In the present article, we present a review of the current status of the art with regard to the construct of regulatory emotional self-efficacy beliefs. We start with the definition of the psychological construct of regulatory emotional self-efficacy beliefs, presenting its theoretical status within the broader theory of self-efficacy, in the social-cognitive theory. Then, we offer a broad perspective on the evaluation of the construct, by introducing the Regulatory Emotional Self-Efficacy (RESE) scale. This instrument assesses two broad factors, self-efficacy in managing negative emotions (NEG) and self-efficacy beliefs in expressing positive emotions (POS). We review studies attesting to the reliability of the instrument and reporting gender differences in NEG and POS self-efficacy beliefs. Developmental trajectories of POS and NEG self-efficacy beliefs are also presented, and their pervasiveness is demonstrated with reference to results of several empirical studies. We also discuss differences between regulatory emotional self-efficacy beliefs and constructs classically associated to self-regulation. A critical evaluation of the field of research on regulatory emotional self-efficacy beliefs and suggestions on how to move the field forward is offered.

Assessment of regulatory emotional self-efficacy beliefs: a review of the status of the art and some suggestions to move the field forward / Alessandri, Guido; Vecchione, Michele; Caprara, Gian Vittorio. - In: JOURNAL OF PSYCHOEDUCATIONAL ASSESSMENT. - ISSN 0734-2829. - STAMPA. - 33:1(2015), pp. 24-32. [10.1177/0734282914550382]

Assessment of regulatory emotional self-efficacy beliefs: a review of the status of the art and some suggestions to move the field forward

ALESSANDRI, GUIDO
;
VECCHIONE, MICHELE;CAPRARA, Gian Vittorio
2015

Abstract

In the present article, we present a review of the current status of the art with regard to the construct of regulatory emotional self-efficacy beliefs. We start with the definition of the psychological construct of regulatory emotional self-efficacy beliefs, presenting its theoretical status within the broader theory of self-efficacy, in the social-cognitive theory. Then, we offer a broad perspective on the evaluation of the construct, by introducing the Regulatory Emotional Self-Efficacy (RESE) scale. This instrument assesses two broad factors, self-efficacy in managing negative emotions (NEG) and self-efficacy beliefs in expressing positive emotions (POS). We review studies attesting to the reliability of the instrument and reporting gender differences in NEG and POS self-efficacy beliefs. Developmental trajectories of POS and NEG self-efficacy beliefs are also presented, and their pervasiveness is demonstrated with reference to results of several empirical studies. We also discuss differences between regulatory emotional self-efficacy beliefs and constructs classically associated to self-regulation. A critical evaluation of the field of research on regulatory emotional self-efficacy beliefs and suggestions on how to move the field forward is offered.
2015
self-regulation; self-efficacy; regulatory emotional self-efficacy beliefs; positive emotions; negative emotions
01 Pubblicazione su rivista::01a Articolo in rivista
Assessment of regulatory emotional self-efficacy beliefs: a review of the status of the art and some suggestions to move the field forward / Alessandri, Guido; Vecchione, Michele; Caprara, Gian Vittorio. - In: JOURNAL OF PSYCHOEDUCATIONAL ASSESSMENT. - ISSN 0734-2829. - STAMPA. - 33:1(2015), pp. 24-32. [10.1177/0734282914550382]
File allegati a questo prodotto
File Dimensione Formato  
Alessandri_Regulatory_2015.pdf

solo gestori archivio

Tipologia: Versione editoriale (versione pubblicata con il layout dell'editore)
Licenza: Tutti i diritti riservati (All rights reserved)
Dimensione 73.4 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
73.4 kB Adobe PDF   Contatta l'autore

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11573/784360
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 47
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 48
social impact