Search

When examining emotions and emotion regulation, we discriminate between emotion experience and emotion expressivity. Research shows that the two are modestly related. The Berkeley Expressivity Questionnaire (BEQ) was designed to assess positive and negative expressivity, as well as the intensity of the expressive behavior. The current article reports on 2 studies that examined the reliability and validity of the Dutch translation of the BEQ. In Study 1, we performed a confirmatory factor analysis of the BEQ items in two samples that differed in age (young adults and adults), correlated the facet and total scores with measures of behavioral control, affective response tendencies, and emotion regulation strategies, and examined sex differences. Results confirmed the three-factor structure and further showed that factors were correlated, and two items loaded on all factors. Internal consistency was good, and test–retest reliability was excellent. As expected, emotion expression was larger in women. Convergent and divergent validity were confirmed. Behavioral control measures were inversely related to emotion expression. Although neuroticism and depression were associated with negative expressivity, extraversion, openness, and agreeableness were associated with positive expressivity. Emotion regulation strategies generally showed association patterns in the expected directions. In Study 2, we report on the predictive value of the BEQ facet scores for the emotional response to acute social evaluative stress. Results showed that only expression intensity was significantly associated with a larger emotional stress response. In conclusion, the Dutch version of Berkeley Expressivity Questionnaire is a reliable and valid instrument to be used in the Dutch setting

Objective: Behavioral inhibition plays a key role in animal stress research and developmental research in children. Therefore, we examined the robustness of our multifaceted model of adult social inhibition that comprises behavioral inhibition, interpersonal sensitivity, and social withdrawal components. Method: A total of 899 adults completed the 15-item Social Inhibition Questionnaire (SIQ15) and measures of emotional distress. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), reliability estimates, and correlational and second-order factor analyses were used to examine the robustness of our model. Results: CFA (RMSEA=.052; NFI=0.938; CFI=0.957) and Cronbach’s α estimates ≥.87 confirmed the robustness of our multi-facet social inhibition model based on three correlated inhibition, sensitivity, and withdrawal factors in 560 adults from the general population and in 194 undergraduate students. Inhibition, sensitivity, and withdrawal were stable over time (3-month test-retest correlations ≥.78), and were closely related to the Gest Behavioral Inhibition and PID-5 Withdrawal measures in a clinical sample of 145 cardiac patients. Of note, male cardiac patients reported more inhibition and withdrawal than female patients. Across samples, social inhibition was distinctly different from negative affectivity. Conclusions: Our 3-facet model of inhibition, sensitivity and withdrawal was robust across samples, and may promote research on adult social inhibition in population-based and clinical studies.