CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 203Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesEmotions and Moral BehaviorChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development

The Affective Style Questionnaire: Development and Psychometric Properties

Open access
Hofmann, Stefan G., Kashdan, Todd B.·2010·Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment
DOI 10.1007/s10862-009-9142-4PMC PMC2873215
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Affective style is an individual difference variable that refers to tendencies for regulating emotions. The emotion research literature has consistently identified three general strategies to handle emotional reactions: some strategies are aimed at re-adjusting affect to adapt successfully to situational demands; other strategies intend to conceal or suppress affect; and a third approach is to tolerate and accept emotions including unwanted and aversive reactions. We conducted two studies to develop a self-report measure to assess these affective styles. In the first study (n = 434), a list of 127 items related to this construct was administered. A factor analysis supported three factors: habitual attempts to conceal or suppress affect (Concealing subscale; 8 items), a general ability to manage, adjust, and work with emotions as needed (Adjusting subscale; 7 items), and an accepting and tolerant attitude toward emotions (Tolerating subscale; 5 items). The scale showed satisfactory internal consistency. Furthermore, the respective subscales showed different pattern of relations with existing instruments measuring similar constructs. Findings were cross-validated in an independent sample (n = 495). The factor structure and results of psychometric analyses were replicated. The final 20-item Affective Style Questionnaire is a brief instrument to measure individual differences in emotion regulation.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10862-009-9142-4

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

0 of 10 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingown data

    In Study 1, ASQ-Tolerating had moderate correlations with the DERS accept and aware subscales.

    “Moderate correlations were also observed between the Tolerating subscale and the DERS accept subscale (nonacceptance of emotional response) and the aware subscale (lack of emotional awareness).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Affective style can be adequately assessed through self-report items.
  • Findingown data

    In Study 1, ASQ-Concealing and ASQ-Adjusting showed different associations with difficulties describing and identifying feelings.

    “Also, the ASQ-Concealing and Adjusting subscales were differentially linked to difficulties describing and identifying feelings”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Affective style can be adequately assessed through self-report items.
  • Findingown data

    In Study 2, a principal component analysis of the 20-item ASQ produced 3 factors with eigenvalues above 1, explaining 49.6% of the total variance.

    “The principal component analysis with the 20-item ASQ resulted again in 3 factors with Eigenvalues greater than 1 accounting for 49.6% of the total variance.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Affective style can be adequately assessed through self-report items.
    • Rests on an assumption: The 127 author-generated items adequately cover the three affective styles.
    • Rests on an assumption: Excluding cases with missing data does not bias the psychometric results.
  • Findingown data

    In Study 1, the Adjusting subscale had acceptable internal consistency (α = .80).

    “Internal consistency was acceptable for the Concealing (α = .84), Adjusting (α = .80), and Tolerating (α = .66) subscales.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Affective style can be adequately assessed through self-report items.
    • Rests on an assumption: Excluding cases with missing data does not bias the psychometric results.
  • Findingown data

    In Study 1, ASQ-Tolerating correlated r = -.34 with the ERQ suppression subscale.

    “we also found a moderate negative correlation between the ASQ-Tolerating subscale and the ERQ suppression subscale (r = −.34)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Affective style can be adequately assessed through self-report items.
  • May combine two claims. 14
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 2
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 10

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In Study 2, ASQ-Concealing had its strongest relations with BEQ-Negative Expressivity (r = -.70), ERQ-Suppression (r = .52), and BEQ-Positive Expressivity (r = -.33).

    “The strongest relations with the ASQ-Concealing subscale were the BEQ-Negative Expressivity (r = −.70), ERQ-Suppression (r = .52), and BEQ-Positive Expressivity (r = −.33) subscales.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Affective style can be adequately assessed through self-report items.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In Study 1, the Adjusting factor contained 7 items and explained 15.81% of the variance.

    “The second factor consisting of 7 items and accounting for 15.81% of the variance was interpreted as the Adjusting subscale.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Affective style can be adequately assessed through self-report items.
    • Rests on an assumption: The 127 author-generated items adequately cover the three affective styles.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In Study 2, ASQ-Tolerating had its strongest relations with DERS Aware (r = -.39), ERQ-Suppression (r = -.32), BEQ-Positive Expressivity (r = .28), and TAS-20 Externally Oriented (r = -.28).

    “The strongest relations with the ASQ-Tolerating subscale were DERS Aware (r = −.39), ERQ-Suppression (r = −.32), BEQ-Positive Expressivity (r = .28), and TAS-20 Externally Oriented (r = −.28) subscales”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Affective style can be adequately assessed through self-report items.

  • The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data

    In Study 1, each ASQ subscale showed high item validity and internal consistency.

    “Each of these subscales showed high item validity and internal consistency.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Affective style can be adequately assessed through self-report items.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In Study 1, the Tolerating factor contained 5 items and explained 10.09% of the variance.

    “The third factor, the Tolerating subscale, consisting of 5 items, accounted for 10.09% of the variance.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Affective style can be adequately assessed through self-report items.
    • Rests on an assumption: The 127 author-generated items adequately cover the three affective styles.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In Study 2, ASQ-Adjusting had its strongest relations with ERQ-Reappraisal (r = .57), DERS Strategies (r = -.54), DERS Goals (r = -.43), and AAQ-II (r = .48).

    “The strongest relations with the ASQ- Adjusting subscale were ERQ-Reappraisal (r = .57), DERS Strategies (r = −.54), and DERS Goals (r = −.43) subscales and the AAQ-II (r = .48)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Affective style can be adequately assessed through self-report items.

  • The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data

    In Study 1, a principal component analysis of all 127 items produced 30 components with eigenvalues above 1, explaining 67.48% of the total variance.

    “The principal component analysis of the entire item pool resulted in 30 factors with Eigenvalues greater than 1 accounting for 67.48% of the total variance.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Affective style can be adequately assessed through self-report items.
    • Rests on an assumption: The 127 author-generated items adequately cover the three affective styles.
    • Rests on an assumption: Excluding cases with missing data does not bias the psychometric results.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Using two large college-student samples from separate universities, the authors created a 20-item scale with three subscales: Concealing, Adjusting, and Tolerating affect.

    “Using two large samples of college students at separate universities, we were able to create a 20-item scale consisting of 3 subscales: Concealing, Adjusting, and Tolerating affect.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Affective style can be adequately assessed through self-report items.
    • Rests on an assumption: The 127 author-generated items adequately cover the three affective styles.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In Study 1, the Concealing factor contained 8 items and explained 22.18% of the variance.

    “The first factor (Concealing), consisting of 8 items, accounted for 22.18% of the variance.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Affective style can be adequately assessed through self-report items.
    • Rests on an assumption: The 127 author-generated items adequately cover the three affective styles.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In Study 2, internal consistency was acceptable for the Concealing (α = .84), Adjusting (α = .82), and Tolerating (α = .68) subscales.

    “Internal consistency was acceptable for Concealing, α = .84, Adjusting, α = .82, and Tolerating, α = 68, subscales.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Affective style can be adequately assessed through self-report items.
    • Rests on an assumption: Excluding cases with missing data does not bias the psychometric results.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    In Study 2, the pattern of correlations with other instruments supports the uniqueness of each ASQ subscale and their convergent and discriminant validity.

    “Based on the pattern of correlations with other instruments measuring emotion regulation, coping and personality, the results support the uniqueness of each ASQ subscale and their convergent and discriminant validity.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Affective style can be adequately assessed through self-report items.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Laboratory studies suggest that antecedent-focused strategies such as reappraisal are relatively effective for short-term emotion regulation, whereas suppression-based response-focused strategies are often unintentionally counterproductive.

    “Laboratory studies suggest that antecedent-focused strategies such as reappraisal are relatively effective for regulating emotions in the short-term, whereas suppression based response-focused strategies are often unintentionally counterproductive (e.g., Gross, 1998; Gross & Levenson, 1997).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Gross, 1998

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Gross & Levenson, 1997 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Rumination over negative emotional events prolongs angry and depressed affective states.

    “rumination over negative emotional events prolongs angry and depressed affective states (Nolen-Hoeksema & Morrow, 1993; Rusting & Nolen-Hoeksema, 1998)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Nolen-Hoeksema & Morrow, 1993 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Rusting & Nolen-Hoeksema, 1998 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The ASQ subscales map onto existing emotion regulation measures and include additional facets of affective style.

    “The subscales map onto existing measures of emotion regulation and also include additional facets of affective style.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Affective style can be adequately assessed through self-report items.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    The authors did not evaluate whether ASQ subscales differentially predict responses to aversive and rewarding events in laboratory and naturalistic settings.

    “we did not evaluate whether the ASQ subscales differentially predict how people respond to aversive and rewarding events in the laboratory and naturalistic environment.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    People more reliant on reappraisal as a regulatory strategy experience better social functioning and greater well-being.

    “people who are more reliant on reappraisal as a regulatory strategy experience better social functioning and greater well-being, as assessed by self-reports, peer reports, and reactivity to laboratory stimuli.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Gross & John, 2003 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    People differ in their habitual use of antecedent- and response-focused emotion regulation strategies, and these individual differences are meaningfully associated with emotional experiences and psychosocial functioning.

    “It has further been shown that people differ in their habitual use of antecedent- and response-focused emotion regulation strategies, and that these individual differences are meaningfully associated with emotional experiences and psychosocial functioning (Gross & John, 2003).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Gross & John, 2003 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Premisenone given

    The emotion research literature consistently identifies three general strategies for handling emotional reactions: adjusting affect, concealing or suppressing affect, and tolerating or accepting emotions.

    “The emotion research literature has consistently identified three general strategies to handle emotional reactions: some strategies are aimed at re-adjusting affect to adapt successfully to situational demands; other strategies intend to conceal or suppress affect; and a third approach is to tolerate and accept emotions including unwanted and aversive reactions.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    People more reliant on suppression as a regulatory strategy experience worse social functioning and well-being.

    “In contrast, people who are more reliant on suppression as a regulatory strategy experience worse social functioning and well-being (Gross & John, 2003).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Gross & John, 2003 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Attempts to suppress emotions increase physiological arousal.

    “attempts to suppress emotions increase physiological arousal (Gross, 1998; Gross & Levenson, 1997)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Gross, 1998

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Gross & Levenson, 1997 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    An accepting stance toward arousing emotional experiences without unnecessary attempts to change or avoid them is linked to increased persistence in challenging situations and reduced subjective distress.

    “an accepting stance toward arousing emotional experiences without unnecessary attempts to change or avoid them has been linked to increased persistence in challenging situations and reductions in subjective distress (Hayes, Luoma, Bond, Masuda, & Lillis, 2006).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Hayes, Luoma, Bond, Masuda, & Lillis, 2006 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisereasoning

    Existing instruments are limited by the relatively restricted scope of possible affect regulation strategies and the constraints of a particular theoretical orientation.

    “Although useful, the existing instruments are limited by the relatively restricted scope of possible affect regulation strategies and the constraints of a particular theoretical orientation.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
22 of 22

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Affective style can be adequately assessed through self-report items.

    “We conducted two studies to develop a self-report measure to assess these affective styles.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The 127 author-generated items adequately cover the three affective styles.

    “The two authors generated 127 items assessing different ways of dealing with emotions.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Excluding cases with missing data does not bias the psychometric results.

    “Due to missing data, the following analyses are based on 434 participants.”
3 of 3

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Internal consistency of the ASQ tolerating scale was questionable in both samples (α=.66 and .68).

    “Internal consistency was questionable in both samples (α=.66 and .68).”

    From Psychometric properties of acceptance measures: A systematic review (2019) · cites this paper as Hofmann and Kashdan (2010)

    The Results > Psychometric Data passages report the stated Tolerating-scale alpha values: .66 in Study 1 and .68 in Study 2. But both passages explicitly describe internal consistency as “acceptable,” contrary to the citing sentence’s “questionable” assessment. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The ASQ authors conducted PCA in two independent studies, both of which used demographically similar student samples.

    “The authors conducted PCA in two independent studies, both of which used demographically similar student samples.”

    From Psychometric properties of acceptance measures: A systematic review (2019) · cites this paper as Hofmann and Kashdan (2010)

    The Results (Factor Structure) report principal component analyses in both studies, and the Study 1 and Study 2 Subject Sample sections describe undergraduate samples from different universities. Both samples were predominantly female and Caucasian, but the Study 2 Subject Sample section reports significant differences in age, gender composition, and racial and ethnic diversity. Thus, describing the samples as demographically similar overlooks important differences. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Construct validity of the ASQ tolerating subscale was demonstrated across both samples by significant moderate negative correlations with suppression on the ERQ (r=-.34 and -.32), and small-to-moderate correlations with the DERS non-acceptance subscale (r=-.31 and -.15).

    “Construct validity was demonstrated across both samples by significant moderate negative correlations with suppression on the ERQ ( r= -.34 and -.32), and small-to-moderate correlations with the non-acceptance subscale of the DERS ( r= -.31 and -.15).”

    From Psychometric properties of acceptance measures: A systematic review (2019) · cites this paper as Hofmann and Kashdan (2010)

    The Results > Construct Validity passages report ASQ-Tolerating correlations with ERQ suppression of r = −.34 in Study 1 and r = −.32 in Study 2, and describe a moderate correlation with DERS nonacceptance in Study 1. Our copy does not give the claimed DERS coefficients of −.31 and −.15 or specifically report the Study 2 nonacceptance correlation, so those details cannot be verified. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The ASQ tolerating subscale demonstrated significant positive correlations with the AAQ-II (10-item version; r=.22 and .18).

    “However, the tolerating subscale demonstrated significant positive correlations with the AAQ-II (10-item version; r=. 22 and .18)”

    From Psychometric properties of acceptance measures: A systematic review (2019) · cites this paper as Hofmann and Kashdan (2010)

    The Study 1 Self-Report Measures section identifies the AAQ-II used in the paper as a 10-item measure. The Results > Construct Validity passages discuss ASQ subscale correlations, but do not give AAQ-II correlations of r = .22 and .18 for Tolerating or establish their significance; the AAQ-II correlations they explicitly report are for Adjusting. (LLM, conf=0.77)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The ASQ PCA identified three components, the third of which was labelled 'tolerating'.

    “The PCA identified three components, the third of which was labelled 'tolerating'.”

    From Psychometric properties of acceptance measures: A systematic review (2019) · cites this paper as Hofmann and Kashdan (2010)

Statistics recomputed

Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.

  • Consistentt(797.57) = -11.23reported p < .0001 · recomputed p < .001

    “t (797.57) = −11.23, p < .0001”

  • Consistentχ²(1) = 15.2reported p < .0001 · recomputed p < .001

    “χ2 (1) = 15.20, p < .0001”

  • Consistentχ²(1) = 18.01reported p < .0001 · recomputed p < .001

    “χ2 (1) = 18.01, p < .0001”

3 of 3

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Self-check results appear here once an independent check has confirmed them.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 34 · Cited by 203

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Ekman, P. (2003). Emotions revealed. New York: Times Books.
  2. Frijda, N. H. (1986). The emotions. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Authors
Hofmann, S. G., & Kashdan, T. B.
Affiliations
  • Boston University (US)
  • George Mason University (US)
Corresponding author
Hofmann, Stefan G.
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2009-06-16
Volume
32
Issue
2
Pages
255-263
ISSN
  • 0164-0305 (ISSN-L)
  • 0882-2689
  • 1573-3505
DOI
10.1007/s10862-009-9142-4
PMC
PMC2873215
OpenAlex
W2130955647
Cited by
203
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 6
FWCI
5.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
Locations
  • Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Mental Health (R21MH073937, R01MH078308, R01MH081116)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Emotions and Moral Behavior
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Child and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Keywords
affective style, emotion regulation, self-report measures, emotional suppression, emotional concealment, individual differences, psychometric properties, factor structure, cross-validation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Claims read under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-09-28.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-09-28.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review