Although people often use multiple strategies to regulate their emotions, it is unclear if using more strategies effectively changes emotional outcomes. This may be because there is no clear, data-driven structure to organise which strategies people use together, so strategies with opposing impacts are modelled together. We first conducted a multilevel factor analysis of negative-and positive-emotion regulation strategies among undergraduates (n = 92) completing ecological momentary assessment three times per day for 10 days. Solutions including 3within/3-between factors were most interpretable. Using more between-person Adaptive Engagement strategies and within-person Adaptive Engagement, Enhancement, and Behavioural strategies predicted improved mood, whereas using more between-person Aversive Cognitive and within-person Aversive Cognitive and Disengagement strategies predicted worse mood, ps < .05. Using a greater quantity of strategies may thus promote better, or worse, emotional outcomes, depending on the class of strategies used.