Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
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
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)
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
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
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
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 &
4 BURIĆ, PENEZIĆ, AND SORIĆ
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).
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
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
6 BURIĆ, PENEZIĆ, AND SORIĆ
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
REGULATING EMOTIONS IN THE TEACHER’S WORKPLACE 7
Method
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
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
to students, colleagues, and school personnel, parents, and the educational system
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
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.
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
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Table 1. (continued)
Emotion-regulation
category Examples of emotion-regulation strategies and techniques N
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
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
(Gross, 1998).
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Method
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-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
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.
REGULATING EMOTIONS IN THE TEACHER’S WORKPLACE 15
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
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
model with a single second-order factor that accounts for the patterns of
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
1 2 3 4 5
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
.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.
REGULATING EMOTIONS IN THE TEACHER’S WORKPLACE 17
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
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Method
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.
20 BURIĆ, PENEZIĆ, AND SORIĆ
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.
REGULATING EMOTIONS IN THE TEACHER’S WORKPLACE 21
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
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
the emotions teachers usually experience while teaching and interacting with
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
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,
22 BURIĆ, PENEZIĆ, AND SORIĆ
General Discussion
Practical Implications
Conclusion
References
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
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
26 BURIĆ, PENEZIĆ, AND SORIĆ
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
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
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
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
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
28 BURIĆ, PENEZIĆ, AND SORIĆ
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
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Appendix A
Content of items of Teachers Emotion-Regulation Scale–TERS
(Appendices continue)
REGULATING EMOTIONS IN THE TEACHER’S WORKPLACE 29
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.
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.
Reappraisal
Suppression
(Appendices continue)
30 BURIĆ, PENEZIĆ, AND SORIĆ
Tension Reduction
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