Sadness regulation strategies and measurement: A scoping review.

BACKGROUNDS: Accurate measurement and suitable strategies facilitate people regulate their sadness in an effective manner. Regulating or mitigating negative emotions, particularly sadness, is crucial mainly because constant negative emotions may lead to psychological disorders, such as depression and anxiety. This paper presents an overview of sadness regulation strategies and related measurement.
METHOD: Upon adhering to five-step scoping review, this study combed through articles that looked into sadness regulation retrieved from eight databases.
RESULTS: As a result of reviewing 40 selected articles, 110 strategies were identified to regulate emotions, particularly sadness. Some of the most commonly reported strategies include expressive suppression, cognitive reappraisal, distraction, seeking social or emotional support, and rumination. The four types of measures emerged from the review are self-reported, informant report (parents or peers), open-ended questions, and emotion regulation instructions. Notably, most studies had tested psychometric properties using Cronbach's alpha alone, while only a handful had assessed validity (construct and factorial validity) and reliability (Cronbach's alpha or test-retest) based on responses captured from questionnaire survey.
CONCLUSION: Several sadness regulation strategies appeared to vary based on gender, age, and use of strategy. Despite the general measurement of emotion regulation, only one measure was developed to measure sadness regulation exclusively for children. Future studies may develop a comprehensive battery of measures to assess sadness regulation using multi-component method.

Introduction

Sadness is a basic human emotion elicited in response to negative life events or experience of loss [1]. Sadness stems from negative emotions [2], withdrawal emotions [3] or even internalising emotions [4]. Sadness particularly occurs when a goal is not met or something of importance is lost [5]. The challenges faced by individuals coping with negative emotions throughout their lives, including sadness, are immense [6,7]. The capability to efficiently regulate or mitigate sadness and other negative emotions following a loss is, therefore, important because constant negative emotions can lead to psychological disorders, such as depression and anxiety [8,9]. Sadness has been perceived as a normative and evolutionary response to adapt to loss [10]. Those who often experience sadness in life tend to experience psychological and behavioural responses to sadness, which are associated with various implications connected to self-regulation [11].

Sadness emerging from failure may cause some people to quit their goals; primarily because sadness provokes withdrawal tendencies, apart from feeling helpless and powerless [12]. On the other hand, sadness can motivate individuals to seek help as they express their feelings to others [13]. Those affected require intervention to prevent succumbing to psychological disorders, such as depression, as a result of persistent sadness. High prevalence of sadness, which is conceivably adaptive later in adulthood, may stimulate social support and ease detachment from impractical goals [13]. Nonetheless, adults who are easily influenced by sadness elicitors, especially those with personalised perception of situations that evoke sadness, tend to become vulnerable to increased sadness reactions [13,14].

Theoretically, sadness regulation—part of emotion regulation–is explained in a model proposed by Gross [15], in which Gross [16] defined emotion regulation as “the processes by which individuals influence which emotions they have, when they have them, and how they experience and express these emotions” (p. 275). The model is composed of a collection of strategies used by people to modulate their emotions. This model presents two families of emotion regulation strategies, namely antecedent-focused and response-focused.

Antecedent-focused strategies are implemented before an emotion completely unfolds and reaches its full force. The antecedent-focused strategies include situation selection (e.g., avoiding a horror movie), situation modification (e.g., bringing a friend to a social event to decrease social anxiety), attentional deployment (e.g., thinking about the beach while being stuck in a boring meeting), and cognitive change (e.g., reappraising a party as non-threatening situation). On the other hand, response-focused strategies are implemented during the onset of full emotion. These strategies are deployed during response modulation, such as deep breathing during a panic attack and suppressing a fearful facial expression [15].

Gross and John [17] and Gross [15] emphasised on two strategies; suppression and cognitive reappraisal. Distinct variations were noted in spontaneous and consistent use of the varied emotion regulation strategies. For instance, one with depression tends to suppress expression of emotions, which is unfortunately ineffectual in mitigating sadness [18,19]. Hence, those who use expression suppression approach are more likely to suffer from negative emotions and greater physiological responses [20], while others who use reappraisal approach experience more positive emotions [17].

In the past decades, many strategies have been identified to regulate sadness and negative emotions, including adaptive and non-adaptive strategies. Referring to the Gross model, suppression denotes continuous efforts to inhibit one’s expression of emotions and this approach falls under the response modulation process. It is a type of non-adaptive method of emotion regulation for negative emotions, such as sadness [19], mainly because this approach can reduce positive emotions instead of negative ones [21]. Meanwhile, adaptive methods, including distraction, have been a common form of attentional deployment approach that can successfully regulate or reduce negative emotions [22,23]. Another example of adaptive strategies is reappraisal, which refers to a well-studied form of cognitive change and is the most common strategy applied to regulate negative emotions. Reappraisal targets the self-relevance of potential situations that evoke emotion and may be deployed to decrease or increase positive or even negative emotions [15].

The effectiveness of adaptive regulatory strategies may not be similar for all. For instance, adaptive strategies are ineffective in regulating sadness when one is dealing with depression [22,24]. Besides, effective sadness regulation is associated with empathy and altruism, while deficiency in regulation is linked with depression and anxiety [25]. Therefore, scholars have proposed a more exhaustive evaluation study of sadness management that first considers the related contextual factors and the features of sadness. Second, it assesses both physiological and behavioural predictors of efficient adaptive strategies in mitigating sadness and negative emotions [26,27]. Third, it enhances the understanding of the circumstances in which diverse sadness regulation strategies may be effective or otherwise [28-32].

Many studies have measured sadness regulation based on the aforementioned properties (context and effectiveness) by requesting participants to recall sad situations they have lived through and sadness regulation strategies they practice to reduce their sadness [e.g., 2,33,34]. Despite adding to the body of literature concerning regulation of sadness and other emotions, the study findings can neither be compared nor generalised as they mostly involved personal memories and emotions evoked by heterogeneous events. Blanchard-Fields [35] prescribed an alternative to counterbalance the standardisation of events to prompt the process of emotion regulation. She applied vignettes in her studies to portray conflicts among friends [36]. Unfortunately, the proposed approach exhibited several shortcomings.

The main limitation is that problems could arise from applying such measures to other cultural contexts, primarily because the study data were captured from qualitative studies. Second, despite the broad range of strategies for emotion regulation, the questionnaire only included several strategies and did not identify the measured emotion. This could lead to inconsistent responses [37]. Of the extant strategies, only a few extensively validated measures assessing the facets of management of a particular emotion, such as sadness, exist to date. Accurate measures and suitable strategies facilitate people regulate their sadness before it develops into depression.

Despite the burgeoning interest in emotion regulation, the field suffers from some challenges (theoretical, empirical, & sociological) [15]. Gross [38] addressed the need to expand the focus to other forms of emotion regulation than the two most studied; reappraisal (cognitive change) and expressive suppression (response modulation). Aldao, Nolen-Hoeksema [39] suggested that a more inclusive assessment of emotion regulation strategies is crucial to comprehend asymmetry. Webb, Miles [40] depicted that more studies are in need to investigate if some emotion regulation strategies are more effective towards specific emotions or if they could be generalised. Augustine and Hemenover [41] discussed the drawbacks of the existing measures of emotion regulation and proposed the inclusion of personality measures to understand the mechanisms involved in implementing certain strategies, along with their effectiveness. Hence, this scoping review explored the strategies used to regulate sadness, besides assessing the existing instruments used to measure sadness regulation and psychometric properties.

Method

A scoping review was performed based on a framework built by Arksey and O’Malley [42] to thoroughly examine the sadness regulation literature. The framework has five elements (see Fig 1), namely: identifying research question, identifying related studies, studies selection, charting data (collating, mapping, & summarising), and reporting results.

Fig 1

Scoping review process.

Source: Adapted from Arksey and O’Malley [42].

Identifying research question

The main research question addressed in this scoping review is ‘what is the status of sadness regulation based on the existing sadness regulation strategies and measurement?’.

Identifying related studies

Relevant articles were identified from the vast literature via repeated search process in eight databases, namely Ebscohost, ProQuest, PubMed, Sage, Science Direct, Scopus, Web of Science, and Wiley. These databases were combed through using several keywords (sadness regulation OR sadness management OR coping with sadness). Articles published since the past two decades were selected for this scoping review.

Studies selection

In total, 344 articles were extracted and exported to EndNote software based on exclusion criteria. These articles were screened thrice by two authors (SZ and ST) independently. In the first round, 146 duplicate articles were removed. In the second round, 147 articles were discarded after screening by title and abstract. In the third round of review, full-text of the refined list (51 articles) was screened to finalise eligible articles that complied with the specified inclusion criteria (see Fig 2). Finally, 40 eligible articles were finalised for this scoping review (see asterisks in the bibliography for the selected research articles).

Fig 2

Prisma flow diagram illustrates the process of selecting articles for review.

Data charting

Data extracted from the selected studies were summarised and charted into tables. The charted information included sadness regulation measures, studies that applied those measures, countries, samples, psychometric properties, reported sadness regulation strategies, and key findings (see ‘Results’ section).

Reporting results

This scoping review was conducted to present an overview of the reported strategies on sadness regulation and to highlight the measures deployed to assess sadness regulation. The review summarises all sadness regulation strategies mentioned in the finalised articles. Additionally, this review examined the types of methods and designs employed to study sadness regulation (self-report, informant report, open-ended, etc.). Finally, all available measures from the finalised articles were reviewed in detail.

Evaluating the methodological quality of studies

The methodological quality of psychometric properties of the included measures was assessed based on the Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments COSMIN risk of bias tool [43]. This bias tool refers to a standardised checklist used to assess the quality of psychometric studies, which included 3 to 38 items for each psychometric property. In this present study, COSMIN was used to evaluate six psychometric properties, namely: (1) evaluation of internal consistency to check the extent of interrelatedness among items; (2) evaluation of reliability through test-retest reliability (total score of variances in repeated measurement of the same individual over time), inter-rater reliability (total score of variances in repeated measurement of the same occasions by different raters), and intra-rater reliability (total score of variance in repeated measurement in different occasions by the same rater) [43]; (3) measurement of systematic random error of an individual’s score that is not attributed to the true change in the measured construct; (4) evaluation of structural validity to assess the extent to which a score of an instrument is considered as an adequate reflection of the dimensionality of the construct being measured; (5) evaluation of cross-cultural validity to assess measurement invariance of an instrument across culturally different groups [43]; and (6) evaluation of hypotheses testing related to construct validity through convergent and discriminant validities [43]. The evaluation of methodological quality on psychometric properties for the selected studies was ranked on a four-point Likert scale (1 = inadequate, 2 = doubtful, 3 = adequate, and 4 = very good).

Evaluation of psychometric properties of instruments

The evaluation of psychometric properties of the instruments was executed in two phases. First, the psychometric properties in each article were assessed. Each study was rated as sufficient for psychometric properties above the quality criteria threshold (+) or insufficient for psychometric properties below the quality criteria threshold (-) or indeterminate for less robust data that failed to meet the quality criteria based on the predefined criteria for good psychometric properties (?) [43]. Second, each measurement property tested for the instruments was given an overall quality score. Two reviewers (SZ and ST) independently performed the COSMIN checklist to assess the methodological quality of psychometric properties reported in the included studies. Discrepancies between the two reviewers were resolved by involving a third reviewer who is an expert in psychometrics (HS).

Results

Of the total 344 articles identified, 51 met the criteria for full-text review but only 40 were eligible for inclusion in this review (see Fig 2). Analysis of the 40 articles is presented in two subsections; sadness regulation strategies and sadness regulation measurement.

Sadness regulation strategies

Of the 40 articles reviewed in this study, 110 strategies were reported to regulate sadness and emotions (expressive suppression, cognitive appraisal, acceptance, attention distraction, distancing, rumination, religious coping, praying, problem-solving, seeking social support, self-control, etc.). Some of these strategies were frequently used in most of the reviewed articles, such as expressive suppression or inhibition (18 articles). This strategy is used by individuals to hide their emotions from others [e.g., 44–46]. Significant gender-related differences were identified in expressive suppression of sadness or inhibition. For instance, Perry‐Parrish and Zeman [47] reported that univariate analysis of gender effects revealed that inhibition of sadness was significantly influenced by gender, as boys inhibited their sadness expressions (M = 2.07, SD = 0.52) more than girls (M = 1.86, SD = 0.51). The significant effect of gender for sadness disinhibition (F(1, 151) = 21.65, p = 0.0005, hp 2 = 0.13) indicated that girls (M = 1.95, SD = 0.41) frequently displayed sadness in obvious ways when compared to boys (M = 1.64, SD = 0.39). Past studies revealed that suppression expression or inhibition varied by age. Goldenberg-Bivens [48] reported that younger children (third and fourth graders) (M = 1.37, SD = 0.41) suppressed their display of sadness less than older children (sixth and seventh graders) (M = 1.57, SD = 0.48, F(2, 172) = 8.88, p < 0.01).

Next, 14 studies employed cognitive appraisal [e.g.,19,23,49–51]. This strategy allows one to look at the positive sides of negative emotions and events. However, no significant variance was identified between men and women in cognitive reappraisal. For instance, Rivers [5] denoted that women (M = 4.74, SD = 0.88) did not employ cognitive reappraisal differently from men (t(211) < 1.00). The third common strategy was distraction (used in eight studies), which refers to cognitively and behaviourally removing oneself from negative emotions by engaging in activities unrelated to the present situation [e.g., 50,52–55]. For example, children who received instructions to use distraction demonstrated better parasympathetic regulation of sadness (F(2, 37) = 6.311, p = 0.004, η2 = 0.254, Msad = 1.256, SEsad = 0.189) [52].

The fourth common strategy was seeking social support implemented in six studies [e.g., 37,50,55–57]. People seek social support (experts, closely related persons) to regulate their negative emotions. Besides, seeking emotional support was more prevalent in sad situations [37]. Women displayed a significantly greater need for social support when in sadness (r = 0.17, p < 0.05) than men [54,55]. Another study reported that early adolescents with undifferentiated and high-intensity distress relied on social or emotional support [57].

Rumination was the fifth common strategy employed in six studies. This strategy refers to the tendency of repeated thinking about their feelings, along with their causes and consequences. This strategy is also used in regulating sadness [e.g., 51,58,59]. Meanwhile, acceptance (accepting what happened as part of life) was implemented in six studies [e.g., 37,44,55]. Older adults demonstrated greater coherence between experience and physiology in accepting sadness when compared to younger adults [44]. Seeking information (additional contingencies) was deployed in six studies [e.g., 5,53,57]. The three strategies that yielded high frequencies in sadness regulation were avoidance (withdrawal from situation), self-control (individuals try not to act immediately), and problem-solving (specific actions directed at solving a problem) [23,33,44].

Although some strategies were maladaptive, they were applied to regulate sadness and other negative emotions, such as wishful thinking (escaping non-contingent environment) and social isolation (withdrawal from unsupportive context). Meanwhile, self-blame and blaming others occur due to certain problems and/or their incapacity to solve them. On the other hand, substance use, including dependency on alcohol, illicit drugs, and medication, is another instance of maladaptive strategy practised by some to reduce sadness and other negative emotions [54-57]. Table 1 lists the strategies identified in the reviewed articles.

Table 1

Summary of reported sadness regulation strategies.

Study	Reported strategies used to regulate sadness
Elsayed, Song [60]	Emotion regulation coping.
Schindler and Querengässer [19]	Reappraisal and expressive suppression.
Hastings, Klimes-Dougan [2]	Supportive emotion, socialisation and suppression.
Drageset, Eide [34]	Engagement, independence connectedness and confirmation of identity.
Perry‐Parrish and Zeman [47]	Emotion regulation coping and suppression.
Davis [51]	Distancing, cognitive reappraisal, rumination and self-control.
Nas and Temel [61]	Suppression and emotion regulation coping.
Sullivan, Helms [62]	Emotion regulation coping.
Clear, Gardner [63]	Suppression.
Rodriguez Mosquera, Khan [64]	Rumination, avoidance of public places and religious coping.
Paez, Martinez-Sanchez [55]	Modification of situation included: Problem-directed action, withdrawal, social isolation, altruism, seeking emotional social support, instrumental social support and informative social support.
	Attentional deployment and cognitive change included: Rumination, distraction, acceptance and self-control, wishful thinking, spiritual activities, cognitive reappraisal, social comparison, gratitude and self-reward.
	Response modulation included: Expressive suppression, active physiological regulation, passive physiological regulation, humour, venting, confrontation, regulated expression.
Zeman, Shipman [65]	Expressive suppression and emotion regulation coping.
Lohani, Payne [44]	Suppression and acceptance.
Stange, Hamilton [23]	Reappraisal, distraction and suppression.
Company, Oriol [50]	Seeking emotional support, seeking informative support, seeking instrumental support, mediation, planning, altruism, cognitive reappraisal, negotiation, distraction, seeking information, praying, rituals, self-comfort, active physiological regulation, rationalisation, acceptance, self-control, postponing the response, regulated expression, confrontation and opposite emotions.
Mikolajczak, Nelis [66]	Acceptance, refocus on planning, positive refocus, cognitive reappraisal, self-blame and blame others, rumination and catastrophisation.
Cassano, Perry-Parrish [46]	Suppression and emotion regulation coping.
Rivers, Brackett [53]	Attempts to change the situation, verbal expression of feelings, information gathering, passive or indirect strategies, distraction, leaving the situation, seek comfort and pray.
Davis, Quiñones-Camacho [52]	Distraction, cognitive reappraisal and self-control.
Blanchard-Fields and Coats [33]	Planful problem-solving, cognitive analysis, passive emotional regulation avoidance-denial-escape, regulation-inclusion of others, managing reactions through suppression of emotion, passive-dependent, proactive emotion regulation managing reactions through confrontive emotional coping, seeking social support and reflection on emotions.
Morris, Silk [67]	Attention refocusing, comforting and cognitive reframing.
Zimmer-Gembeck, Skinner [57]	Self-reliance, problem-solving, social support seeking, information seeking, negotiation, accommodation, delegation, helplessness, social isolation, avoidance, opposition and submission.
Sheppes and Meiran [68]	Distraction, control unregulated and cognitive reappraisal.
Belden, Luby [49]	Cognitive reappraisal.
Matthies, Philipsen [45]	Cognitive reappraisal and suppression.
Zeman, Shipman [25]	Suppression and emotion regulation coping.
Vandervoort [56]	Avoidance, self-blame or blame of others, problem-solving, cognitive reappraisal, substance abuse, self-control, acceptance, seeking social support and planful problem-solving.
Giuliani, Villar [37]	Cognitive reappraisal, suppression, emotional repair, seeking emotional support, situation modification, selection of situations, attentional deployment and acceptance.
Di Giunta, Iselin [59]	Hostile attribution bias, hostile rumination, dysregulated expression of anger, dysregulated expression of sadness, self-efficacy beliefs about anger regulation, depressive attribution bias, self-efficacy beliefs about sadness regulation and depressive rumination.
Bradley, Karatzias [58]	Intrapersonal functional/dysfunctional regulatory strategy (e.g., cognitive change), interpersonal functional/dysfunctional regulatory strategy (e.g., environmental change), self‐harm, negative social comparison, rumination, derealisation and repression.
Cassano [69]	Suppression and emotion regulation coping.
Palmer [70]	Suppression and emotion regulation coping.
Goldenberg-Bivens [48]	Suppression and emotion regulation coping.
Gleich [71]	Passive stance, verbal assertion, direct action, non-confrontation, aggression, passive coping, help or judgement for authority, wishful thinking, success, goal substitution, negative outcome, justice and action of time.
Galarneau [72]	Emotion regulation coping.
Poon [73]	Suppression and emotion regulation coping.
Schultz [74]	Experiential avoidance, integration emotion regulation and expressive suppression.
Waters and Thompson [54]	Seek adult support, problem-solving, seek peer support, venting emotion, cognitive reappraisal, distraction, aggression and do nothing.
Morelen, Zeman [75]	Effortful control, over control and under control.
Rivers [5]	Cognitive reappraisal, suppression, rumination distraction, nonverbal expression, verbal expression of feelings, attempts to change the situations, information gathering, leaving the situation, passive or indirect strategies, engaged in an unrelated activity, seek comfort and pray.

Apart from the aforementioned strategies, several studies had focused on other aspects of sadness management, such as emotion regulation coping and dysregulation expression. In emotion regulation coping, people try to manage their emotional experiences based on the duration and intensity of their emotions in adaptive ways. In total, 11 studies had examined this aspect [e.g., 60,70,72,73]. Sadness regulation coping among girls was lower than that of the boys (F(1,347) = 17.8, p < 0.001) [62]. On the contrary, gender differences in emotion regulation coping were insignificant [65]. Besides, older children displayed higher regulation coping or control over their sadness when compared to younger children [75].

Dysregulation expression is implied over control or under control of sadness expression [47,70,73]. Apparently, it was found that gender was significantly correlated with dysregulation expression strategy. Goldenberg-Bivens [48] denoted a marginally significant difference in dysregulated expression of sadness among girls, in comparison to boys (t(225) = 1.81, p = 0.07). Girls displayed more dysregulated expressions of sadness (M = 1.70, SD = 0.49) than boys (M = 1.56, SD = 0.48, F(2, 305) = 5.69, p < 0.05). On the other hand, a child’s age can significantly affect dysregulated sadness behaviour, whereby parents reported higher levels among younger children (M = 1.97, SD = 0.07) than older children (M = 1.75, SD = 0.07) [46]. Hence, age can be significantly associated with dysregulation expression strategy. Goldenberg-Bivens [48] revealed that younger children (M = 1.80, SD = 0.51) displayed more dysregulated expressions of sadness than the older children (M = 1.63, SD = 0.42, F(2, 172) = 5.74, p < 0.01).

Sadness regulation measurement

Approximately 66% (n = 27) of the articles reviewed in this study used self-reported measures [e.g., 19,23,61], whereas 12% (n = 5) applied informant report involving parents or peers [e.g., 46,69,73]. They used the parent-child sadness management scale to measure the parents’ perceptions of their children’s capability to manage sadness. Perry‐Parrish and Zeman [47] used peer-report assessment of sadness management, while Morris, Silk [67] relied on the evaluation of mothers attempting to aid their children in emotion regulation strategies and the participation of their children in the attempts. Meanwhile, five studies (12%) deployed open-ended measures, in which the participants were asked to recall and describe their sad situations and on the steps taken to reduce their sadness either in writing or oral interview [e.g., 33,53,54].

Several studies (10%, n = 4) used emotion regulation instructions [e.g., 51,52], whereby they displayed a short clip from a sad movie and instructed the children to regulate their sadness using the following strategies: (1) Cognitive positive reappraisal: Children were asked to think in a positive way about the sad events of the film; (2) Distancing: Children were asked to consider the sad events in the film as irrelevant or unimportant to them; (3) Control: Children were instructed to not mention their sadness or emotional regulation; (4) Rumination: Children received instruction to think about their emotions, causes, and consequences of the sad events in the film. Meanwhile, Lohani, Payne [44] used emotion regulation instructions with different strategies, such as suppression and acceptance.

In total, 27 questionnaires were used to measure sadness regulation in the 40 selected articles. Four questionnaires were subscales from Children Sadness Management Scale (CSMS) developed by Zeman et al. [65], along with Anger and Sadness Management Scale (ASMS) developed by Zeman, Shipman [25,59,60,62,72]. Next, Belden, Luby [49] used the cognitive reappraisal emotion regulation strategy subscale from the Cognitive Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (CERQ) developed by Garnefski and Kraaij [76]. Meanwhile, another four questionnaires measured sadness regulation using separate measures for specific strategies. For instance, Rodriguez Mosquera, Khan [64] used three measures for three strategies of emotion regulation by employing the widely used Impact of Events Scale to measure rumination and open-ended questions to measure avoidance (how often the participants avoided or withdrew from social contact and public places). Finally, the practices of dimensions subscale of the psychological measure of Islamic Religiousness were applied to assess religious coping.

On the other hand, 37 studies utilised one measure of sadness regulation [e.g., 50,56,57,71], while three studies included two measures [47,55,69]. Only one study employed three measures Rivers [5]. First, Rivers [5] used the Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (ERQ) to assess emotion regulation behavioural tendencies using two types of strategies to reduce emotions, which are cognitive reappraisal and suppression. The second measure, “effective anger and sadness regulation” was employed, which refers to a series of vignettes used to assess difficulties in the regulation. The third measure was the online version of Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) used to measure the ability to manage emotions, as well as how well individuals undertake tasks and solve emotional problems in eight tasks divided into four categories of capabilities, namely: (a) perceiving emotions, (b) facilitating thought, (c) understanding emotions, and (d) managing emotions.

Most of the measures reported in this review were built and used on children (4–15 years old) with satisfactory levels of internal consistency. Most of the studies used three common questionnaires. The first was CSMS applied in 14 studies [e.g., 46,60–62,70]. It was employed either as a whole scale [46,48,70] or as individual subscales [60,62,72]. The second questionnaire was ERQ used in four studies [19,45,53,55]. The third questionnaire was CERQ deployed in two studies [49,66] (see Table 2).

Table 2

Characteristics of the included studies and measures.

Method/Measure of sadness regulation			Related studies	Country	Sample	Psychometric properties	Key findings
Type of measure	No.	Measures
Self- report	1-	Emotion Regulation Coping	Elsayed, Song [60]	Canada	N = 103 Syrian children and their mothers.	α = 0.75	Children with lower level of pre-migratory life stressors had worse sadness regulation related to greater post-migratory daily hassles.
			Galarneau [72]	Canada	N = 300 children. Age = 4 and 8 years, 50% females.	α = 0.76 and 0.67	A lower threshold to detect sadness predicted higher sympathy through better regulation of sadness. Fostering sadness regulation skills among younger children who struggle with sympathy is vital.
			Sullivan, Helms [62]	U.S.A	N = 358 youth. (166 boys, 192 girls).Cohort one: Age M = 10.7 years, SD = 0.6.Cohort two: Age M = 13.7 years.	α = 0.65	Youth with difficulties in coping with sadness to improve social relationships with others tend to use relational aggression as a strategy—not a positive social strategy. Girls showed lower levels of sadness regulation than boys. Girls are usually inclined to cope with sadness using support seeking and emotional expression.
	2-	ERQ	Schindler and Querengässer [19]	Germany	N = 82 students.	Reappraisal α = 0.79; Expressive suppression α = 0.81	Self-rated experience of sadness was not reduced using expressive suppression. However, reappraisal positively correlated with the reduction of sadness. Although emotion regulation strategies and personality vary, they are helpful predictors of negative emotions.
			Matthies, Philipsen [45]	U.S.A	N = 36 adult participants with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD).	−	Prolonged recovery from feeling overwhelmed by emotions has been associated with expressive suppression in ADHD. On the contrary, fast recovery from feeling overwhelmed by emotions has been associated with emotion regulation via acceptance.
			Rivers [5]	U.S.A	Study 1: 74 undergraduatesStudy 2: 240 undergraduatesStudy 3: 190 students.	Reappraisal α = 0.78; Suppression α = 0.81	Women’s ability to regulate anger did not differ from their ability to regulate. They used different regulation strategies depending on whether anger or sadness was being regulated. Attempts to change the situation predicted higher effectiveness scores for anger and sadness. Verbal expression of feelings predicted lower regulation effectiveness scores for sadness.
			Paez, Martinez-Sanchez [55]	Spain	N = 355 students. Age M = 24 years,72.2% were women.	Reappraisal α = 0.78 Suppression α = 0.81	Seeking social support, problem-directed action and planning, social isolation, withdrawal, rumination, acceptance, suppression of expression, and self-control were more commonly used for sadness and anger than in joy. Wishful thinking was often used in sadness. Suppression was dysfunctional in sadness and anger. Women tend to seek social support and venting, while men used more suppression/inhibition and physiological regulation.
	3-	Measure of Affect Regulation Styles (MARS)
					−	−
			Nas and Temel [61]	Turkey	N = 558 students. Age = 10–15 years, 308 girls, 250 boys.	Dysregulation expression α = 0.78; emotional regulation coping α = 0.72; inhibition α = 0.74	The dimension of the dysregulated expression and emotional regulation were higher than average sadness management subscales, while the dimension of inhibition was lower.
	4-	CSMS	Perry‐Parrish and Zeman [47]	U.S.A	N = 155 adolescents.Age M = 13.87 years, 81 girls, 74 boys.	Disinhibition scale α = 0.63; Suppression α = 0.71. Items loaded in two factors with eigenvalues 2.85 and 1.59	Boys minimise their expression and displays of sadness more than girls. Boys who violated this pattern were less accepted by their peers and were rated by their parents as having social problems. Conversely, peer acceptance was not related to girls’ frequent overt displays of sadness.
			Zeman, Shipman [65]	U.S.A	N = 227 children. Mothers (N = 171), peers (N = 227).Age M = 10 years, 121 boys, 106 girls.	Inhibition α = 0.77; Test-retest r = 0.80; coping with sadness α = 0.62; Test-retest r = 0.63; dysregulated expression α = 0.60; Test-retest r = 0.63 Items’ factor loading range was 0.56–0.85	CSMS is a valid and reliable measure for normative sadness management. Though CSMS is considered an essential first stage in developing a more comprehensive measure of emotional competence, it has some limitations. First, data were collected from a community that could result in a limited range of symptoms of emotional distress and emotional functioning. Second, the age range used was somewhat limited. Third, the scope of this scale is rather narrow and was not intended to be a global measure of emotional competence.
			Morelen, Zeman [75]	Ghana, Kenya and U.S.A	N = 245 Ghanaian, 106 Kenyan, 170U.S.A. Age = 8–15 years.	Internal consistencies = 0.43 and 0.66; Factor loading = 1.56 and 2.10	Children in the US were more constrained and showed less overt expression of sadness than Ghanaian and Kenyan children. Girls had lower control of sadness and good control of anger than boys who had more control over sadness and less control over anger.
			Palmer [70]	U.S.A	N = 91 parent-child dyads.Age = 8–12 years.	Cronbach’s α for these scales = 0.60 to 0.77	Coping with sadness was significant with general support from parents.
			Goldenberg-Bivens [48]	U.S.A	N = 164 children and 146 adolescents.Age M = 112.96 and 148.11 months, 154 boys, 156 girls.	α = 0.72 for anger inhibition, and 0.59 for anger dysregulation α = 0.71 for sadness inhibition, and 0.49 for sadness dysregulation	Both age and gender are vital factors in emotion regulation methods and styles that children use. Parents reported that younger children inhibited their display of sadness less than older children. Younger children displayed more dysregulated expressions of sadness than older children. Sadness inhibition among adolescents predicted internalising and externalising symptomatology.
	5-	Sadness and Anger Dysregulation and Suppression Questionnaire.	Clear, Gardner [63]	Australia	N = 383 participants.Age = 16–23 years, 181 men, 202 women.	Sadness suppression α = 0.91; dysregulation α = 0.87; anger suppression α = 0.89; dysregulation α = 0.88 Items loaded into four factors and the of factor loading was 0.54–0.84	High emotional dysregulation was significantly correlated with anxious attachment, while high emotion suppression was correlated with high avoidant attachment. Whereas, high sadness dysregulation was exceptionally and significantly correlated with social anxiety and depression but not aggression.
	6-	Three coping responses scales: Rumination, Religious coping, Avoidance.	Rodriguez Mosquera, Khan [64]	U.S.A	N = 69 Muslim-American. Age M = 23.41 years, 51 female, 18 males.	Rumination scale α = 0.71; Religious coping α = 0.70; Avoidance of public places α = 0.80	Sadness was the most intense emotion they felt, followed by fear and anger. The most common coping response was religious coping, followed by avoidance of public places and rumination. Sadness was a mediator between religious coping and less anxiety.
	7-	Spontaneous Affect Regulation Scale (SARS).	Stange, Hamilton [23]	U.S.A	N = 178 participants.Age = 18–50 years,57.3% females.	Reappraisal α = 0.70; Distraction α = 0.73; Suppression α = 0.68	Distraction and cognitive reappraisal were more efficient in mitigating negative emotions among people with high parasympathetic resilience. Meanwhile, low attenuation of negative emotion was associated with suppression.
	8-	Emotional intrapersonal and interpersonal regulation questionnaire (CIRE- 43)	Company, Oriol [50]	Spain	N = 324 Spanish-speaking college students. Age M = 20.42 years,69% females.	α = 0.88	Participants regulated positive emotions, but less frequently than sadness. Varied strategies were adapted in different circumstances based on the emotion being regulated (sadness or joy).
	9-	CERQ	Mikolajczak, Nelis [66]	Belgium	N = 203 students. Age M = 22.16 years, 166 women, 37 men.	α = 0.64 to 0.88 for all subscales	Emotional intelligence promotes the use of adaptive strategies to keep joy. Those with high emotional intelligence choose adaptive strategies to maintain positive emotions and regulate various negative emotions.
	10-	Emotion regulation strategy attempts.	Morris, Silk [67]	U.S.A	N = 153 children. Age M = 6 years, 67 girls and 86 boys.	Comfort α = 0.84Cognitive reframing α = 0.86; Attention refocusing α = 0.87	Cognitive reappraisal and attention refocusing are significantly correlated with low sadness in the current and following intervals. Younger children express sadness more than older children, whereby maternal attention refocusing was more successful among the younger compared to older children.
	11-	Motivational theory of coping Scale–12 (MTC-12)	Zimmer-Gembeck, Skinner [57]	Australia	N = 230 early adolescents.Age = 8–12 years, 52% boys.	−	Social support is a fairly unique all-purpose strategy often used by children and adolescents when they are distressed.
	12-	Ways of Coping Questionnaire (WCQ)	Vandervoort [56]	U.S.A	N = 140 undergraduate students.Age = 18–54 years, 73.7% females.	−	Cognitive reappraisal and confrontive coping strategies were not preferred to deal with sadness by Asians and Caucasians compared to other multicultural people. Multicultural people use distancing coping more than Asians.
	13-	Scale of emotion regulation of anger and sadness in Interpersonal Situations (SERIS).	Giuliani, Villar [37]	Argentina	Study 1: N = 400 undergraduates. Age M = 22.8 years.Study 2: N = 259 undergraduates.	α = 0.75 to 0.87 CFI = 0.87, GFI = 0.85, RAMSEA = 0.06	SERIS possesses good psychometric properties and internal consistency. Seeking emotional support and attentional deployment were frequently used in sad situations.
	14-	Anger and sadness self-regulation scale.	Di Giunta, Iselin [59]	Italy, United States and Colombia	N = 541 children, N = 541 mothers. Age = 10–14 years, 50% females.	α = 0.55 to 0.86 for sadness CFI = 0.95, RAMSEA = 0.04. For anger CFI = 0.94, RAMSEA = 0.04	Across the six cultural groups, anger and sadness self-regulation subscales revealed full metric and partial scalar invariance for a one-factor model. Sadness subscales were related to internalising symptoms.
	15-	Regulation of Emotions Questionnaire	Bradley, Karatzias [58]	Scotland	N = 109 participants.	α = 0.62 to 0.86	Facing difficulties in regulating sadness, fear and disgust could lead to serious self-harm and derealisation as coping strategies.
	16-	Modified Affect Questionnaire (MAQ).	Gleich [71]	England	Grade 4 boys	−	No difference between the groups on the intensity of sadness.
	17-	Experiential avoidance state	Schultz [74]	U.S.A	N = 203 undergraduate students	α = 0.80	Those under expressive suppression conditions reported higher experiential avoidance and high sadness intensity.
	18-	Positive refocusing subscale from the cognitive emotion regulation (CERQ-k)	Belden, Luby [49]	U.S.A	N = 19 healthy childrenAge = 18–23 years, 27% males, 73% females	α = 0.80	Children who used cognitive reappraisal to reduce their sadness after watching sad stimuli exhibited dampened amygdala reactions.
	19-	Effective anger and sadness regulation.	Rivers [5]	Summarised in row 2 under ERQ.
Open-ended questions	20-	Participants were asked to recall situations that made them sad, describe felt emotions, and what they did to deal with situations.	Hastings, Klimes-Dougan [2]	U.S.A	N = 220 youthsAge = 11–16 years,50% females.	−	Symptoms of depression among youth were predicted to exhibit less supportive emotion socialisation.
	21-	Participants were asked to describe the strategies to counteract sadness.	Drageset, Eide [34]	U.S.A	N = 227, 60 with cancer and 167 without cancerAge M = 85.3 years, 39 women, 21 men	−	Coping with the experience of depression was dominated by coping with sadness.
	22-	Participants were requested to write about a situation wherein they were sad with a close friend and what they did to lessen their sadness.	Rivers, Brackett [53]	U.S.A	N = 190 studentsAge M = 20 years,female 64%,males 31%, Unreported 5%	Cronbach’s α = 0.71 to 0.87; Kappas = 0.62 to 0.84	Strategies of emotional regulation differed for sadness and anger in terms of effectiveness and use. Effective sadness regulation was linked with positive social relationships. In sadness, participants used either cognitive reappraisal or indulge in other activities, such as playing video games or listening to music, to change the situation. Verbal expression of emotion was positively correlated with effective sadness regulation.
	23-	Participants were asked to recall a time in which they had a problem, describe the problem and its consequences. They were also asked to talk about the strategies they used to manage each emotion.	Blanchard-Fields and Coats [33]	U.S.A	N = 83 adolescents,76 young adults,86 middle-aged,92 older adults	Reliabilities of 92.1%, 94.2% and 92.8% (r = 0.64, r = 0.74, r = 0.70)	Sadness was more common among young adults than adolescents and older adults. Younger adults used less proactive emotion regulation strategies than older adults.
	24-	Four stories: two stories evoked sadness, and two evoked anger.	Waters and Thompson [54]	U.S.A	N = 97 children from first and fourth gradeAge M = 6.8 years, 49 girls and 51 males	−	Venting and seeking adult support were more effective in regulating sadness. The emotion-focused strategies were more effective among girls than boys.
Informant report	25-	Peer-report evaluations of sadness management.	Perry‐Parrish and Zeman [47]	Already summarised in row 4 under children sadness regulation scale
	26-	Parents-CSMS (P-CSMS)	Cassano, Perry-Parrish [46]	U.S.A	N = 226 participants,Fathers (N = 53), Mothers (N = 60)	Inhibition = 0.87; dysregulation = 0.63; coping = 0.60	Mothers tend to respond to sadness with problem-focused strategies and expressive encouragement, while fathers tend to respond to sadness with minimisation.
			Cassano [69]	U.S.A	N = 62 childrenAge M = 9 years, 30 boys, 32 girls. N = 59 mothersAge M = 37.7 yearsN = 38 fathersAge M = 39.8 years	α = 0.61 to 0.88	Parents’ expectations and desire to change their children’s sadness regulation significantly affected their socialisation responses. These processes vary based on the gender of the child and parent.
			Poon [73]	U.S.A	N = 892 parent household parent-childAge = 8–11 years, 50 sons and 39 daughters	α = 0.61 to 0.88	The externalising and internalising symptoms in a child were negatively correlated with the child’s sadness regulation abilities and positively associated with his/her social functioning.
Emotion regulation instructions.	27-	Participants received four sets of instructions one by one and were given approximately 10 S after the instructions to apply the strategy.	Davis [51]	U.S.A	N = 126	−	Changes in sadness and happiness were predicted by using several strategies to regulate sadness (e.g., positive reappraisal, rumination, distraction, or no strategy).
			Davis, Quiñones-Camacho [52]	U.S.A	N = 101	−	Children’s parasympathetic regulation of sadness and fear was enhanced by cognitive emotion regulation strategies such as reappraisal and distraction.
			Sheppes and Meiran [68]	Israel	N = 30 undergraduate students	−	Reappraisal was less efficient in reducing sadness when initiated late. Whereas, distraction was sufficient even when initiated late since it dilutes the emotion triggering event contents by mixing them with a non-sad input.
	28-	Participants received three sets (suppression, acceptance, distraction) of instructions one by one.	Lohani, Payne [44]	U.S.A	N = 60 younger and 60 older adults	−	Younger adults demonstrated less emotional coherence with physiology and sadness during regulation and reactivity (acceptance and suppression) compared to adults.

Upon reviewing the existing measures of sadness regulation, the subscales of the reported measures differed from one another. For example, CSMS had three subfactors, namely inhibition, dysregulated expression, and emotion regulation coping [65]. Next, ERQ comprised of two subfactors; expressive suppression and reappraisal [17]. Meanwhile, CERQ had nine subfactors, namely refocus on planning, acceptance, positive refocus, putting problem into perspective, positive reappraisal, self-blame, others-blame, rumination, and catastrophisation [76]. The used measures were not modified in terms of subscales or items.

Evaluation of methodological quality of included studies

This scoping review highlighted the psychometric properties, along with the methods of validity and reliability deployed in the reviewed articles. Table 3 presents the methodological quality assessment of studies on psychometric properties of the included measures using the COSMIN risk of bias tool [43]. In this phase of the review, studies that employed open-ended questions or emotion regulation instructions were excluded as they did not report any psychometric property of their instruments [e.g., 2,51]. Since four studies that used self-reported questionnaires did not address psychometric properties [45,56,57,71], they were excluded from the third phase of quality assessment. Meanwhile, 10 studies that used pre-validated questionnaires only reported Cronbach’s alpha values [e.g., 19,60].

Table 3

Methodological quality assessment of studies on psychometric properties of the included measures.

Instrument	Reference	Structural validity	Internal consistency	Cross-cultural validity	Reliability	Hypothesis testing for construct validity	Measurement error
ERQ	Schindler and Querengässer [19]	NR	Very good	NR	NR	NR	NR
	Matthies, Philipsen [45]	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR
	Rivers [5]	NR	Very good	NR	NR	NR	NR
MARS	Paez and Martinez-Sanchez [56]	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR
CSMS	Nas and Temel [61]	Adequate	Very good	NR	NR	NR	NR
	Perry‐Parrish and Zeman [47]	Adequate	very good	NR	NR	NR	NR
	Zeman, Shipman [65]	Adequate	Very good	NR	Very good	Very good	Very good
	Morelen, Zeman [75]	Adequate	Doubtful	Very good	NR	NR	NR
	Palmer [70]	NR	Very good	NR	NR	NR	NR
	Goldenberg-Bivens [48]	NR	Very good	NR	Adequate	NR	NR
Sadness and Anger Dysregulation and Suppression Questionnaire	Clear, Gardner [63]	Very good	Very good	NR	NR	Very good	NR
Three Coping Responses Scales: Rumination, Religious Coping, Avoidance	Rodriguez Mosquera, Khan [64]	NR	Very good	NR	NR	NR	NR
SARS	Stange, Hamilton [23]	NR	Very good	NR	NR	NR	NR
Emotional Intrapersonal and Interpersonal Regulation (CIRE- 43)	Company, Oriol [50]	Adequate	Very good	NR	NR	NR	NR
CERQ	Mikolajczak, Nelis [66]	NR	Very good	NR	NR	NR	NR
Emotion Regulation Strategy Attempts	Morris, Silk [67]	NR	NR	NR	Very good	NR	NR
Motivational Theory of Coping Scale–12 (MTC-12)	Zimmer-Gembeck, Skinner [57]	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR
Ways of Coping (WCQ)	Vandervoort [56]	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR
SERIS	Giuliani, Villar [37]	Very good	Very good	NR	NR	NR	NR
Anger and sadness self-regulation scale	Di Giunta, Iselin [59]	Very good	Very good	Very good	NR	Very good	NR
Regulation of Emotions Questionnaire	Bradley, Karatzias [58]	NR	Very good	NR	NR	NR	NR
Modified Affect Questionnaire (MAQ)	Gleich [71]	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR
Effective anger and sadness regulation	Rivers [5]	NR	Very good	NR	NR	NR	NR
Parents-CSMS (P-CSMS)	Cassano, Perry-Parrish [46]	NR	Very good	NR	NR	NR	NR
	Cassano [69]	NR	Very good	NR	NR	NR	NR
	Poon [73]	NR	Inadequate	NR	NR	NR	NR

Note. NR = Not reported.

Notably, only a few studies had included psychometric properties on structural validity (eight studies), reliability (four studies), and cross-cultural validity (two studies). No information was extracted for criterion validity in any of the studies, thus omitted from the quality assessment table. As for structural validity, five studies reported adequate study quality by including exploratory factor analysis (EFA) that identifies the factors of structure for new instrument without prior hypothesis [77]. Four studies reported confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) that tests the structure of hypothesised factors [78]. Only two instruments (CSMS and Anger & Sadness Self-regulation Scale) assessed cross-cultural validity. All the studies, except for three, did not provide any data on reliability. Meanwhile, only Zeman and Shipman [66] developed a questionnaire to measure sadness regulation among children.

Data on psychometric properties retrieved from the selected articles were evaluated against the criteria for good psychometric properties. Table 4 summarises the rating of each psychometric property, while Table 5 presents the overall rating and quality of evidence of each psychometric property. Findings from each study were rated as sufficient (+), insufficient (-) or indeterminate (?). Two instruments (CSMS and CIRE-43) reported indeterminate structural validity because they used less robust EFA that reported incomplete information about the structural validity of the measures. Meanwhile, SERIS and Anger and Sadness Self-regulation Scale instruments were rated as insufficient because the criteria for sufficient or for good structural validity were not met. Although two instruments (CSMS and Anger and Sadness Self-regulation Scale) underwent cross-cultural validity, they were rated as insufficient because significant differences were found among group factors, such as gender, language, and age. Except for two instruments (CSMS and Emotion Regulation Strategy Attempts), all others did not report any data related to reliability as most of them tested reliability using Cronbach’s alpha rather than the preferred statistics in COSMIN criteria for good psychometric properties (test-retest or inter-rater reliability). Only three instruments (CSMS, Sadness and Anger Dysregulation and Suppression Questionnaire, and Anger and Sadness Self-regulation Scale) reported sufficient hypothesis testing for construct validity as the results were consistent with the hypotheses.

Table 4

Quality of psychometric properties per study.

Instrument	Reference	Structural validity	Internal consistency	Cross-cultural validity	Reliability	Hypothesis testing for construct validity	Measurement error
ERQ	Schindler and Querengässer [19]	NR	+	NR	NR	NR	NR
	Rivers [5]	NR	+	NR	NR	NR	NR
CSMS	Nas and Temel [61]	?	+	NR	NR	NR	NR
	Perry‐Parrish and Zeman [47]	?	+	NR	NR	NR	NR
	Zeman, Shipman [65]	?	+	NR	−	+	?
	Morelen, Zeman [75]	?	−	−	NR	NR	NR
	Palmer [70]	NR	−	NR	NR	NR	NR
	Goldenberg-Bivens [48]	NR	+	NR	+	NR	NR
Sadness and Anger Dysregulation and Suppression Questionnaire	Clear, Gardner [63]	+	+	NR	NR	+	NR
Three Coping Responses Scales: Rumination, Religious Coping, Avoidance	Rodriguez Mosquera, Khan [64]	NR	+	NR	NR	NR	NR
SARS	Stange, Hamilton [23]	NR	+	NR	NR	NR	NR
Emotional Intrapersonal and Interpersonal Regulation (CIRE- 43)	Company, Oriol [50]	?	+	NR	NR	NR	NR
CERQ	Mikolajczak, Nelis [66]	NR	+	NR	NR	NR	NR
Emotion Regulation Strategy Attempts	Morris, Silk [67]	NR	NR	NR	+	NR	NR
SERIS	Giuliani, Villar [37]	−	+	NR	NR	NR	NR
Anger and sadness self-regulation scale	Di Giunta, Iselin [59]	−	+	−	NR	+	NR
Regulation of Emotions Questionnaire	Bradley, Karatzias [58]	NR	+	NR	NR	NR	NR
Effective anger and sadness regulation	Rivers [5]	NR	+	NR	NR	NR	NR
Parents-CSMS (P-CSMS)	Cassano, Perry-Parrish [46]	NR	+	NR	NR	NR	NR
	Cassano [69]	NR	−	NR	NR	NR	NR
	Poon [73]	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR

Note. NR = Not reported; + = sufficient;– = insufficient;? = indeterminate.

Table 5

Overall quality of psychometric properties and evidence quality per instrument.

Instrument	Structural validity		Internal consistency		Cross-cultural validity		Reliability		Hypothesis testing for construct validity		Measurement error
	Overall rating	Quality of evidence	Overall rating	Quality of evidence	Overall rating	Quality of evidence	Overall rating	Quality of evidence	Overall rating	Quality of evidence	Overall rating	Quality of evidence
ERQ	NR	NR	+	Moderate	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR
CSMS	?	NE	+	Moderate	−	High	±	Moderate	+	High	?	NE
Sadness and Anger Dysregulation and Suppression Questionnaire	+	High	+	High	NR	NR	NR	NR	+	High	NR	NR
Three Coping Responses Scales: Rumination, Religious Coping, Avoidance	NR	NR	+	Moderate	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR
SARS	NR	NR	+	Moderate	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR
Emotional Intrapersonal and Interpersonal Regulation (CIRE- 43)	?	NE	+	High	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR
CERQ	NR	NR	+	Moderate	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR
Emotion Regulation Strategy Attempts	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	+	High	NR	NR	NR	NR
SERIS	−	Moderate	+	Moderate	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR
Anger and sadness self-regulation scale	−	High	+	Moderate	−	Moderate	NR	NR	+	High	NR	NR
Regulation of Emotions Questionnaire	NR	NR	+	Moderate	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR
Effective anger and sadness regulation	NR	NR	+	Moderate	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR
Parents-CSMS (P-CSMS)	NR	NR	±	Moderate	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR

Note. NR = Not reported; + = sufficient;– = insufficient;? = indeterminate; ± = inconsistent; NE = not evaluated.

To conclude the quality of the instruments, the consistency of the psychometric properties of each instrument was assessed. Only consistent results were pooled and compared against the criteria for good psychometric properties to decide if the psychometric property of the instrument was sufficient (+), insufficient (-), inconsistent (±) or indeterminate (?). Finally, the quality of evidence was rated as high, moderate, low or very low (see Table 5).

Discussion

This scoping review had explored the reported strategies and the existing measures for sadness regulation. The discussion is outlined in five subsections, namely sadness regulation strategies, sadness regulation measurement, summary of methodological aspects, as well as challenges and recommendations from the articles reviewed in this study.

The effectiveness of emotion regulation strategies differed based on the emotion being regulated. In sadness, expressive suppression was the most commonly used strategy across the reviewed articles. According to Huwaë and Schaafsma [79], people in collectivistic culture tend to suppress their negative or positive emotions to avoid hurting others, as well as to preserve harmonious relationships. Other studies [e.g., 46,80–83] reported that girls are allowed to express their sadness outwardly, while boys are pressured and encouraged to dampen or manage their sadness. This can be interpreted that boys tend to inhibit their sadness to avert negative personal and social consequences (e.g., teasing, lower status) or to avoid being labelled as weak [84].

The findings from this study demonstrated that cognitive reappraisal was one of the commonly reported strategies used to manage sadness and negative emotions. This finding is consistent with that reported by Ford and Troy [85], where cognitive reappraisal was most commonly used to focus on individuals’ efforts to reshape the way they perceive emotional situations in order to feel better. Decades of studies have identified the benefits of reappraisal for cognitive, emotional, psychological, and social outcomes. It is one of the most extensively studied emotion regulation strategies. Those who regulate their negative emotions via cognitive reappraisal can cope with negative emotions by looking at the positive side of both the emotions and events.

The findings highlighted that seeking social or emotional support was widely used to regulate sadness, especially among women. Previous studies on coping indicated that seeking social support is frequently described as an adaptive strategy used among adolescents, particularly to seek emotional support from peers, which increases from childhood to adolescence. Moreover, it is considered as a slightly distinctive all-purpose regulation strategy frequently used by children, adolescents, and adults when they are distressed [86-90]. Rumination, acceptance, distraction, and problem-solving were also among the frequently used strategies. Acceptance and problem-solving are adaptive strategies and can be consistently applied in different emotional contexts. Lennarz, Hollenstein [91] arranged the widely used strategies in a descending manner–acceptance, followed by problem-solving, rumination, and distraction.

Studies included in this review frequently focused on dysregulated expression of emotion as a non-adaptive aspect of sadness management. A significant mean effect was noted for age on dysregulated sadness expression, as dysregulated expression of sadness was higher among younger children than in older children. This is ascribed to the fact that as older children are likely to have learnt to manage their sadness [92], parents often take their expressions seriously when they express their sadness instead of downplaying them. Similarly, studies have also reported that children develop more emotional control and sophisticated emotion regulation skills with age [93,94]. Adolescents and adults have more experience in managing their emotions and are likely to face more undesirable consequences for expressing sadness in dysregulated ways, which would motivate them to manage their negative emotions.

This scoping review investigated the 27 sadness regulation measurements reported in 40 articles. Most of the articles reviewed in this study focused on children using CSMS to assess their sadness regulation. Although this study did not thoroughly evaluate the reliability and validity of the sadness regulation measures, the psychometric properties of these measures were assessed (see Tables 3–5). The most common type of sadness regulation measure among the reviewed studies was self-report, possibly because these studies recruited normal people. Studies on children at early ages also used self-report because children can express or describe how they feel better than their caregivers. According to Saarni [93], during mid-childhood, children have already learnt the fundamental skills of emotion regulation. Achenbach, McConaughy [95] stated that children are dependable reporters of their internalising symptoms. Another study denoted that children as young as 4 years old responded well about their emotions and internal states [96].

Approximately 85% of the studies included in this review utilised one measure of sadness regulation (informant report, self-report or open-ended questions). The remaining studies used more than one measure; whereby 3 of the 40 articles (8%) used two measures (self-report and informant report/open-ended questions) and only one study used the same method of measurements (two self-reports). Several other reviews [e.g., 97,98] reported that most studies that used more than one measure typically used the same method of measurement (two informant reports, two self-reports or two natural/behaviour coding instruments) instead of using several types (one informant report, one self-report, and one naturalistic/behaviour coding instrument).

Most of the measures reported in this review were designated to measure a spectrum of emotions in general. Among the 27 measures identified in this review, only one measure was designed to measure sadness regulation among children and adolescents aged between 6 and 14 years, which was the CSMS developed by Zeman, Shipman [65]. Although CSMS is unsuitable for adults, it is considered as an initial step to develop a more comprehensive battery of tools to measure many interrelated and complex skills related to emotion regulation or emotional competence [65]. The second common measure identified in this study was ERQ developed by Gross and John [17]. This questionnaire measures emotion regulation in general and is limited to only two strategies; expressive suppression and cognitive reappraisal.

Summary of methodological aspects of the reviewed articles

The first aspect of the research methodology was addressing the sample. Small sample size in some studies prevented generalisation of results [e.g., 45,49,60,70,73]. Most of the articles reviewed in this study used either the experimental [e.g., 2,14,19,23,34] or the survey [e.g., 55,63,65,84] designs. Studies that used the dyadic parent-child design discussion task lacked external validity because some children and parents did not participate in the discussion of retroactive sadness-related events [73] or the number of participating parents was small [e.g., 69,84]. Therefore, the influence of parents’ behaviour and their perception towards their children’s emotion regulation abilities were not fully captured. Moreover, the results cannot be generalised for people from different cultural backgrounds, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status because the samples were not well representative [e.g., 46,69,73].

The second aspect of the methodology refers to instrumentation. Some studies that used self-report measures reported some methodological issues. For instance, Elsayed, Song [60] denoted that the caregivers’ experiences of pre- and post-migratory stressors, which could be highly related to children’s emotion regulation abilities and mental health disorders, were not captured by the measures used. Studies that used informant reports highlighted issues related to the accuracy of assessment by mothers, fathers or peers on the child’s emotion regulation as it might be influenced by their perceptions [e.g., 60,69,73].

Meanwhile, studies that used emotion regulation instructions did not provide much information on how they assessed the involvement of the participants in the emotion regulation strategies. For example, Davis [51] induced sadness by playing a sad movie clip and followed by instructions to regulate sadness. Next, a neutral film was played before assessing the children’s sadness using self-reports. Meanwhile, Lohani, Payne [44] induced sadness through film clips and instructed the participants to suppress, accept or distract their attention from their feelings. They then used electrocardiogram (ECG) signals to detect heart activities during acceptance and suppression. However, they did not clarify how sadness regulation was assessed using emotion regulation instructions.

Referring to Table 3, the psychometric properties of the measures reviewed in this study mostly relied on Cronbach’s alpha. Since most of these studies were conducted in the US, England, Canada, Spain, and Australia, they might have used the same instrument as it was developed and validated in a similar context. Despite the diversity of cultures in these countries, there are still many common aspects among them. Therefore, more studies are needed to determine if the same case applies to other community samples. For instance, additional factor analysis using the Asian community would be helpful, mainly because Asians are collectivists and tend to suppress their feelings more [99].

Summary of challenges of the reviewed articles

One of the challenges addressed in the reviewed articles was data acquisition. For instance, studies that included parents found it difficult to recruit willing parents due to scheduling difficulties or varied interests among the parents [69,84]. Meanwhile, other significant challenges were related to the inability to generalise the findings due to small sample size [e.g., 45,49,59,60,69,70,73], socio-demographically non-diverse sample [e.g., 37,52], and sample characteristics [e.g., 55,58,62–64].

Some of the translated instruments may lack cultural validity since most of them were developed based on the Western samples, which proposed cross-cultural validation studies using a larger sample size [37,59,60]. For instance, Arab countries with unique cultures and ongoing conflicts might affect people’s emotional stability and their ability to regulate their emotions. However, no study has tapped into sadness regulation in Arab countries based on bibliometric analysis conducted on some databases employed in this study, such as Web of Science and Scopus (see Fig 3).

Fig 3

Bibliometric analysis.

Note: Analysing studies of sadness regulation by countries in the Web of Science and Scopus databases. This figure indicates the collaborations in studies related to sadness regulation among the US, China, Canada, Israel, and the UK.

Summary of recommendations of the reviewed articles

Some of the reviewed articles agreed on several recommendations despite the variations in the field of interest in sadness regulation. This section highlights the common recommendations. First, studies that included parents and children recommended that future studies should assess why fathers and mothers have varying perceptions and responses to their children’s (daughters and sons) sadness. The studies should also include parental functional role, parenting behaviour, parent gender, and parental influence on emotion regulation [e.g., 46,60,67,70]. The effectiveness of emotion regulation strategies based on children’s judgement for a wide range of negative emotions should also be assessed in the future [54].

Regardless of the influence of culture on emotion regulation, future studies must consider the impacts of age factor. Since age is more likely to influence the process of emotion regulation in early childhood, effective emotion regulation is a crucial developmental task [e.g., 21,51,70]. Most studies on children recommended future longitudinal studies to assess age-related variances in emotion regulation [e.g., 33,58,60].

In terms of measurement, most of the reviewed articles revealed that relying on self-report measures alone is insufficient as they are susceptible to bias. Thus, the inclusion of different types of measurements, apart from self-report, such as observation, informant report, interviews, writing, vagal tone, and heart rate variability, are recommended for future studies [46,49,58,61,70,72,74]. In fact, some studies stated that emotion regulation measures might have not addressed the comprehensive assessment and impacts on effective emotion regulation. Hence, other validity tests to investigate the validity of instruments using different methods are needed, such as discriminant, convergent, divergent, and concurrent validity tests [e.g., 37,53]. Some called for cross-cultural studies to establish validity scores for the measures [e.g., 56,59,60,84]. Zimmer-Gembeck, Skinner [57] suggested the development of guidelines for best measurement practices when multiple coping strategies across multiple stressful events and negative emotions are assessed. Company, Oriol [50] recommended the inclusion of more strategies in emotion regulation measures.

Despite the increasing awareness and interest in the topic of sadness and sadness regulation, this area demands further exploration because health emotion regulation is related to interpersonal relationships and adjustment [74,84]. Some potential mediators related to emotion regulation may be investigated in future, including rumination, self-compassion, and mindfulness [74].

Limitations and future direction

The three keywords used in this study were sadness regulation, sadness management, and coping with sadness; in order to retrieve more articles and general information about this topic. Hence, other studies might have not been identified by the stated search terms. Future studies should consider additional search terms and different search strategies, apart from deploying different frameworks. Besides placing more focus on adults, the effectiveness of sadness regulation strategies in reducing sadness demands further investigation. Instruments focusing on one’s ability to regulate sadness and its effectiveness could also be developed. Therefore, it is recommended to develop a battery of tests to measure sadness regulation considering different aspects, such as the strategies used to regulate sadness, the effectiveness of these strategies on regulating sadness, and the ability to regulate sadness. Since this present scoping review provides information on the existing measures of sadness regulation, future studies may shed light on how the Gross emotion regulation model maps sadness regulation measures along with the subscales. Future studies may also assess sadness regulation in the Arab context by using measures that reflect the influence of culture and ongoing conflicts on sadness regulation.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this scoping review offers general insight into the strategies used to regulate sadness and the existing measures of sadness regulation. The findings revealed several strategies that were used to regulate sadness, including expressive suppression, cognitive reappraisal, and seeking social or emotional support. Based on the findings, emotion regulation strategies seemed to vary across gender, age, and use of strategies. Boys inhibited their sadness more when compared to girls. Younger children expressed their sadness more than older children. Out of the 27 measures that were used to measure emotion and sadness regulation, only one measure was developed to measure sadness regulation among children. The remaining measures measured emotions without specifying any type of emotion, such as ERQ, or the measures were developed to measure two emotions simultaneously, such as ASMS. As for the psychometric properties, most of the studies relied on Cronbach’s alpha, in which only a few studies reported more than one method for validation and reliability assessments.

This study presents a scoping review that embeds a checklist of Prisma elements.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

12 Jan 2021

PONE-D-20-37486

Sadness regulation strategies and measurement: A systematic review

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. ZAID,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

-------

Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 22 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Michael B. Steinborn, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service.

Whilst you may use any professional scientific editing service of your choice, PLOS has partnered with both American Journal Experts (AJE) and Editage to provide discounted services to PLOS authors. Both organizations have experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. To take advantage of our partnership with AJE, visit the AJE website (http://learn.aje.com/plos/) for a 15% discount off AJE services. To take advantage of our partnership with Editage, visit the Editage website (www.editage.com) and enter referral code PLOSEDIT for a 15% discount off Editage services.  If the PLOS editorial team finds any language issues in text that either AJE or Editage has edited, the service provider will re-edit the text for free.

Upon resubmission, please provide the following:

The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript

A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a *supporting information* file)

A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new *manuscript* file)

3. During your revisions, please note that a simple title correction is required: Sadness regulation strategies and measurement: A scoping review." Please ensure this is updated in the manuscript file and the online submission information. Throughout your manuscript and abstract, please also ensure that you are specific in referring to this work as a scoping review.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: No

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: No

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: I thank the editor for the invitation for reviewing the manuscript titled “Sadness regulation strategies and measuremtn: A systematic review”.

Abstract

- As the first sentence stands for now, it may seem like the authors juxtapose depression and sadness. Please revise.

Introduction

Generally, the introduction is too short and lacks a thorough theoretical and clinical presentation of central concepts which leads to research questions.

The concepts are not described in a nuanced fashion. It lacks to mention previous reviews about emotion regulation strategies, and I miss several central references (e.g. the very much cited Aldao et al., 2010; Webb et al, 2012, Augustine & Hemenover, 2009). The introduction also lacks a theoretical “anchor”: here it is natural to describe and cite Gross’ updated process model of emotion regulation (2015).

In specific:

- Again, it may seem like the authors juxtapose depression and sadness. I would omit the word depression, and start the introduction about sadness (from sentence two; “Sadness is a basic human emotion…”., and describe that some people have difficulties regulating these normal feelings, and consequently develop depression.

- Line 60-61: This sentence does not make sense. Please revise/clarify

- Line 63-: “Suppression is a type of…”. The authors claim that suprresision is a nonadaptive “method”, but they should be more nuanced in this claim, as suppression sometimes is adaptive (dependent on context and culture).

- I miss more about the adaptive features of sadness. In its present form, the introduction is a bit “negative” around sadness, although it, in fact is a very important feeling that in fact is adaptive (e.g. increased social support)

Method

- Search keywords: I am concerned that the current keywords will not capture all of the literature available. The search terms should also include known emotion regulation strategies (e.g. rumination, suppression, savoring)

Results

- Page 7, lines 152-154. I would not name “emotion regulation coping strategies” as an emotion regulation strategy.

- Line 160: I would not name “dysregulation expression strategy” as a strategy

- Page 8: “For more strategies, see table 1”: I would like the authors to describe these.

- The measurement-section (pp 21 --) is OK, and the authors did a good job in reviewing the validity and reliability of the measures.

Discussion

OK, but I miss the more thorough discussion in terms of the issues that lacks in the introduction.

CONCLUSION

I find the theme of the review welcoming, and it could be an important contribution for the field. However, in the current form, this study does not convince me. Most importantly, the method (i.e. search strategy) are flawed, and I suspect that several studies have not been picked up by the current search string. Second, the theoretical and practical rationale for conducting the review is not well communicated and needs more work.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Endre Visted

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

16 Mar 2021

Response to Reviewers’ comments

Name of journal: PLOSONE

Manuscript NO: PONE-D-20-37486

Manuscript title: Sadness regulation strategies and measurement: A Scoping review.

Dear Editor,

Thank you very much for your kind e-mail, which gave us the opportunity to revise our manuscript. We edited the paper according to the reviewer’s comments. Please find enclosed response letter. Each comment has been answered accordingly in the manuscript and each text that has been amended was written in red colour and highlighted in Gray in the revised manuscript. We hope that the revised version will fulfil the requirements for publication in PLOS ONE. Thank you for your consideration. We look forward to hearing from you.

Your sincerely,

Sumaia Mohammed Zaid, Ph.D. candidate

Department of Educational psychology and counselling

Faculty of Education,

University of Malaya

Malaysia.

Response to Reviewers’ comments

First of all, we want to deeply thank both the Editor and the Reviewer 1 for their valuable time that they gave to read our manuscript and for their constructive feedback and valuable comments that guided us to improve our manuscript quality. The present manuscript aimed to explore sadness regulation strategies that were reported in the literature and the available measures of sadness regulation. Second, we change the type of the manuscript from systematic review to scoping review; therefore, the title was changed accordingly as the content and aim fit more into scoping reviews papers. Herein, we wrote each comment and our response to it.

Response to editor comments:

1- The abstract should contain the essential findings only. Technical or statistical details should not be reported in the abstract. I suggest reworking the abstract in the revised version of the manuscript.

Response:

Thank you for your comment, we rewrote the abstract and remove the statistical details.

2- I agree with reviewer 1 that the structure of the introduction needs to be reworked. At first, I suggest providing a brief overview about the goals of the study. In the next step, the state of the art in the field should be portrayed and relevant empirical work should be referred here. Then, the "problem" or the "gap" in the knowledge should be stated, and the hypotheses or research questions should result from this reasoning. Since you are particularly focused on methodological aspects of empirical studies, I would suggest my own work that could potentially serve as a tutorial to guide you in the process of revision. Although my work deals with a different topic (sustained attention), it could nevertheless help you by providing a showcase of how to configure empirical work in a method-oriented review.

Response:

Thank you for your constructive comment, we rewrote the introduction, we tried to provide more information about emotion regulation model and explained the scope of the study and the gap in the literature.

3- The method of aggregating studies lacks important information. It is important not to miss existing studies so I suggest taking all efforts to carefully screen the body of literature in the revision process. Also, the goals of this review should be distinguished from other existing review articles on the same or similar topic.

Response:

We aimed to explore the knowledge gab in sadness regulation concept in general. Therefore, we used scoping review and our key words was focused on the term sadness regulation specifically. We amid to explore the strategies that are used to regulate sadness as well as to explore the available measures of sadness regulation. Furthermore, the researchers aimed to mapping sadness regulation as integrated unite. We attempted to add key words such as “strategies” and “measurement” but the results were more into economic field.

4- While I appreciate qualitative reviews, it is important to find ways of condensing the relevant information. The outcome of the review should be informative, only stating that studies are methodologically different, using different design methods, and so on, is not sufficient as it does not inform the reader about the results of empirical work in the field.

Response:

Thank you for your comment, we highlighted key findings for all the articles that were reviewed, a column was added to table (1) that we dedicated to present the key findings kindly check the last column in Table 1.

5- Tables should be presented according to APA standards. Oversize tables should be avoided, if possible. I suggest reconsidering the information presented in tables in the revision of the manuscript.

Response:

Thank you for your comment, we fix the format of the table and modified its content.

6- The final outcome should be condensed in a take home message. My suggestion is to try answering the following questions during the revision process: What are the key knowledge aggregated from the many empirical studies? What are the gaps that should be addressed in the future? What are the critical points that could be due to the use of different designs or other technical aspects of previous studies? What are the guidelines that could be provided to improve future research based on this review?

Response:

Thank you for your helpful comment, we tried to highlight these points in discussion part, we outlined the discussion in subheadings namely, sadness regulation strategies, sadness regulation measurement, summary of methodological aspects, challenges, and recommendation of previous works that we reviewed. Kindly check discussion part.

7- The manuscript should be checked for grammar errors and typos.

Response:

Thank you for your comment, we sent for proofreading.

Response to reviewer comments

Abstract

- As the first sentence stands for now, it may seem like the authors juxtapose depression and sadness. Please revise.

Response:

Thank you for your comment, we rewrote the abstract and remove the first sentence related to depression.

Introduction

- Generally, the introduction is too short and lacks a thorough theoretical and clinical presentation of central concepts which leads to research questions.

The concepts are not described in a nuanced fashion. It lacks to mention previous reviews about emotion regulation strategies, and I miss several central references (e.g. the very much cited Aldao et al., 2010; Webb et al, 2012, Augustine & Hemenover, 2009). The introduction also lacks a theoretical “anchor”: here it is natural to describe and cite Gross’ updated process model of emotion regulation (2015).

Response:

Thank you for your informative comment, we rewrote the introduction we included the Gross model 2015 as well as previous reviews.

- Again, it may seem like the authors juxtapose depression and sadness. I would omit the word depression, and start the introduction about sadness (from sentence two; “Sadness is a basic human emotion…”., and describe that some people have difficulties regulating these normal feelings, and consequently develop depression.

Response:

Thank you for your comment, we deleted the first sentence and started introduction “Sadness is a basic human emotion…”.

- Line 60-61: This sentence does not make sense. Please revise/clarify

Response:

Thank you for your comment, there was extra coma separated the sentence and make the meaning discontinues, we deleted the coma and modify the sentence so the meaning becomes clearer. “Individuals face many challenges when coping with negative emotions including sadness throughout their lives [6, 7]. Therefore, the capability to….” Kindly check line 52-54.

- Line 63-: “Suppression is a type of…”. The authors claim that suppression is a nonadaptive “method”, but they should be more nuanced in this claim, as suppression sometimes is adaptive (dependent on context and culture).

Response:

Thank you for your comment, we completely agree with your point. Here we meant that in the context of sadness, suppression is considered as non-adaptive strategy because “it has been found that using expression suppression is ineffectual in reducing sadness experience (Gross & John, 2003; Schindler & Querengässer, 2018)”. Accordingly, we modify the sentence to become “Suppression is a type of non-adaptive method of emotion regulation for negative emotions like sadness”

- I miss more about the adaptive features of sadness. In its present form, the introduction is a bit “negative” around sadness, although it, in fact is a very important feeling that in fact is adaptive (e.g. increased social support).

Response:

Thank you for your comment, we talked about the positive side of sadness kindly check lines 65-72.

Method

- Search keywords: I am concerned that the current keywords will not capture all of the literature available. The search terms should also include known emotion regulation strategies (e.g. rumination, suppression, savouring)

Response:

We aimed to explore the knowledge gab in sadness regulation concept in general. Therefore, we used scoping review and our key words was focused on the term sadness regulation specifically. We amid to explore the strategies that are used to regulate sadness as well as to explore the available measures of sadness regulation. Furthermore, the researchers aimed to mapping sadness regulation as integrated unite. We attempted to add key words such as “strategies” and “measurement” but the results were more into economic field.

Results

- Page 7, lines 152-154. I would not name “emotion regulation coping strategies” as an emotion regulation strategy.

- Line 160: I would not name “dysregulation expression strategy” as a strategy

Response:

Thank you for your comment, we change the term “strategy” to “aspect” as it is considered an aspect of sadness regulation. Most of the studies examined three aspects of sadness regulation which are: (1) tendency to mask or inhibit the expression of sadness (inhibition), (2) the expression of sadness in culturally unacceptable ways (dysregulation), and (3) managing sadness in adaptive ways (coping) (e.g., Cassano & Perry-Parrish, 2007).

- Page 8: “For more strategies, see table 1”: I would like the authors to describe these.

Response:

Thank you for your comment, we described more strategies that were reposted frequently in the previous studies and we presented the strategies in figure 2 (P.14).

Discussion

OK, but I miss the more thorough discussion in terms of the issues that lacks in the introduction.

Response:

Thank you for your comment, we outline the discussion in subheadings namely, sadness regulation strategies, sadness regulation measurement, summary of methodological aspects, challenges, and recommendation of previous works that we reviewed. Kindly check discussion part.

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

15 Apr 2021

PONE-D-20-37486R1

Sadness regulation strategies and measurement: A Scoping Review

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. ZAID,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. The manuscript was reviewed again by the same expert and the comments are appended below. As you can see, the referee found your manuscript has improved but there are several remaining issues that should be addressed in a further revision. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 30 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Michael B. Steinborn, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: I thank the editor for the invitation for reviewing the manuscript titled “Sadness regulation strategies and measurement: A Scoping Review”. The manuscript is a revised version of a previously submitted manuscript.

Overall, I think the manuscript has improved, and I thank the authors for revising the manuscript according to previous comments. However, the manuscript still have some flaws and inconsistencies. In its current form I can not endorse this manuscript for publication. The main flaws are:

* language and quality of writing and reporting.

* empirical usefulness of the manuscript (could be increased, see my comments under “Results”.

As the previous report, I submit my comments according to sections in the manuscript.

Abstract

- Abstract is better written. From reading the abstract, I expect that the authors wish to provide a descriptive overview of research that include strategies to regulate sadness, and an overview of the measures used in these research trials. However, the research questions also state that the authors want to examine psychometric properties with the measures. I would like the results of these properties also to be reported in the abstract.

- Sentence “while some of these studies used informant report…” does not make sense.

Introduction

Generally, the authors have provided new research and better language in this revision. However, the language is not good enough for publication in the current form.

The presentation of Gross’ model is sufficient, but is somewhat not integrated with the text that follows. The examples of sadness strategies should be explained in terms of the Gross model (page 5).

Method

- I appreciate that the authors has omitted the term “systematic review”.

- Fig2, prisma flow diagram: Please state the reasons for exclusion.

Results

Again, I think the reporting is inconsistent, and the results also have major flaws regarding language.

- I think the reporting of the results are somewhat unclear, referring to approximations, where I wonder about the exact number (e.g. p 9, “approximately 110 different strategies”; page 10, line 7 “reported in several studies”, etc.)

- P. 10: Wording “when people are unable to deal with their sadness and emotions, they tend to seek experts…”, sounds odd. People are dealing their emotions by using strategies, such as seeking social support.

- Page 10: “[Rumination] was discussed in six studies”: odd wording, please revise.

- Fig 3: please use a table instead, sorting strategies by frequencies.

- Page 12-13: too long parentheses starting on last line of page 12.

- Page 24: “this systematic review”: please revise to “scoping”

- I like the idea of presenting psychometric properties of the included measures. However, I think the paper would increase its strength if the authors instead of describing these attributes, did a quality assessment of the included measures. This would inform the research field to a greater degree than in its current form. Although I think the authors have done a good job with describing and defining challenges within each study, it is a lot of information that is hard to systematize and process for the reader. Inclusion of a quality assessment would be more informative.

Discussion

The discussion also needs to be worked on in terms of language, and some of the sentences does not make sense.

- The authors state on page 28 that expressive suppression was the most common strategy preferred. What study are the authors referring to? Further, it sounds odd that people suppress sadness to avoid hurting others and preserve harmonious relationships.

- P 30: refer to the study as a scoping review

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Endre Visted

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

20 May 2021

Response to Reviewers’ comments

Name of journal: PLOS ONE

Manuscript NO: PONE-D-20-37486R1

Manuscript title: Sadness regulation strategies and measurement: A Scoping review.

Dear Editor,

Thank you very much for your e-mail, and we deeply apologize for making reviewers go for the second round of review. We revised the paper according to the reviewer’s comments. Please find the enclosed response letter. Each comment has been answered accordingly in the manuscript and each text that has been amended was written in red colour in the revised manuscript. We hope that the revised version will fulfil the requirements for publication in PLOS ONE. Thank you for your consideration. We look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely,

Sumaia Mohammed Zaid, PhD candidate

Department of Educational psychology and counselling

Faculty of Education,

University of Malaya

Malaysia.

Response to Reviewer’ comments

First of all, we want to profoundly thank the Reviewers for their valuable time that they gave to read our manuscript and for their constructive feedback and valuable comments that guided us to improve our manuscript quality. The present manuscript aimed to explore sadness regulation strategies that were reported in the literature and the available measures of sadness regulation. Herein, we wrote each comment and our response to it.

Abstract

1- Abstract is better written. From reading the abstract, I expect that the authors wish to provide a descriptive overview of research that include strategies to regulate sadness, and an overview of the measures used in these research trials. However, the research questions also state that the authors want to examine psychometric properties with the measures. I would like the results of these properties also to be reported in the abstract.

Response:

Thanks for your comment, we included the psychometric properties results in the abstract. Researchers also modified the word examine in the research question to “to explore the existing instruments used to measure sadness regulation along with their psychometric properties”.

2- Sentence “while some of these studies used informant report…” does not make sense.

Response:

Thanks for your comment, we rewrote the sentence properly “ Moreover, we identified four types of measures namely self-reported, informant report (parents or peers), open-ended questions and emotion regulation instructions.”.

Introduction

Generally, the authors have provided new research and better language in this revision. However, the language is not good enough for publication in the current form.

The presentation of Gross’ model is sufficient but is somewhat not integrated with the text that follows. The examples of sadness strategies should be explained in terms of the Gross model (page 5).

Response:

Thanks for your comment, we tried to integrate the Gross model with the following paragraphs also to explain the strategies based on the Gross model.

Method

1- I appreciate that the authors have omitted the term “systematic review”.

Response:

We are sorry for forgetting to replace the word systematic review in the whole manuscript, we did check the whole text and replace the word systematic review with scoping review.

2- Fig2, prisma flow diagram: Please state the reasons for exclusion.

Response:

Thanks for your comment, we provided the reasons for exclusion in Fig 2.

Results

Again, I think the reporting is inconsistent, and the results also have major flaws regarding language.

1- I think the reporting of the results are somewhat unclear, referring to approximations, where I wonder about the exact number (e.g. p 9, “approximately 110 different strategies”; page 10, line 7 “reported in several studies”, etc.)

Response:

The sentence “approximately 110 different strategies” refers to the total number of the strategies that were found across the 40 articles included in the scoping review. The phrase “reported in several studies” refers to distraction strategy, we modify it to “The third common strategy is distraction (employed in 8 studies), which refers to cognitively and behaviourally removing oneself from negative emotions by engaging in activities unrelated to the present situation [e.g., 50, 52-54], Paez, Martinez-Sanchez, Mendiburo [55].”

2- P. 10: Wording “when people are unable to deal with their sadness and emotions, they tend to seek experts…”, sounds odd. People are dealing with their emotions by using strategies, such as seeking social support.

Response:

Thanks for your comment, what we mean by this sentence is that (People use seeking social support strategy to regulate their emotions especially when they are unable to deal with their negative emotions on their own, so they seek others intervention (e.g., experts, closed people) to help them overcome their negative emotions). We rewrote it “People seek social support (experts, closely related people) especially to regulate their negative emotions”.

3- Page 10: “[Rumination] was discussed in six studies”: odd wording, please revise.

Response:

Thanks for your comment, it was modified to “Rumination is the fifth common strategy employed in 6 of the studies. This strategy refers to the tendency of repeatedly thinking about the feelings along with their causes and consequences)”.

4- Fig 3: please use a table instead, sorting strategies by frequencies.

Response:

Thanks for your comment, we replaced the figure with a table, we presented each article and the strategies reported in that article.

5- Page 12-13: too long parentheses starting on the last line of page 12.

Response:

Thanks for your comment, we rewrote this part (p. 13-14).

6- Page 24: “this systematic review”: please revise to “scoping”

Response:

Thanks for your comment, we replace systematic review with scoping review in the whole text.

7- I like the idea of presenting psychometric properties of the included measures. However, I think the paper would increase its strength if the authors instead of describing these attributes, did a quality assessment of the included measures. This would inform the research field to a greater degree than in its current form. Although I think the authors have done a good job with describing and defining challenges within each study, it is a lot of information that is hard to systematize and process for the reader. Inclusion of a quality assessment would be more informative.

Response:

Thanks for your comment, the researchers aimed to explore and describe the strategies used to regulate sadness and the measures used to assess sadness regulation and highlight their psychometric properties. We did not aim to evaluate the psychometric properties of the existing measures. Researchers conducted a simple quality assessment for the included measures per study and instrument using COSMIN assessment of psychometric properties. Most of the studies included in this scoping review used pre-validated instruments and reported only Cronbach alpha. Kindly check the results section pages 27-34.

Discussion

The discussion also needs to be worked on in terms of language, and some of the sentences does not make sense.

1- The authors state on page 28 that expressive suppression was the most common strategy preferred. What study are the authors referring to? Further, it sounds odd that people suppress sadness to avoid hurting others and preserve harmonious relationships.

Response:

Thanks for your comment, we deleted the word preferred, and rewrote it this way, “we identified that expressive suppression was the most commonly used strategy across the reviewed articles. According to Huwaë and Schaafsma [79], people in collectivistic culture tend to suppress their negative or positive emotions to avoid hurting others and to preserve harmonious relationship”.

2- P 30: refer to the study as a scoping review

Response:

Thanks for your comment, we change it to scoping review.

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

24 Jun 2021

PONE-D-20-37486R2

Sadness regulation strategies and measurement: A Scoping Review

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. ZAID,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Editorial comment: The same reviewer of the previous manuscript version again commented on your manuscript and found your work has improved considerably. The remaining points seem minor to me, therefore, I would suggest preparing a final revision of your work according to the referee's comments. I think it will not be necessary to send the manuscript out for review, which means that I will likely make a final decision based on my own reading. In general, I think this work is somewhat unusual in its structure but I see this as innovation not as limitation. This work is interesting and has much to contribute and provides an informative review of the literature in a well-specified field of research.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 08 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Michael B. Steinborn, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: I thank the editor for the invitation for reviewing the manuscript titled “Sadness regulation strategies and measurement: A Scoping Review”. The manuscript is a revised version of a previously submitted manuscript (second revision).

Overall, the manuscript has improved, and I thank the authors for revising the manuscript according to previous comments. The reporting of results and tables have improved significantly. With further revisions, I think the manuscript may reach sufficient quality for publication.

The current manuscript has two main concerns:

* language and quality of writing, especially in the introduction

* lack of essential information regarding quality assessment

Regarding the first point: language. I strongly recommend the authors to submit the manuscript to a copy-editing service to increase the quality of language. There are several parts of the manuscript that lack sufficient quality of the English language, especially in the abstract (p.2, lines 37-38; 40-43) and the introduction (e.g. p 3, lines 59-60; 69-71).

Regarding the second point:

The evaluation of methodological quality and psychometric properties of instruments has improved greatly. The reporting and tables are very good. Thanks to the authors for doing these amendments. However, I miss information about who did these assessments (one or two authors?). In case just one author did this, I on beforehand strongly recommend the authors to add another rater to increase validity and reliability of the assessment. Please also report how the authors reached consensus in cases of dissimilar ratings.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Endre Visted

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

23 Jul 2021

Response to Reviewers’ comments

Name of journal: PLOS ONE

Manuscript NO: PONE-D-20-37486R2

Manuscript title: Sadness regulation strategies and measurement: A Scoping review.

Dear Editor,

Thank you very much for your e-mail, and your encouraging evaluation. We revised the manuscript according to the reviewer’s comments. Please find the enclosed response letter. Each comment has been addressed accordingly in the manuscript and the amendments were written in red colour in the revised manuscript. We hope that the revised version will fulfil the requirements for publication in PLOS ONE. Thank you for your consideration. We are looking forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely,

Sumaia Mohammed Zaid, Ph.D. candidate

Department of Educational psychology and counselling

Faculty of Education,

University of Malaya

Malaysia.

Response to Reviewer’ comments

First of all, we want to profoundly thank the Reviewers for their valuable time given to read the second revised version of our manuscript and for their constructive feedback and valuable comments that guided us to improve our manuscript quality. The present manuscript aimed to explore sadness regulation strategies that were reported in the literature and the available measures of sadness regulation. Herein, we wrote each comment and our response to it.

- Language. I strongly recommend the authors to submit the manuscript to a copy-editing service to increase the quality of language. There are several parts of the manuscript that lack sufficient quality of the English language, especially in the abstract (p.2, lines 37-38; 40-43) and the introduction (e.g. p 3, lines 59-60; 69-71).

Response:

We have fixed the highlighted sentences in the abstract and introduction and then sent the manuscript to the proofreading and editing service for the third time.

- lack of essential information regarding quality assessment: I miss information about who did these assessments (one or two authors?). In case just one author did this, I on beforehand strongly recommend the authors to add another rater to increase validity and reliability of the assessment. Please also report how the authors reached consensus in cases of dissimilar ratings.

Response:

Thanks for your comment, we forgot to explain this point in the manuscript. Actually, two reviewers (SZ and ST) independently applied the COSMIN checklist to evaluate the methodological quality of the psychometric properties reported in the included studies. Any discrepancies between the two reviewers were resolved by involving a third reviewer who is an expert in psychometrics. We followed the same method of resolving discrepancies that was used by (Cartagena-Ramos, D., Fuentealba-Torres, M., Rebustini, F., Leite, A. C. A. B., de Andrade Alvarenga, W., Arcêncio, R. A., ... & Nascimento, L. C. (2018). Systematic review of the psychometric properties of instruments to measure sexual desire. BMC medical research methodology, 18(1), 1-13)

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

30 Jul 2021

Sadness regulation strategies and measurement: A scoping review

PONE-D-20-37486R3

Dear Dr. ZAID,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Michael B. Steinborn, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

5 Aug 2021

PONE-D-20-37486R3

Sadness regulation strategies and measurement: A scoping review

Dear Dr. Zaid:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Michael B. Steinborn

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE