct, but conceptually and empirically
salient, emotion-regulation strategies used by teachers in their workplace:
avoiding the situation, active modification strategy, reappraisal, suppression,
and tension reduction. In attempts to operationalize teachers’ emotion-

regulation strategies, we were guided by contemporary definitions of the
emotion-regulation construct (Gross, 1998; John & Gross, 2004) as well as
the empirical data obtained from the three studies.
The TERS consists of five subscales, each exhibiting satisfactory psy-
chometric properties, that is, good reliability coefficients and sufficient vari-
ation of scores. Most of the latent correlations between different emotion-

regulation strategies were small-to-moderate in size, implying that they can

be generally treated as conceptually and empirically distinct variations of the
same underlying construct, thus confirming the internal validity of the TERS.
Furthermore, the way TERS subscales were related to gender, years of
working experience in education, teachers’ emotions experienced in relation
to their students, teachers’ self-efficacy, job satisfaction and well-being was
generally theoretically plausible, providing initial criterion validity. In our
study active modification strategy and reappraisal exhibited the most desir-
able patterns of relationships with the examined variables. Because active
modification strategy, operationalized as attempts to solve the problem by
changing one’s own competences and skills and/or external features of the
situation, is similar to problem- or task-oriented coping (Higgins & Endler,
1995; Lazarus, 2000), these results are in line with previous research indi-
cating positive relationships between this coping strategy and a variety of
outcomes such as better adjustment or less distress and depression (Higgins
& Endler, 1995; Reid, Dubow, & Carey, 1995). In a similar vein, reappraisal
is considered as an emotion-regulation strategy that is associated with pleas-
ant emotions and adaptive outcomes (Gross, 1998; Gross & John, 2003). On
the contrary, simple suppression turned out to be the least desirable strategy
to handle negative emotions evoked at work.
Finally, as expected, the TERS subscales are demonstrated to be related
to more widely studied emotional labor strategies (Brotheridge & Lee, 2003;
Hochschild, 1983; Morris & Feldman, 1996), supporting the scale’s conver-
gent validity. Strategies of avoiding the situation, suppression, and tension
reduction are related to surface acting, while active modification strategy and
reappraisal are related to deep acting. Because previous studies indicate that
surface acting is generally seen as a less desirable, and deep acting a more
desirable, strategy of organizational management in terms of one’s well-
being (Brotheridge & Lee, 2003; Grandey, 2015; Hülsheger & Schewe,
2011), the correlations obtained in this research again highlight the superi-
ority of active modification strategy and reappraisal used by teachers in the
school context. However, although correlations between emotional labor and
emotion-regulation strategies are conceptually meaningful, they are small in
their magnitude, demonstrating the additional value of a newly developed
measure intended for the assessment of teachers’ emotion-regulation pro-
cesses in the school context.
Limitations and Directions for Future Research
There are some limitations of this research that should be mentioned.

First, the psychometric properties of the scales need to be confirmed or
improved in different samples of teachers that go beyond middle-school level
as well as on samples of teachers other than Croatian. Second, because TERS
scales assess emotion-regulation strategies defined as rather stable personal-

ity traits, the temporal stability (retest reliability) is yet to be examined.

Third, TERS scales are focused on the regulation of unpleasant emotions that
are perceived as debilitating in the teachers’ working environment. Although
it is more important to reduce or diminish such emotions due to their potential
negative effect on teachers as individuals and professionals, and indirectly on
students and their academic progress, it would be interesting to focus on
additional strategies aimed at maintaining and up-regulating the pleasant
emotions. And fourth, findings on the relations between emotion-regulation
strategies and criterion variables should be interpreted with caution, due to
the cross-sectional research design, which does not allow making inferences
about causal relations between these variables. Future studies should analyze
the usability of the TERS across different educational levels and countries, as
well as its predictive validity in explaining a much wider variety of personal
and educational outcomes.
Practical Implications
The results of this research could have practical implications aimed at

training teachers how to efficiently regulate emotions they experiences at
work in a way that it preserves their well-being and work performance. More
precisely, teachers’ stress and burnout can be prevented or at least reduced
through effective emotion regulation. Based on the research findings pre-
sented in this article, reevaluation or reappraisal of the situation, as well as
focusing on actual problems and taking direct actions to change the situation
or the self (i.e., active modification strategy), can be seen as potentially useful
strategy for reducing the level of emotional stress in teachers’ job.
Conclusion
To conclude, we hope that TERS, as a psychometrically sound and

theoretically grounded measure, could serve as a useful starting point in
research aimed at discovering important relations between teachers’ emotion-
regulation strategies, their individual and contextual antecedents, and their
important effects on teachers’ cognition, motivation, job performance, stress,

well-being, and students’ academic progress.
References
Barrett, L. F., Gross, J. J., Christensen, T. C., & Benvenuto, M. (2001). Knowing what you’re
feeling and knowing what to do about it: Mapping the relation between emotion differ-
entiation and emotion regulation. Cognition and Emotion, 16, 713–724. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1080/02699930143000239
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research
in Psychology, 3, 77–101. http://dx.doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Brotheridge, C. M., & Lee, R. T. (2003). Development and validation of the Emotional Labour
Scale. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 76, 365–379. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1348/096317903769647229
Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York, NY:
Guilford Press.
Burić, I., Slišković, A., & Macuka, I. (2016). Capturing teachers’ emotions: Development and
initial validation of the Teacher Emotion Questionnaire (TEQ). Unpublished manuscript.
Butler, E. A., Egloff, B., Wilhelm, F. H., Smith, N. C., Erickson, E. A., & Gross, J. J. (2003).
The social consequences of expressive suppression. Emotion, 3, 48 – 67. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037/1528-3542.3.1.48
Butler, E. A., & Gross, J. J. (2004). Hiding feelings in social contexts: Out of sight is not out
of mind. In P. Philippot & R. S. Feldman (Eds.), The regulation of emotion (pp. 101–126).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Carver, C. S., Scheier, M. F., & Weintraub, J. K. (1989). Assessing coping strategies: A
theoretically based approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 267–283.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.56.2.267
Chang, M.-L. (2009). An appraisal perspective of teacher burnout: Examining the emotional
work of teachers. Educational Psychology Review, 21, 193–218. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1007/s10648-009-9106-y
Compas, B. E., Connor-Smith, J. K., Saltzman, H., Thomsen, A. H., & Wadsworth, M. E.
(2001). Coping with stress during childhood and adolescence: Problems, progress, and
potential in theory and research. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 87–127. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037/0033-2909.127.1.87
Darby, A. (2008). Teachers’ emotions in the reconstruction of professional self-understanding.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 1160 –1172. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2007
.02.001
Day, C., & Gu, Q. (2009). Teacher emotions: Well being and effectiveness. In M. Zembylas &
P. Schutz (Eds.), Teachers’ emotions in the age of school reform and the demands for
performativity (pp. 15–31). New York NY: Springer.
Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The Satisfaction with Life Scale.
Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71–75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/
s15327752jpa4901_13
Diener, E., Wirtz, D., Tov, W., Kim-Prieto, C., Choi, D., Oishi, S., & Biswas-Diener, R. (2010).
New well-being measures: Short scales to assess flourishing and positive and negative
feelings. Social Indicators Research, 97, 143–156. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11205-009-
9493-y
Eisenberg, N., Spinrad, T. L., & Eggum, N. D. (2010). Emotion-related self-regulation and its
relation to children’s maladjustment. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 6, 495–525.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.121208.131208
Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1974). Detecting deception from the body or face. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 29, 288 –298. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0036006
Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1980). An analysis of coping in a middle-aged community

sample. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 21, 219 –239. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/
2136617
Folkman, S., Lazarus, R. S., Pimley, S., & Novacek, J. (1987). Age differences in stress and
coping processes. Psychology and Aging, 2, 171–184. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0882-
7974.2.2.171
Frenzel, A. C. (2014). Teacher emotions. In R. Pekrun & E. A. Linnenbrink (Eds.), Interna-
tional handbook of emotions in education (pp. 494 –519). New York, NY: Routledge.
Gong, S., Chai, X., Duan, T., Zhong, L., & Jiao, Y. (2013). Chinese teachers’ emotion
regulation goals and strategies. Psychology, 4, 870 – 877. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/psych

.2013.411125
Grandey, A. A. (2000). Emotion regulation in the workplace: A new way to conceptualize
emotional labor. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 95–110. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1037/1076-8998.5.1.95
Grandey, A. A. (2015). Smiling for a wage: What emotional labor teaches us about emotion
regulation. Psychological Inquiry, 26, 54 – 60. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2015
.962444
Gross, J. J. (1998). The emerging field of emotion regulation: An integrative review. Review of
General Psychology, 2, 271–299. http://dx.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, 348 –362. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.2.348
Gross, J. J., & Muñoz, R. F. (1995). Emotion regulation and mental health. Clinical Psychol-
ogy: Science & Practice, 2, 151–164.
Gross, J. J., & Thompson, R. A. (2007). Emotion regulation: Conceptual foundations. In J. J.
Gross (Ed.), Handbook of emotion regulation (pp. 3–24). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Hargreaves, A. (1998). The emotional politics of teaching and teacher development: With
implications for educational leadership. International Journal of Leadership in Education,
1, 315–336. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1360312980010401
Higgins, J. E., & Endler, N. S. (1995). Coping, life stress, and psychological and somatic
distress. European Journal of Personality, 9, 253–270. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/per
.2410090403
Hochschild, A. R. (1983). The managed heart: Commercialization of human feeling. Berkeley,
CA: University of California Press.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:
Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
Hülsheger, U. R., & Schewe, A. F. (2011). On the costs and benefits of emotional labor: A
meta-analysis of three decades of research. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,
16, 361–389. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0022876
Isenbarger, L., & Zembylas, M. (2006). The emotional labour of caring in teaching. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 22, 120 –134. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2005.07.002
John, O. P., & Gross, J. J. (2004). Healthy and unhealthy emotion regulation: Personality
processes, individual differences, and life span development. Journal of Personality, 72,
1301–1333. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2004.00298.x
Judge, T. A., Parker, S. K., Colbert, A. E., Heller, D., & Ilies, R. (2001). Job satisfaction: A
cross-cultural review. In N. Anderson, D. S. Ones, H. K. Sinangil, & C. Viswesvaran
(Eds.), Handbook of industrial, work, and organizational psychology (pp. 25–52). Lon-
don, UK: Sage.
Kelchtermans, G. (2010). Vulnerability in teaching: The moral and political roots of a structural
condition. In C. Day & J. Chi-kin Lee (Eds.), New understandings of teacher effective-
ness: Emotions and educational change (pp. 65– 82). London, UK: Springer
Lasky, S. (2000). The cultural and emotional politics of teacher–parent interactions. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 16, 843– 860. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(00)00030-5
Lazarus, R. S. (2000). Toward better research on stress and coping. American Psychologist, 55,
665– 673. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.6.665
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York, NY: Springer.
Lewis, R. (1999). Teachers coping with the stress of classroom discipline. Social Psychology
of Education, 3, 155–171. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1009627827937
Liu, J., Siu, O.-L., & Shi, K. (2010). Transformational leadership and employee well-being:
The mediating role of trust in the leader and self-efficacy. Applied Psychology, 59,
454 – 479. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2009.00407.x
Matheny, K. B., Aycock, D. W., Pugh, J. L., Curlette, W. L., & Silva Cannella, K. A. (1986).
Stress coping: A qualitative and quantitative synthesis with implications for treatment. The
Counseling Psychologist, 14, 499 –549. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0011000086144001

Morris, J. A., & Feldman, D. C. (1996). The dimensions, antecedents, and consequences of
emotional labor. The Academy of Management Review, 21, 986 –1010.
Muthén, B. (1997). Latent variable modeling of longitudinal and multilevel data. Sociological
Methodology, 27, 453– 480. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9531.271034
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998 –2011). Mplus user’s guide (6th ed.). Los Angeles, CA:
Author.
Nolen-Hoeksema, S., & Aldao, A. (2011). Gender and age differences in emotion regulation
strategies and their relationship to depressive symptoms. Personality and Individual
Differences, 51, 704 –708. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.06.012
Oplatka, I. (2009). Women teachers’ emotional commitment and involvement: A universal
professional feature and educational policy. Race, Ethnicity and Gender in Education,
195–211. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9739-3_11
Pekrun, R. (2006). The control-value theory of achievement emotions: Assumptions, corollar-
ies, and implications for educational research and practice. Educational Psychology
Review, 18, 315–341. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10648-006-9029-9
Reid, G. J., Dubow, E. F., & Carey, T. C. (1995). Developmental and situational differences in
coping among children and adolescents with diabetes. Journal of Applied Developmental
Psychology, 16, 529 –554. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0193-3973(95)90003-9
Schaubroeck, J., & Jones, J. (2000). Antecedents of workplace emotional labor dimensions and
moderators of their effects on physical symptoms. Journal of Organizational Behavior.
Special Issue: Emotions in Organization, 21, 163–183.
Scheibe, S., & Zacher, H. (2013). A lifespan perspective on emotion regulation, stress, and
well-being in the workplace. In P. L. Perrewé, C. C. Rosen, & J. R. B. Halbesleben (Eds.),
The role of emotion and emotion regulation in job stress and well being: Research in
occupational stress and well-being (Vol. 11, pp. 163–193). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group
Publishing Limited.
Scherer, K. R. (2005). What are emotions? And how can they be measured?. Social Science
Information, 44, 693–727.
Schutz, P., & Zembylas, M. (Eds.). (2009). Advances in teacher emotion research: The impact
on teachers’ lives. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-
1-4419-0564-2
Skinner, E. A., & Zimmer-Gembeck, M. J. (2007). The development of coping. Annual Review
of Psychology, 58, 119 –144. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085705
Sutton, R. E. (2004). Emotional regulation goals and strategies of teachers. Social Psychology
of Education, 7, 379 –398. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11218-004-4229-y
Sutton, R. (2007). Teachers’ anger, frustration, and self-regulation. In P. A. Schutz & R. Pekrun
(Eds.), Emotion in education (pp. 259 –274). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1016/B978-012372545-5/50016-2
Sutton, R. E., & Harper, E. (2009). Teachers’ emotion regulation. In L. J. Saha & A. G.
Dworkin (Eds.), International handbook of research on teachers and teaching (pp.
389 – 401). New York, NY: Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-73317-3_25
Sutton, R. E., Mudrey-Camino, R., & Knight, C. C. (2009). Teachers’ emotion regulation and
classroom management. Theory Into Practice, 48, 130 –137. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
00405840902776418
Sutton, R. E., & Wheatley, K. F. (2003). Teachers’ emotions and teaching: A review of the
literature and directions for future research. Educational Psychology Review, 15, 327–358.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1026131715856
Tamres, L. K., Janicki, D., & Helgeson, V. S. (2002). Sex differences in coping behavior: A
meta-analytic review and an examination of relative coping. Personality and Social
Psychology Review, 6, 2–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0601_1
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A. W. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 783– 805. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0742-
051X(01)00036-1
Urry, H. L. (2009). Using reappraisal to regulate unpleasant emotional episodes: Goals and
timing matter. Emotion, 9, 782–797. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0017109

Vlahović Štetić, V., & Vizek Vidović, V. (2005). Reforma obrazovanja 1990-tih [The educa-
tional reform in 1990’s]. In V. Vizek Vidović (Ed.), Cjeloživotno obrazovanje učitelja i

nastavnika: Višestruke perspektive [Lifelong education of teachers: The multiple perspec-
tives] (pp. 68 –71). Zagreb, Croatia: Institute for Social Research in Zagreb.
Willig, C. (2008). Introducing qualitative research in psychology. London, UK: Open Univer-
sity Press.
Zembylas, M. (2005). Discursive practices, genealogies, and emotional rules: A poststructur-
alist view on emotion and identity in teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21,
935–948. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2005.06.005
Žiljak, T. (2013). Dvije faze obrazovne politike u Hrvatskoj nakon 1990. godine [Two phases
of educational politics in Croatia after 1990]. Andragoški glasnik [Andragogy], 17, 7–25.
Appendix A
Content of items of Teachers Emotion-Regulation Scale–TERS
Teacher Emotion-Regulation Scale—TERS
Avoiding the Situation
I try to avoid conflicting situations at school.

I withdraw when the conversation turns in the wrong direction.
In my work I try to avoid discussions about unpleasant topics.
I pull back from conflicting situations at work.
I avoid engaging in discussions with troublesome parents.
(Appendices continue)
Active Modification Strategy
When students make me angry with their behavior, I try to correct them
and direct them on the right path.
I question my own teaching methods when I feel helpless about some
student.
I am developing additional skills and knowledge to make my work with

students less stressful.
I ask more-experienced colleagues for advice when I have a problem at
work.
I am seeking additional information in order to solve problems at work
that trouble me.
Reappraisal
When I become upset at work, I remind myself of my own priorities in

life.
In school, I calm myself by viewing things from another perspective.
When I become furious at students’ behavior, I remind myself that they
are just kids.
If, for some reason, I feel miserable at work, I redirect my thoughts to
something positive.
If I feel helpless, I make myself aware that some things are beyond my
control.
Suppression
When I feel unhappy because of my job, I try to suppress that.

I do not even want to think about the frustrations that I experience at
work.
I ignore the hurt I feel in some situations at work.
If I feel annoyed with some situations at school, I try to suppress that.
I ignore the anger I experience at work.
(Appendices continue)
Tension Reduction
I breathe deeply in order to reduce the tension from unpleasant situations

at work.
If students “drive me crazy” in class, I open the window to take a breath
of fresh air.
When I become upset at work, I first take a deep breath.

When I get “out of line” at school, I count to ten.
I breathe deeply in order to reduce the rage I feel occasionally at work.
Appendix B
Descriptive Statistics and Intraclass Correlations (ICC) of TERS Items
on the Total Sample in Study 2 (N ⴝ 611)
Subscale Item No. M SD Skewness (SE) Kurtosis (SE) ICC
Avoiding the situation Item 1 4.10 .94 ⫺1.09 (.10) 1.24 (.20) .009
Item 2 2.90 1.07 ⫺.16 (.10) ⫺.53 (.20) .019
Item 3 2.99 1.02 ⫺.11 (.10) ⫺.43 (.20) .030
Item 4 3.25 1.04 ⫺.34 (.10) ⫺.34 (.20) .034
Item 5 3.25 1.09 ⫺.30 (.10) ⫺.45 (.20) .031
Active modification strategy Item 1 4.22 .71 ⫺.24 (.10) 3.76 (.20) .052
Item 2 3.85 .85 ⫺.73 (.10) .78 (.20) .031
Item 3 3.97 .87 ⫺.89 (.10) 1.01 (.20) .018
Item 4 3.93 .95 ⫺.99 (.10) 1.05 (.20) .032
Item 5 3.82 .92 ⫺.88 (.10) .97 (.20) .048
Reappraisal Item 1 3.89 ⫺.96 ⫺.90 (.10) .87 (.20) .052
Item 2 3.50 .90 ⫺.88 (.10) .92 (.20) .029
Item 3 3.81 .88 ⫺.74 (.10) .88 (.20) .041
Item 4 3.63 .91 ⫺.79 (.10) .96 (.20) .014
Item 5 3.57 .93 ⫺.69 (.10) .55 (.20) .020
Suppression Item 1 2.89 1.20 ⫺.05 (.10) ⫺.89 (.20) .024
Item 2 3.24 1.07 ⫺.15 (.10) ⫺.54 (.20) .017
Item 3 3.05 .91 ⫺.35 (.10) .14 (.20) .026
Item 4 3.06 1.03 ⫺.22 (.10) ⫺.41 (.20) .021
Item 5 2.96 1.03 ⫺.03 (.10) ⫺.33 (.20) .027
Tension reduction Item 1 2.91 1.14 ⫺.15 (.10) ⫺.74 (.20) .026
Item 2 2.29 1.12 .43 (.10) ⫺.70 (.20) .029
Item 3 3.01 1.01 ⫺.37 (.10) ⫺.61 (.20) .017
Item 4 2.39 1.15 .28 (.10) ⫺.90 (.20) .034
Item 5 2.57 1.12 .14 (.10) ⫺.82 (.20) .018
Received September 3, 2015

Revision received June 1, 2016
Accepted June 7, 2016 䡲

10 1037@str0000035 PDF

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

10 1037@str0000035 PDF

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

International Journal of Stress Management

Regulating Emotions in the Teacher’s Workplace:

Regulating Emotions in the Teacher’s Workplace:

Irena Burić, Zvjezdan Penezić, and Izabela Sorić

The goals of this research were to explore emotion-regulation strategies typi-

Research on teachers’ emotions conducted over the past several years

and motivational processes as well as their relationships with students (Sutton

the profession (Chang, 2009; Day & Gu, 2000).

Considering the indisputable relevance of emotions experienced at work

Defining Emotion and Emotion Regulation

Emotions are recognized as one of the most powerful drivers of human

teacher may choose not to participate in a discussion over a certain “hot”

Emotion Regulation, Coping, and Emotional Labor

Emotion regulation is seen as broader construct than coping. Coping

Teachers’ Emotion Regulation

In the context of teaching profession, there are many emotions that

(e.g., self-talk), or responsive strategies, such as physically moving away,

quently, followed by cognitive change in and after classroom teaching.

The Present Research

believe that measures addressing trait-like emotion regulation can be more

research aim, we employed both inductive and deductive, qualitative and

quantitative, as well as exploratory and confirmatory, approaches.

Study 1: Exploring the Teachers’ Emotion

Research indicates that teachers experience a range of emotions of signifi-

A total of 25 middle-school teachers, employed at 12 different schools

Results and Discussion

Teachers in this study reported experiencing a wide variety of emotions of

situation classroom and staff room; avoiding interactions with certain

colleagues, withdrawal from conflicting situations in the

Response-focused emotion-regulation strategies

regarding certain emotional events; avoiding talking about

and recalling an emotional event.

As can been seen in Table 1, teachers reported different strategies that

Active context modification, or active attempts to change the features or

although this group of strategies conceptually overlaps with situation modi-

fication as proposed by Gross (1998) to a great extent, it should be stressed

order to cope with emotional demands at work, such as engaging in hobbies

and sport, socializing with friends, or simply resting.

Study 2: Operationalizing Teachers’ Emotion Regulation Strategies

In the next step, our efforts were directed to the operationalization of

item under the umbrella of the intended emotion-regulation strategy by three

The sample consisted of 611 elementary-school teachers employed at 43

Results and Discussion

Exploring the Latent Structure of the TERS. In order to establish the

ically justified. Moreover, items intended to assess attentional deployment

and reappraisal loaded on the same factor, indicating the unidimensional

relationships among the five first-order factors.

A cut-off criterion of ⌬CFI⬎.01 for evaluating differences between

emotion-regulation construct. Factor loadings and latent correlations are

.57 .54 .56 .83 .61

Sup- .34 Tension

Reappraisal 3.68 .61 .10 1.41 .20 .85

Tension reduction 2.63 .86 ⫺.11 .10 ⫺.41 .20 .88

Score Distributions, Scale Statistics, and Reliability of TERS Sub-

Study 3: Validation of the TERS

After establishing the internal structure of the TERS, and in order to

seen as both an adaptive and a maladaptive way to regulate emotions. In

case, this emotion-regulation strategy can be seen as conceptually close to

coping using an avoidant approach, which is generally considered as mal-

The sample consisted of 309 elementary-school teachers employed at 32

1. Teachers’ emotion-regulation strategies were assessed by the newly

5; ␣ ⫽ .76); and hopelessness (“I feel I cannot do anything more to

teachers’ self-efficacy in three areas: (a) instructional strategies (sam-