TABLE 3.

Emotion regulation goals and situational factors as joint predictors for emotion regulation strategies in random intercept models.

	Active coping	Distraction	Rumination	Cognitive reappraisal	Expressive suppression
Intercept	–0.01	–0.03	–0.01	0.01	–0.06
Emotion Regulation Goals
To feel better	0.09∗	0.19∗∗∗	0.10∗∗	0.12∗∗∗	0.04
To avoid conflict	0.05	0.12∗∗	0.03	0.07	0.21∗∗∗
To keep up appearances	–0.08	0.11∗∗	0.07	0.04	0.40∗∗∗
To make someone else feel better	0.03	0.10∗∗	0.03	0.09∗	0.03
To influence others	0.08∗	−0.07∗	0.01	0.02	–0.05
Situational Factors
Perceived control	0.09∗	0.03	0.00	0.13∗∗	0.06
Emotional intensity	–0.14∗∗∗	–0.07	0.30∗∗∗	–0.11∗∗	−0.08∗
Expected reoccurrence	−0.09∗	–0.04	0.01	–0.12∗∗	–0.02
Interaction Effects
To work or learn	0.03	0.02	–0.01	0.04	0.02
To feel better ∗ emotional intensity		0.00		–0.01
To feel better ∗ expected reoccurrence	0.00	0.02		–0.05

^∗p < 0.05. ^∗∗p < 0.01. ^∗∗∗p < 0.001. Effects reported as standardized regression estimates based on the random intercept model. Significance is estimated by using Kenward–Rogers approximation (Kenward and Roger, 1997), and given the presence of heteroskedasticity, it is based on robust estimation (Koller, 2016). The model included person-means of the focal variables, but for simplicity, we omitted them in the table.