The Cognitive Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (CERQ) provides a precise, validated snapshot of the conscious mental strategies individuals deploy when…
Questions
36
Duration
10 min
Original title
CERQ — Cognitive Emotion Regulation Questionnaire
Adaptation
Cognitive Emotion Regulation Questionnaire
Authors
Garnefski, N., Kraaij, V., & Spinhoven, P.
Created
2001
The Cognitive Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (CERQ) provides a precise, validated snapshot of the conscious mental strategies individuals deploy when confronted with adverse life events. Unlike broader coping measures that mix behavioral and cognitive responses, this instrument isolates purely cognitive regulation—the internal self-talk and reflective patterns that directly shape emotional outcomes.
By evaluating a comprehensive profile of nine distinct strategies—ranging from highly adaptive processes like positive reappraisal to maladaptive loops such as catastrophizing and self-blame—the CERQ offers clinicians actionable data. It clarifies how a patient internally processes distress, making it easier to target specific interventions during therapy and track changes as treatment progresses.
Designed for adults and adolescents, this measure is particularly valuable for clinicians seeking to move beyond diagnostic labels. Distinguishing between constructive versus harmful rumination or recognizing an over-reliance on blaming others helps form a robust cognitive case formulation, allowing practitioners to tailor therapeutic strategies to the patient's unique regulatory style.
Example result
Fictitious result, computed from a sample set of answers.
A 36-item self-report questionnaire assessing nine conscious cognitive strategies that individuals use to regulate their emotions after experiencing a negative or stressful event. Five strategies are considered adaptive (acceptance, positive refocusing, refocus on planning, positive reappraisal, putting into perspective) and four as less adaptive (self-blame, rumination, catastrophizing, other-blame). Used in research and clinical practice, it identifies the patient's cognitive emotion regulation style and guides therapeutic targets.
Cognitive emotion regulation strategies
Theoretically more adaptive strategies
Acceptance (Acceptance)
420
12
Tendency to accept the event and become resigned to it.
Positive refocusing (Positive Refocusing)
420
10
Tendency to redirect thoughts toward pleasant topics rather than the event.
Refocus on planning (Refocus on Planning)
420
14
Tendency to think about concrete steps to cope with the event.
Positive Reappraisal (Positive Reappraisal)
420
13
Tendency to assign a positive meaning to the event in terms of personal growth.
Putting into Perspective (Putting into Perspective)
420
12
Tendency to put the seriousness of the event into perspective by comparing it to others.
Theoretically less adaptive strategies
Self-blame (Self-blame)
420
13
Tendency to attribute responsibility to oneself for what occurred.
Rumination (Focus on thought / Rumination)
420
11
Tendency to ruminate on thoughts and emotions related to the negative event.
Catastrophizing (Catastrophizing)
420
11
Tendency to emphasize the severity and catastrophic nature of the event.
Other-blame (Other-blame)
420
10
Tendency to attribute responsibility for what occurred to others.
Garnefski et al. (2001) dichotomy. The authors themselves qualify it (2007): "what is called appropriate in one specific circumstance is not appropriate in all circumstances" — interpret strategies in context, never as "good/bad". No official total score.
Tendency to attribute responsibility to oneself for what occurred.
items1, 10, 19, 28
généralemixed · general population · Dutch general population · 18–65 years · Netherlands · n = 611 · 2007 · Garnefski et al. (2007)
420
13
M = 8.22 ± 2.96
généralemixed · community sample · French-speaking community volunteers (Geneva) — means markedly higher than Dutch means on adaptive strategies · 18–37 years · Switzerland · n = 224 · 2006 · Jermann et al. (2006)
420
13
M = 10.44 ± 3.21
généralemixed · students · Spanish students (Domínguez-Sánchez et al. 2013, reference column of Table 5) · Spain · n = 615 · 2013 · Domínguez-Sánchez et al. (2013)
420
13
M = 10.59 ± 2.65
cliniquemixed · condition: anxiety-depression · patients with anxiety/depression (Garnefski & Kraaij 2007, reference column of Table 5) · Netherlands · n = 99 · 2007 · Garnefski et al. (2007)
420
13
M = 10.97 ± 4.21
cliniquefemale · condition: fibromyalgia · fibromyalgia — total sample (Barcelona, 97.5% female, mean age 57.3 years) · Spain · n = 160 · 2017 · Feliu-Soler et al. (2017)
420
13
M = 9.86 ± 4.34
cliniquefemale · condition: fibromyalgia · fibromyalgia WITH clinically relevant depressive symptoms (CES-D ≥ 20) · Spain · n = 136 · 2017 · Feliu-Soler et al. (2017)
420
13
M = 10.34 ± 4.42
Rumination (Focus on thought / Rumination)
11/ 20
Tendency to ruminate on thoughts and emotions related to the negative event.
items3, 12, 21, 30
généralemixed · general population · Dutch general population · 18–65 years · Netherlands · n = 611 · 2007 · Garnefski et al. (2007)
420
11
M = 10.46 ± 3.72
généralemixed · community sample · French-speaking community volunteers (Geneva) — means markedly higher than Dutch means on adaptive strategies · 18–37 years · Switzerland · n = 224 · 2006 · Jermann et al. (2006)
420
11
M = 11.84 ± 3.65
généralemixed · students · Spanish students (Domínguez-Sánchez et al. 2013, reference column of Table 5) · Spain · n = 615 · 2013 · Domínguez-Sánchez et al. (2013)
420
11
M = 13.34 ± 3.49
cliniquemixed · condition: anxiety-depression · patients with anxiety/depression (Garnefski & Kraaij 2007, reference column of Table 5) · Netherlands · n = 99 · 2007 · Garnefski et al. (2007)
420
11
M = 12.64 ± 4.04
cliniquefemale · condition: fibromyalgia · fibromyalgia — total sample (Barcelona, 97.5% female, mean age 57.3 years) · Spain · n = 160 · 2017 · Feliu-Soler et al. (2017)
420
11
M = 13.16 ± 4.48
cliniquefemale · condition: fibromyalgia · fibromyalgia WITH clinically relevant depressive symptoms (CES-D ≥ 20) · Spain · n = 136 · 2017 · Feliu-Soler et al. (2017)
420
11
M = 13.82 ± 4.32
Acceptance (Acceptance)
12/ 20
Tendency to accept the event and become resigned to it.
items2, 11, 20, 29
généralemixed · general population · Dutch general population · 18–65 years · Netherlands · n = 611 · 2007 · Garnefski et al. (2007)
420
12
M = 11.01 ± 3.53
généralemixed · community sample · French-speaking community volunteers (Geneva) — means markedly higher than Dutch means on adaptive strategies · 18–37 years · Switzerland · n = 224 · 2006 · Jermann et al. (2006)
420
12
M = 12.62 ± 3.43
généralemixed · students · Spanish students (Domínguez-Sánchez et al. 2013, reference column of Table 5) · Spain · n = 615 · 2013 · Domínguez-Sánchez et al. (2013)
420
12
M = 13.24 ± 3.14
cliniquemixed · condition: anxiety-depression · patients with anxiety/depression (Garnefski & Kraaij 2007, reference column of Table 5) · Netherlands · n = 99 · 2007 · Garnefski et al. (2007)
420
12
M = 11.68 ± 3.74
cliniquefemale · condition: fibromyalgia · fibromyalgia — total sample (Barcelona, 97.5% female, mean age 57.3 years) · Spain · n = 160 · 2017 · Feliu-Soler et al. (2017)
420
12
M = 14.06 ± 4.22
cliniquefemale · condition: fibromyalgia · fibromyalgia WITH clinically relevant depressive symptoms (CES-D ≥ 20) · Spain · n = 136 · 2017 · Feliu-Soler et al. (2017)
420
12
M = 14.28 ± 4.25
Other-blame (Other-blame)
10/ 20
Tendency to attribute responsibility for what occurred to others.
items9, 18, 27, 36
généralemixed · general population · Dutch general population · 18–65 years · Netherlands · n = 611 · 2007 · Garnefski et al. (2007)
420
10
M = 6.38 ± 2.69
généralemixed · community sample · French-speaking community volunteers (Geneva) — means markedly higher than Dutch means on adaptive strategies · 18–37 years · Switzerland · n = 224 · 2006 · Jermann et al. (2006)
420
10
M = 7.83 ± 2.73
généralemixed · students · Spanish students (Domínguez-Sánchez et al. 2013, reference column of Table 5) · Spain · n = 615 · 2013 · Domínguez-Sánchez et al. (2013)
420
10
M = 7.8 ± 2.53
cliniquemixed · condition: anxiety-depression · patients with anxiety/depression (Garnefski & Kraaij 2007, reference column of Table 5) · Netherlands · n = 99 · 2007 · Garnefski et al. (2007)
420
10
M = 7.76 ± 3.55
cliniquefemale · condition: fibromyalgia · fibromyalgia — total sample (Barcelona, 97.5% female, mean age 57.3 years) · Spain · n = 160 · 2017 · Feliu-Soler et al. (2017)
420
10
M = 8.16 ± 4.76
cliniquefemale · condition: fibromyalgia · fibromyalgia WITH clinically relevant depressive symptoms (CES-D ≥ 20) · Spain · n = 136 · 2017 · Feliu-Soler et al. (2017)
420
10
M = 8.62 ± 4.96
Catastrophizing (Catastrophizing)
11/ 20
Tendency to emphasize the severity and catastrophic nature of the event.
items8, 17, 26, 35
généralemixed · general population · Dutch general population · 18–65 years · Netherlands · n = 611 · 2007 · Garnefski et al. (2007)
420
11
M = 6.05 ± 2.43
généralemixed · community sample · French-speaking community volunteers (Geneva) — means markedly higher than Dutch means on adaptive strategies · 18–37 years · Switzerland · n = 224 · 2006 · Jermann et al. (2006)
420
11
M = 6.81 ± 2.8
généralemixed · students · Spanish students (Domínguez-Sánchez et al. 2013, reference column of Table 5) · Spain · n = 615 · 2013 · Domínguez-Sánchez et al. (2013)
420
11
M = 7.96 ± 2.98
cliniquemixed · condition: anxiety-depression · patients with anxiety/depression (Garnefski & Kraaij 2007, reference column of Table 5) · Netherlands · n = 99 · 2007 · Garnefski et al. (2007)
420
11
M = 9.11 ± 4.19
cliniquefemale · condition: fibromyalgia · fibromyalgia — total sample (Barcelona, 97.5% female, mean age 57.3 years) · Spain · n = 160 · 2017 · Feliu-Soler et al. (2017)
420
11
M = 9.35 ± 4.26
cliniquefemale · condition: fibromyalgia · fibromyalgia WITH clinically relevant depressive symptoms (CES-D ≥ 20) · Spain · n = 136 · 2017 · Feliu-Soler et al. (2017)
420
11
M = 9.9 ± 4.29
Putting into Perspective (Putting into Perspective)
12/ 20
Tendency to put the seriousness of the event into perspective by comparing it to others.
items7, 16, 25, 34
généralemixed · general population · Dutch general population · 18–65 years · Netherlands · n = 611 · 2007 · Garnefski et al. (2007)
420
12
M = 11.64 ± 3.91
généralemixed · community sample · French-speaking community volunteers (Geneva) — means markedly higher than Dutch means on adaptive strategies · 18–37 years · Switzerland · n = 224 · 2006 · Jermann et al. (2006)
420
12
M = 13.04 ± 4.06
généralemixed · students · Spanish students (Domínguez-Sánchez et al. 2013, reference column of Table 5) · Spain · n = 615 · 2013 · Domínguez-Sánchez et al. (2013)
420
12
M = 13.72 ± 3.89
cliniquemixed · condition: anxiety-depression · patients with anxiety/depression (Garnefski & Kraaij 2007, reference column of Table 5) · Netherlands · n = 99 · 2007 · Garnefski et al. (2007)
420
12
M = 10.54 ± 3.86
cliniquefemale · condition: fibromyalgia · fibromyalgia — total sample (Barcelona, 97.5% female, mean age 57.3 years) · Spain · n = 160 · 2017 · Feliu-Soler et al. (2017)
420
12
M = 13.63 ± 4.02
cliniquefemale · condition: fibromyalgia · fibromyalgia WITH clinically relevant depressive symptoms (CES-D ≥ 20) · Spain · n = 136 · 2017 · Feliu-Soler et al. (2017)
420
12
M = 13.57 ± 3.95
Refocus on planning (Refocus on Planning)
14/ 20
Tendency to think about concrete steps to cope with the event.
items5, 14, 23, 32
généralemixed · general population · Dutch general population · 18–65 years · Netherlands · n = 611 · 2007 · Garnefski et al. (2007)
420
14
M = 13.03 ± 3.89
généralemixed · community sample · French-speaking community volunteers (Geneva) — means markedly higher than Dutch means on adaptive strategies · 18–37 years · Switzerland · n = 224 · 2006 · Jermann et al. (2006)
420
14
M = 15.24 ± 3.37
généralemixed · students · Spanish students (Domínguez-Sánchez et al. 2013, reference column of Table 5) · Spain · n = 615 · 2013 · Domínguez-Sánchez et al. (2013)
420
14
M = 15.58 ± 3.25
cliniquemixed · condition: anxiety-depression · patients with anxiety/depression (Garnefski & Kraaij 2007, reference column of Table 5) · Netherlands · n = 99 · 2007 · Garnefski et al. (2007)
420
14
M = 12.62 ± 3.86
cliniquefemale · condition: fibromyalgia · fibromyalgia — total sample (Barcelona, 97.5% female, mean age 57.3 years) · Spain · n = 160 · 2017 · Feliu-Soler et al. (2017)
420
14
M = 12.96 ± 4.32
cliniquefemale · condition: fibromyalgia · fibromyalgia WITH clinically relevant depressive symptoms (CES-D ≥ 20) · Spain · n = 136 · 2017 · Feliu-Soler et al. (2017)
420
14
M = 12.9 ± 4.39
Positive refocusing (Positive Refocusing)
10/ 20
Tendency to redirect thoughts toward pleasant topics rather than the event.
items4, 13, 22, 31
généralemixed · general population · Dutch general population · 18–65 years · Netherlands · n = 611 · 2007 · Garnefski et al. (2007)
420
10
M = 10.01 ± 3.53
généralemixed · community sample · French-speaking community volunteers (Geneva) — means markedly higher than Dutch means on adaptive strategies · 18–37 years · Switzerland · n = 224 · 2006 · Jermann et al. (2006)
420
10
M = 10.21 ± 3.74
généralemixed · students · Spanish students (Domínguez-Sánchez et al. 2013, reference column of Table 5) · Spain · n = 615 · 2013 · Domínguez-Sánchez et al. (2013)
420
10
M = 10.87 ± 4
cliniquemixed · condition: anxiety-depression · patients with anxiety/depression (Garnefski & Kraaij 2007, reference column of Table 5) · Netherlands · n = 99 · 2007 · Garnefski et al. (2007)
420
10
M = 9.21 ± 3.65
cliniquefemale · condition: fibromyalgia · fibromyalgia — total sample (Barcelona, 97.5% female, mean age 57.3 years) · Spain · n = 160 · 2017 · Feliu-Soler et al. (2017)
420
10
M = 9.36 ± 5.08
cliniquefemale · condition: fibromyalgia · fibromyalgia WITH clinically relevant depressive symptoms (CES-D ≥ 20) · Spain · n = 136 · 2017 · Feliu-Soler et al. (2017)
420
10
M = 8.69 ± 4.86
Positive Reappraisal (Positive Reappraisal)
13/ 20
Tendency to assign a positive meaning to the event in terms of personal growth.
items6, 15, 24, 33
généralemixed · general population · Dutch general population · 18–65 years · Netherlands · n = 611 · 2007 · Garnefski et al. (2007)
420
13
M = 12.46 ± 4.07
généralemixed · community sample · French-speaking community volunteers (Geneva) — means markedly higher than Dutch means on adaptive strategies · 18–37 years · Switzerland · n = 224 · 2006 · Jermann et al. (2006)
420
13
M = 14.44 ± 3.99
généralemixed · students · Spanish students (Domínguez-Sánchez et al. 2013, reference column of Table 5) · Spain · n = 615 · 2013 · Domínguez-Sánchez et al. (2013)
420
13
M = 15.21 ± 3.89
cliniquemixed · condition: anxiety-depression · patients with anxiety/depression (Garnefski & Kraaij 2007, reference column of Table 5) · Netherlands · n = 99 · 2007 · Garnefski et al. (2007)
420
13
M = 10.19 ± 4.09
cliniquefemale · condition: fibromyalgia · fibromyalgia — total sample (Barcelona, 97.5% female, mean age 57.3 years) · Spain · n = 160 · 2017 · Feliu-Soler et al. (2017)
420
13
M = 11.66 ± 4.49
cliniquefemale · condition: fibromyalgia · fibromyalgia WITH clinically relevant depressive symptoms (CES-D ≥ 20) · Spain · n = 136 · 2017 · Feliu-Soler et al. (2017)
420
13
M = 11.3 ± 4.4
Have your patient take this test
Assign it in one click: your patient answers on their phone, you receive the score and its interpretation.
The CERQ isolates and quantifies the conscious cognitive components of emotion regulation, examining what individuals think rather than what they do when facing adversity. It captures a detailed profile across nine dimensions:
Self-blame: The tendency to attribute the cause of a negative event entirely to one's own actions or character.
Other-blame: Shifting the responsibility and fault for a stressful situation onto external figures.
Rumination: Getting stuck in repetitive thinking about the feelings and thoughts associated with a negative event, highlighting the need for evaluating thought usefulness in session.
Catastrophizing: Explicitly emphasizing the terror, severity, or worst-case implications of the experience, often indicating a need for challenging catastrophic thinking.
Putting into perspective: Deliberately downgrading the perceived severity of the event by comparing it to worse situations or viewing it within a broader context.
Positive refocusing: Redirecting mental attention toward pleasant, unrelated thoughts rather than dwelling on the stressor.
Positive reappraisal: Attaching a constructive meaning to the event, often framing it in terms of personal growth or learning.
Acceptance: Resigning oneself to the reality of what has happened and acknowledging that it cannot be undone.
Refocus on planning: Thinking about concrete, actionable steps to handle the negative event effectively.
This instrument is validated for both adolescents and adults, making it widely applicable across general and clinical populations.
When and why to use it
Clinicians deploy the CERQ to map a patient's internal response to stress, providing a clear target for cognitive interventions. It is particularly helpful when habitual thinking patterns block emotional recovery.
Intake baseline: Establishing a comprehensive profile of regulatory habits helps therapists begin mapping coping strategies right from the start of treatment.
Monitoring change: Tracking specific subscales over time demonstrates whether an individual is successfully adopting more adaptive strategies, such as increasing positive reappraisal.
Targeting distress loops: High scores in maladaptive domains provide an immediate rationale for introducing perspective-taking skills or cognitive restructuring.
Differential support: Distinguishing whether a patient struggles more with internalizing (self-blame) or externalizing (other-blame) patterns refines the therapeutic approach.
A validated subscale profile adds critical precision over clinical impression alone, revealing exactly which cognitive mechanisms are most rigid and where to focus therapeutic effort.
Clinical library
750+ clinical tools
A library built with and for clinicians, ready to use in session and extend between appointments.
Everyone gets confronted with negative or unpleasant events now and then and everyone responds to them in his or her own way. By means of the following questions you are asked to indicate what you generally think, when you experience negative or unpleasant events.
1. I feel that I am the one to blame for what happened.
Probes the individual's immediate cognitive reflex to hold themselves responsible.
Almost never
Sometimes
Regularly
Often
Almost always
2. I think that I have to accept that this has happened.
Assesses the early stage of cognitive resignation and acknowledging reality.
Almost never
Sometimes
Regularly
Often
Almost always
3. I often think about how I feel about what I've experienced.
Evaluates the frequency of focusing on one's own emotional state following adversity.
Almost never
Sometimes
Regularly
Often
Almost always
4. I think about more pleasant things than what I've experienced.
Identifies the deliberate attempt to direct attention toward positive, unrelated thoughts.
Almost never
Sometimes
Regularly
Often
Almost always
5. I think about the best way to handle things.
Captures the initial shift toward considering constructive responses.
Almost never
Sometimes
Regularly
Often
Almost always
6. I think I can learn something from the situation.
Probes the capacity to extract educational value from a difficult experience.
Almost never
Sometimes
Regularly
Often
Almost always
7. I think that it could have been much worse.
Measures the tendency to minimize distress through downward comparison.
Almost never
Sometimes
Regularly
Often
Almost always
8. I often think that what I've experienced is much worse than what others have experienced.
Evaluates the specific catastrophic appraisal that one's own suffering is uniquely severe.
Almost never
Sometimes
Regularly
Often
Almost always
9. I feel that others are to blame for what happened.
Assesses the reflex to shift fault onto external figures.
Almost never
Sometimes
Regularly
Often
Almost always
10. I feel that I am responsible for what happened.
Probes the deeper internalization of responsibility for negative outcomes.
Almost never
Sometimes
Regularly
Often
Almost always
11. I think I have to accept the situation.
Captures the active cognitive embrace of the unavoidable situation.
Almost never
Sometimes
Regularly
Often
Almost always
12. I am preoccupied with my thoughts and feelings about what I've experienced.
Measures the intensity of cognitive preoccupation with the stressor.
Almost never
Sometimes
Regularly
Often
Almost always
13. I think about pleasant things that have nothing to do with what I've experienced.
Evaluates the reliance on distraction through completely distinct pleasant thoughts.
Almost never
Sometimes
Regularly
Often
Almost always
14. I think about the best way to deal with the situation.
Probes problem-focused cognitive planning and coping preparation.
Almost never
Sometimes
Regularly
Often
Almost always
15. I think I can become a stronger person as a result of what happened.
Assesses the tendency to frame adversity as an opportunity for personal strengthening.
Almost never
Sometimes
Regularly
Often
Almost always
16. I think that others go through much worse experiences.
Measures the strategy of relativizing one's hardship against others' suffering.
Almost never
Sometimes
Regularly
Often
Almost always
17. I keep thinking about how terrible what I've experienced is.
Captures the hallmark catastrophic loop of dwelling on the event's terrible nature.
Almost never
Sometimes
Regularly
Often
Almost always
18. I feel that others are responsible for what happened.
Evaluates the consistent attribution of fault to outside parties.
Almost never
Sometimes
Regularly
Often
Almost always
19. I think about the mistakes I've made in relation to what happened.
Probes the specific tendency to review personal errors and missteps.
Almost never
Sometimes
Regularly
Often
Almost always
20. I think I can't change what has happened.
Assesses the recognition of one's own lack of control over the past.
Almost never
Sometimes
Regularly
Often
Almost always
21. I want to understand why I feel this way about what I've experienced.
Measures the analytic dimension of rumination, seeking to dissect emotional reactions.
Almost never
Sometimes
Regularly
Often
Almost always
22. I think about something pleasant instead of what happened.
Identifies the active replacement of stressful thoughts with positive alternatives.
Almost never
Sometimes
Regularly
Often
Almost always
23. I think about how to change the situation.
Probes the cognitive generation of actionable solutions.
Almost never
Sometimes
Regularly
Often
Almost always
24. I think that the situation also has its positive sides.
Evaluates the ability to detect dual aspects, including positive facets, within a bad situation.
Almost never
Sometimes
Regularly
Often
Almost always
25. I think it didn't go too badly compared to other situations.
Captures the specific cognitive move to frame the event as relatively minor.
Almost never
Sometimes
Regularly
Often
Almost always
26. I often think that what I've experienced is the worst thing that can happen to someone.
Assesses the absolute worst-case appraisal of the personal experience.
Almost never
Sometimes
Regularly
Often
Almost always
27. I think about the mistakes others have made in relation to what happened.
Evaluates the tendency to review and highlight the mistakes made by others.
Almost never
Sometimes
Regularly
Often
Almost always
28. I think that deep down I am the cause of what happened.
Probes the foundational core belief that the self is the root cause of negative events.
Almost never
Sometimes
Regularly
Often
Almost always
29. I think I have to learn to live with what happened.
Captures the long-term cognitive strategy of adapting to an unchangeable reality.
Almost never
Sometimes
Regularly
Often
Almost always
30. I constantly think about the feelings the situation has brought up in me.
Measures the extent of getting emotionally anchored to the evocative power of the situation.
Almost never
Sometimes
Regularly
Often
Almost always
31. I think about pleasant experiences.
Evaluates the frequency of using past positive memories as a mental refuge.
Almost never
Sometimes
Regularly
Often
Almost always
32. I think of a plan for the best way to handle things.
Probes the formulation of a structured approach to managing the stressor.
Almost never
Sometimes
Regularly
Often
Almost always
33. I look for the positive aspects of the situation.
Assesses the active cognitive search for silver linings.
Almost never
Sometimes
Regularly
Often
Almost always
34. I tell myself that there are worse things in life.
Captures the use of broad philosophical downplaying to reduce subjective distress.
Almost never
Sometimes
Regularly
Often
Almost always
35. I continually think about how horrible the situation was.
Measures the chronic nature of horrible appraisals and their cognitive persistence.
Almost never
Sometimes
Regularly
Often
Almost always
36. I feel that deep down others are the cause of what happened.
Evaluates the fundamental cognitive stance that external entities are the primary originators of distress.