This scale assesses individual differences (trait level) in perceived choice and awareness of self. Perceived choice reflects feeling a sense of choice with respect to one’s behavior and awareness of self reflects being aware of one’s feelings and one’s sense of self. The PCASS is a short, 10- item scale, with two 5-item subscales. The first subscale is perceived choice in one’s actions, and the second is awareness of oneself. The subscales can either be used separately or they can be combined into an overall score.

This scale was formerly labeled as Self-Determination Scale (SDS) and has been renamed to better capture the constructs it assesses. Those interested in measures of self-determination, please refer to the following: (1) General Causality Orientations Scale (GCOS) or (2) Autonomous Functioning Index (AFI) when assessing global individual differences in self- determination/autonomy; (3) Self-Regulation Questionnaires (SRQ) when assessing self- determination/autonomy of a specific domain/behavior (e.g., academic, exercise).

The Emotion Regulation Inventory (ERI) was developed by Roth, Assor, Niemiec, Ryan & Deci, 2009 to measure three styles of emotion regulation that correspond to autonomous, controlled, and impersonal modes of functioning, respectively (Roth, Vansteenkiste, & Ryan, 2019).

1. Integrative emotion regulation reflects an autonomous style of dealing with negative emotions. It involves a welcoming attitude towards negative emotions, openness and curiosity to understand the reasons behind negative emotions, and a willingness to learn from negative emotions as guides for future behavior. The high levels of emotional awareness typical of integrative emotion regulation allow people to express their emotions choicefully. 
   
2. Suppressive emotion regulation is more controlled in nature and reflects an inner compulsion to avoid or minimize negative emotions. It involves a lack of willingness to recognize negative emotions for oneself and a tendency to hide negative emotions towards others.
   
3. Dysregulated emotion regulation reflects an impersonal and helpless style of dealing with negative emotions. People with this emotion regulation style feel easily overwhelmed by negative emotions and express their negative emotions in ways they do not want.

The ERI initially consisted of 3 or 4 items per scale but was later adapted to include 6 items per scale. The original items used in Roth et al. (2009) are indicated with an asterisk in the downloadable PDF below.

Research has demonstrated adequate reliability and evidence for the internal structure of the ERI (see validation articles: Benita et al., 2020; Brenning et al., 2015; Roth et al., 2009). Moreover, the three scales from the ERI were found to relate to indicators of mental health in theoretically expected ways, with integrative emotion regulation relating positively to well-being and prosocial behavior (Benita et al., 2017, 2020) and with suppressive and dysregulated emotion regulation relating to increased risk for psychopathology (Brenning et al., 2022; Waterschoot et al., in press).

These associations have been confirmed in different countries (Benita et al., 2020). Each of the three emotion regulation were also predicted by theoretically plausible parental antecedents, with autonomy-supportive parenting relating positively to integrative emotion regulation and with controlling parenting relating positively to suppressive and dysregulated emotion regulation (see Brenning et al., 2015; Roth et al., 2009; Roth & Assor, 2012).

The ERI can be used to measure individuals’ regulation of negative emotions in general but also their regulation of specific negative emotions such as anger, sadness, or stress. The instructions and items in the scale refer to negative emotions in general but can be adapted easily to refer to specific negative emotions. For example, Brenning et al. 2020 applied ERI items to negative emotions experienced by parents during interactions with their toddler. The specific items selected from the ERI by Brenning et al. 2020 were: Integrative: 3, 6, 9, 12 / Suppressive: 2, 5, 8, 11 / Dysregulated: 1, 4, 7, 13

This scale assesses the degree to which coaches use a controlling communication style when interacting with athletes.

WHY DO YOU ENGAGE IN WALKING?

We are interested in the reasons underlying peoples’ decisions to engage, or not engage in walking. Walking may include walking for transport, leisure, and whilst at work.

Using the scale below, please indicate to what extent each of the following items is true for you. Please note that there are no right or wrong answers and no trick questions. We simply want to know how you personally feel about walking. Your responses will be held in confidence and only used for our research purposes.

The concept of subjective vitality refers to the state of feeling alive and alert – to having energy available to the self. Vitality is considered an aspect of eudaimonic well-being (Ryan & Deci, 2001), as being vital and energetic is part of what it means to be fully functioning and psychologically well.

Ryan and Frederick (1997) developed a scale of subjective vitality that has two versions. One version is considered an individual difference. In other words, it is an ongoing characteristics of individuals which has been found to relate positively to self-actualization and self-esteem and to relate negatively to depression and anxiety. The other version of the scale assesses the state of subjective vitality rather than its enduring aspect.

At the state level, vitality has been found to relate negatively to physical pain and positively to the amount of autonomy support in a particular situation (e.g., Nix, Ryan, Manly, & Deci, 1999). In short, because the concept of psychological well-being is addressed at both the individual difference level and the state level, the two levels of assessing subjective vitality tie into the two level of well being.

The original scale had 7 items and was validated at both levels by Ryan and Frederick (1997). Subsequent work by Bostic, Rubio, and Hood (2000) using confirmatory factor analyses indicated that a 6-item version worked even better than the 7-item version.