528 v. AFFECTI vE PROCESSES
more confident in their ability to proactively 
regulate their emotions (Rovenpor & Isbell, 
2018). There are also individual differences 
in implicit theories about emotion, which 
can predict regulation efforts. Although 
some people see emotions as fixed and un -
controllable (i.e., entity beliefs), those who 
see emotions as more under their own con -
trol and open to change (i.e., incremental be -
liefs) have a greater sense of self-  efficacy or 
perceived ability to manage their emotions 
(Tamir, John, Srivastava, & Gross, 2007). 
Thus, people may also be more likely to en -
gage in emotion regulation if they think they 
can change their emotions.
Selection  Stage
After identifying the need for emotion regu -
lation, individuals must select a method or 
strategy for regulating their emotion that 
is contextually appropriate. Before they 
can activate the goal of deploying a specific 
strategy, they must first represent the strate -
gies available to them and evaluate the util -
ity of each strategy. We focus on three types 
of factors that can influence strategy selec -
tion: the regulator’s strategy repertoire, his 
or her strategy self-  efficacy, and his or her 
appraisal of the regulation context.
First, a regulator’s emotion regulation 
habits can impact strategy selection to the 
extent that it reflects his or her perceived 
repertoire of strategies. A large body of re -
search has demonstrated that individuals 
differ in the extent to which they habitually 
rely on certain emotion regulation strate -
gies (John & Eng, 2014). For instance, the 
Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (ERQ; 
Gross & John, 2003) assesses the frequency 
with which individuals use cognitive reap -
praisal or expressive suppression, and the 
Ruminative Response Scale (RRS; Nolen- 
Hoeksema & Morrow, 1991) assesses the 
frequency with which individuals use rumi -
nation. Certain personality traits have also 
been shown to predict the extent to which 
individuals use some of these strategies. 
For example, greater optimism (Scheier & 
Carver, 1992), the coping style of positive 
reinterpretation and growth (Carver, Schei -
er, & Weintraub, 1989), lower neuroticism 
(Gross & John, 2003), and higher levels 
of extraversion and openness (Gresham & Gullone, 2012) are associated with higher 
levels of trait reappraisal. The likelihood of 
using reappraisal or other forms of cognitive 
change may also be linked to a regulator’s 
attributional style, in which those who see 
negative emotion events as coming from in -
ternal, stable, and global causes may be less 
likely to use cognitive change. Meanwhile, 
higher levels of trait suppression have been 
linked to the coping style of venting (Carver 
et al., 1989), lower extraversion (Gross & 
John, 2003), higher neuroticism (Gresham 
& Gullone, 2012), being more avoidant, and 
having lower self-  esteem (Gross & John, 
2003). Little is known about how personal -
ity traits predict other families of strategies, 
however. Extraverts, especially those high 
on the dominance or assertiveness facet of 
extraversion, may be more likely to regulate 
their emotions by changing features of the 
situation (i.e., situation modification), while 
those who are more conscientious may be 
more likely to use attentional deployment 
strategies (e.g., distraction) that draw on 
their executive control.
Second, strategy selection may in part be 
dictated by how well the individual thinks 
he or she can deploy different emotion reg -
ulation strategies (Goldin, Manber-  Ball, 
Werner, Heimberg, & Gross, 2009; Goldin 
et al., 2012). Given that self-  efficacy drives 
motivation and behavior (Bandura & Cer -
vone, 1986), individuals with greater self- 
efficacy for using a specific strategy may be 
more likely to use it. Some indirect evidence 
for this idea comes from work on beliefs 
about the malleability of emotions, in which 
individuals who believe emotions can be 
changed are more prone to use of strategies 
that target changing emotional experience, 
such as reappraisal (Tamir et al., 2007). On 
a related point, a strategy is more likely to 
be selected if the regulator has the resources 
needed to effectively deploy it, such as cogni -
tive control (Urry & Gross, 2010) and physi -
ological allocation, or how energy is distrib -
uted throughout the body to facilitate mental 
processes (e.g., self-  control; Beedie & Lane, 
2012). For instance, individuals with greater 
cognitive control abilities tend to habitually 
use reappraisal more, and perhaps unsur -
prisingly, have greater reappraisal ability as 
well (McRae, Jacobs, Ray, John, & Gross, 
2012). Similarly, cognitive resources have 