Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2025 Aug 25.
Published before final editing as: Emotion. 2025 Aug 21:10.1037/emo0001568. doi: 10.1037/emo0001568

Childhood maltreatment impacts emotion regulation difficulties, but not strategy use, throughout adolescence and young adulthood

Claudia Clinchard 1, Brooks Casas 1,2, Jungmeen Kim-Spoon 1
PMCID: PMC12373007  NIHMSID: NIHMS2096772  PMID: 40839473

Abstract

Child maltreatment has been linked to numerous psychopathology outcomes throughout life, with emotion regulation proposed as a transdiagnostic mechanism. However, it remains relatively unknown how childhood abuse and neglect may differentially predict the development of emotion regulation during later years vulnerable to psychopathology. We examined the impact of early abuse and neglect experiences on the developmental trajectories of emotion regulation throughout adolescence and into young adulthood. The sample consisted of 167 adolescents who completed questionnaires assessing emotion regulation difficulties and emotion regulation strategies (cognitive reappraisal and expressive suppression) approximately annually across six time points, from ages 14 to 20 (2014–2021). Information on maltreatment experienced from ages 1 to 13 was collected at 18 to 19 years. Conditional growth curve models examining the effects of both abuse and neglect from ages 1 to 13 on the initial levels and growth rates of emotion regulation difficulties and strategies from ages 14 to 20. Abuse predicted developmental changes in emotion regulation difficulties, such that greater childhood abuse was associated with larger increases in emotion regulation difficulties from ages 14 to 20. Neglect predicted the initial levels of emotion regulation difficulties such that greater childhood neglect was associated with greater difficulties in emotion regulation at age 14. The findings suggest developmental consequences of childhood abuse and neglect evidenced by impaired development of emotion regulation abilities throughout adolescence and into young adulthood, whereas emotion regulation strategy is relatively unaffected by childhood abuse and neglect.

Keywords: abuse, neglect, child maltreatment, emotion regulation difficulties, emotion regulation strategy

Introduction

Adolescence is a period in which emotion regulation skills develop and improve rapidly (Silvers, 2022). However, adolescence is also when psychopathology tends to emerge and often continues during adulthood. Many of these psychopathology symptoms are attributed to impaired emotion regulation abilities, which are known to be a transdiagnostic mechanism (Joormann & Stanton, 2016; Lee et al., 2014; Weissman et al., 2019). In the current literature, maltreatment has been linked to poor emotion regulation development in childhood (Kim & Cicchetti, 2010). However, we do not have a clear understanding of the long-term effects of childhood maltreatment on the development of emotion regulation throughout adolescence and beyond. The current study investigated how childhood abuse and neglect (occurring from ages 1 to 13) may differentially impact the developmental trajectories of emotion regulation difficulties and emotion regulation strategies across adolescence and through the transition into young adulthood (from ages 14 to 20).

The peak in emotional reactivity during adolescence occurs at the same time as systems of cognitive control which direct emotion regulation continue to develop. This imbalance is the basis of the leading developmental neuroscience models of adolescent-motivated behaviors that explain the increase in risk-taking behaviors and the origination of psychopathology during adolescence (e.g., Ernst, et al. 2006; Shulman et al., 2016). Among these models, the dual systems model proposes that a slow-developing cognitive control system matures through late adolescence and lags behind a fast-developing socioemotional system that peaks during middle adolescence, giving rise to increased risky behaviors (Shulman et al., 2016; Steinberg, 2008). These perspectives suggest the importance of emotion regulation abilities for reducing risk-taking behaviors.

Emotion Regulation Development

Emotion regulation is a crucial skill required to get by in day-to-day life. Emotion regulation refers to how individuals attempt to influence which emotions are being experienced, when they are being experienced, and how they are expressed (Gross et al., 2006). Two forms of emotion regulation are often discussed: cognitive reappraisal, a category of cognitive change that involves interpreting an emotion-eliciting situation in such a way that changes its emotional impact, and expressive suppression, a form of response modulation that involves inhibiting ongoing emotion-expressive behavior (Gross et al., 2006). Cognitive reappraisal has been consistently linked to positive psychological outcomes (Aldao et al., 2010; Gross & John, 2003; Troy et al., 2010), whereas expressive suppression is often considered a maladaptive emotion regulation strategy, with greater use of maladaptive strategies linked to greater levels of psychopathology (Aldao et al., 2010).

Despite the theoretical significance of the role that emotion regulation plays in the development of psychopathology, empirical studies on developmental changes in emotion regulation during adolescence—a developmental period known for heightened emotional reactivity with regulatory abilities lagging behind—are scarce. As for emotion regulation abilities, one available longitudinal study indicated that emotion regulation abilities improved from early adolescence (age 11) to young adulthood (age 22) (Hardy et al., 2020), whereas the other longitudinal study indicated non-significant change in emotion regulation abilities during adolescence, from age 14 to 17 (Herd et al., 2022). As for emotion regulation strategies of cognitive reappraisal and suppression, a longitudinal study observed 9- to 15-year-olds across three years and found no age-related changes in cognitive reappraisal and expressive suppression during late childhood and adolescence (Gullone et al., 2010). Similarly, another longitudinal study examined cognitive reappraisal and expressive suppression across four years from ages 14 to 17 and reported non-significant developmental changes during adolescence (Herd et al., 2022).

In contrast to these longitudinal findings, cross-sectional studies of emotion regulation strategies involving larger age ranges beyond adolescence yielded mixed findings. One cross-sectional study has reported significant age-related differences in cognitive reappraisal, suggesting increases from early adolescence (i.e., ages 10–13) to young adulthood (i.e., ages 18–22) (McRae et al., 2012). Another cross-sectional study involving 10- to 18-year-olds reported no significant age differences in cognitive reappraisal or expressive suppression (Gresham & Gullone, 2012). These cross-sectional studies on emotion regulation strategies imply that cognitive reappraisal and expressive suppression may develop at different paces spanning from early adolescence and into young adulthood, yet this observation is inconclusive, especially since longitudinal data based on within-person changes are lacking. Overall, as executive, verbal, and social cognitive skills continue to develop, emotion regulation abilities and the use of adaptive emotion regulation strategies are expected to improve (Ahmed et al., 2015). Despite this theoretical expectation, there is no clear answer on developmental trajectories of emotion regulation development throughout adolescence, primarily due to an insufficient amount of longitudinal investigation in the current literature.

Emotion Regulation and Child Maltreatment

Turning to environmental factors contributing to the development of emotion regulation, research has suggested that nurturing and supportive caregiving is essential for children to develop adaptive emotion regulation strategies (i.e., greater use of cognitive reappraisal) (Jaffe et al., 2010). In particular, research has suggested the importance of a healthy family emotional context that provides a space for adolescents to learn to use adaptive emotion regulation skills effectively. For example, the family emotional context involving adaptive parent emotion regulation abilities, better parenting practices, and higher parent-child relationship quality —promotes emotion regulation development in adolescents (Herd et al., 2020; Morris et al., 2007).

Neglect, also referred to as omission, involves failure to attend to the basic needs of a child (Rogosch & Cicchetti, 2004). Abuse, also referred to as commission, involves inappropriate and harmful behaviors toward the child (Rogosch & Cicchetti, 2004). Existing work has indicated that abuse and neglect have distinct effects on the recognition of emotion. Specifically, neglected children have been shown to have greater difficulty in distinguishing between emotional expressions, whereas children who experienced physical abuse showed a response bias for angry facial expressions (Pollak et al., 2000). It follows that when a child experiences maltreatment while growing up, they are unlikely to experience the optimal environment that facilitates healthy development of emotion regulation skills. Further, when a child experiences an abusive environment, this environment may serve to promote ineffective emotion regulation strategies that have a later adverse impact on emotional functioning (Briere & Jordan, 2009; Gruhn & Compas, 2020).

Indeed, a seminal study of school-aged, maltreated children shows that childhood abuse, rather than neglect, was related to emotion dysregulation (Shields & Cicchetti, 1998). Further, in a study of mother-child dyads with school-aged children, maltreating mothers were shown to provide less emotion coaching and less validation in response to children’s disclosures of negative emotion, had difficulty regulating their own emotional arousal, and lacked the emotional understanding skills that are critical to responding appropriately to their children’s disclosures and expressions of negative emotion (Shipman et al., 2007). Such parenting behaviors can disrupt the development of healthy emotion regulation among their children, which then can affect how children interact with their surroundings as they move through adolescence.

To date, however, empirical research focusing on how neglect impacts emotion regulation development is rare, as suggested by a recent scoping review (Simon et al., 2024). Available evidence suggests long-term effects such that emotional neglect in childhood is associated with greater emotion regulation difficulties in young adulthood (Berzenski, 2018), but more work is needed to examine emotion regulation development in adolescence. In a pilot study examining emotional understanding and emotion regulation in children who experienced neglect, neglected children had a lower understanding of negative emotions and fewer adaptive emotion regulation abilities (Shipman et al., 2005). However, it is not known how these findings would extend into adolescence and beyond, given that neglect, emotional understanding, and emotion regulation were measured at the same age (i.e., mean age of 9). Additionally, research in school-age children found that neglect, physical abuse, and sexual abuse were each significantly associated with lower emotion regulation (measured at a single time point), with no significant differences in the magnitude of their effects (Kim & Cicchetti, 2010). However, it is not known whether these findings hold for developmental trajectories of emotion regulation during adolescence.

There are many mechanisms proposed for the pathway from early abuse to experiencing more emotion regulation difficulties during adolescence. Emotion dysregulation is a pattern of emotion regulation that involves interference with an individual’s goals (Beauchaine et al., 2015; Cole et al., 2013), either due to the failure to use any adaptive emotion regulation strategy or the habitual use of a maladaptive strategy. One mechanism through which early abuse leads to greater emotion dysregulation is heightened emotional reactivity, which interferes with emotion regulation (Weissman et al., 2019). Being on high alert all the time may be adaptive in situations that are threatening (e.g., living in an abusive home), but may lead to less adaptive functioning in other areas of life, such as alienation from social environments due to aggressiveness or withdrawal that occurs with the heightened stress responses (Frankenhuis & Del Giudice, 2012; Shirtcliff et al., 2009). Further, emotion regulation in early life is largely a learned behavior. In abusive homes, parents often model maladaptive emotion regulation strategies and punish expressions of emotion rather than providing modeling that facilitates adaptive emotion regulation abilities (Cicchetti et al., 1995; Kim & Cicchetti, 2010). Therefore, adolescents who grew up in abusive environments may not have had a role model of adaptive emotion regulation skills. It has been proposed that the lack of appropriate socialization of emotion regulation in childhood makes adolescents struggle with emotion regulation (Silvers, 2022). Thus, experiences of both abuse and neglect may lead to difficulties with emotion regulation. At a time of heightened malleability of neurobiology and social factors, it is crucial for adolescents to have the necessary emotion regulation skills to navigate new experiences and challenges. Limited research has further suggested that these emotion regulation difficulties extend to young adulthood (Warmingham et al., 2023). However, more research is needed to examine the impacts of abuse and neglect on the longitudinal trajectories of emotion regulation difficulties and strategy use.

Relatedly, insights regarding the connection between child maltreatment and emotion regulation have been gained from human neuroimaging research. In particular, the Dimensional Model of Adversity and Psychopathology (Sheridan & McLaughlin, 2014) proposes that threat and deprivation have distinct effects on the brain’s development, leading to differential phenotypic consequences. Specifically, exposure to threat results in altered neural circuits in the hippocampus, amygdala, and ventromedial that underlie emotional learning, which can affect emotion regulation. On the contrary, exposure to deprivation results in reductions in thickness and volume of areas of the association cortex most often recruited for processing complex cognitive inputs, as well as impaired performance on cognitive tasks that depend on these brain areas. Indeed, this theoretical perspective has been supported by evidence of differential effects of neglect and abuse, in both neuroimaging and behavioral studies, indicating that threat is related to deficits in emotion regulation, whereas deprivation is related to deficits in cognitive control (Lambert et al., 2017; Nikulina & Widom, 2013). Altogether, the Dimensional Model of Adversity and Psychopathology provides the expectation that threat (e.g., experiences of abuse) is more detrimental to emotion regulation abilities. However, it is not well known how childhood abuse and neglect differentially impact the trajectories of emotion regulation development, particularly emotion regulation strategy use, such as cognitive reappraisal or expressive suppression. Although neglect can have a negative impact on emotion regulation abilities due to ineffective parenting with inadequate emotion, extreme emotion, or a mismatch of emotions between parent and child (Lavi et al., 2021), the intricacies of abuse versus neglect are not often explored with regard to emotion regulation. More research is needed to determine how childhood abuse and neglect impact emotion regulation strategy use and the way in which emotion regulation development changes over time. Additionally, it is important to understand the effects neglect may have on these trajectories, given that the intricacies between abuse and neglect are not often explored.

In addition to emotion regulation abilities, maltreatment may impact specific emotion regulation strategies. There is evidence that maltreatment is significantly related to higher levels of emotional suppression (i.e., trying to dampen internal or external emotions; see Gruhn & Compas, 2020 for a meta-analysis). While higher emotional suppression may be beneficial in the short term when an individual is actively in a threatening environment, it may have long-term costs on the ability to regulate one’s emotions adaptively. Studies examining maltreatment effects on the emotion regulation strategies of cognitive reappraisal and expressive suppression are rare, as much of the current literature focuses on broad emotion regulation difficulties. One available study of children and adolescents aged 8–16 demonstrated maltreatment (i.e., abuse and exposure to violence) was associated with emotional reactivity, but not with cognitive reappraisal or expressive suppression (Weissman et al., 2019). Altogether, previous findings point to the deleterious effects of abuse and neglect on the development of emotion regulation abilities in childhood and adolescence.

Present Study

The current study examined the developmental trajectories of emotion regulation difficulties and strategies within and between individuals throughout adolescence and into young adulthood. Further, the current study examined the effects that abuse and neglect may have on these trajectories. The study utilized data from six time points (ages 14 through 20) with approximately one year in between time points. The aims were to examine how abuse and neglect experiences in childhood (i.e., from ages 1 through 13) affect the growth trajectories of emotion regulation difficulties and strategy use throughout adolescence and into young adulthood. We hypothesized that abuse and neglect would predict higher initial levels of difficulties in emotion regulation, greater use of suppression, and less use of cognitive reappraisal. We also hypothesized that there would be less growth (i.e., fewer reductions in difficulties in emotion regulation, fewer reductions in the use of suppression, and fewer increases in the use of cognitive reappraisal). We expected that abuse would be a stronger predictor of the emotion regulation growth factors compared to neglect based on prior literature (Sheridan & McLaughlin, 2014; Shields & Cicchetti, 1998).

Method

Transparency and Openness

The current study was not preregistered. Data were analyzed with SPSS and Mplus (Muthén & Muthén, 2021). The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are not currently publicly available but are available from the corresponding authors upon request.

Participants

The current study used six waves of data collected between 2014 and 2021 as part of a longitudinal study. All procedures were approved by the Institutional Review Board of the university and written informed consent or assent was received from all participants. The sample includes 167 adolescents (47% females). At Time 1, adolescents were between the ages of 13 and 14 at Time 1 (M = 14.07, SD = 0.54 for Time 1, M = 15.05, SD = 0.54 for Time 2, M = 16.07, SD = 0.56 for Time 3, M = 17.01, SD = 0.55 for Time 4, M = 18.39, SD = 0.67 for Time 5, M = 20.17, SD = 0.63 for Time 6). Adolescents identified as White (79%), Black (11%), and other (10%). At the first time point, 157 families participated. At the second time point, 10 families were added to account for attrition between Times 1 and 2, yielding a final sample of 167 parent-adolescent dyads. Attrition analyses were performed utilizing a general linear model (GLM) univariate procedure to examine if there were systematic procedures for any missing data. The results of the GLM indicated that the rate of participation (calculated as the ratio of years participated to years invited to participate) was not significantly predicted by demographic variables (p = .790 for income-to-needs ratio, p = .818 for sex, p = .647 for race indicated by White vs. non-White) or by study variables (p = .490 for emotion regulation difficulties, p = .465 for suppression, p = .959 for cognitive reappraisal, p = .104 for abuse, p = .200 for neglect).

Measures

Demographic Interview:

Sex was coded dichotomously, with 0 indicating male and 1 indicating female. The options for race were Black, White, Latino or Hispanic, biracial or multiracial, Asian or Asian American, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, American Indian/Alaska Native, or Other. Annual household income was measured using a 15-point scale (1–15) from “None” to “$200,000 or more”. Information on the number in the household was used with income and poverty threshold levels designated by the US Census Bureau to calculate income-to-needs ratio.

Maltreatment (Abuse and Neglect):

Maltreatment was measured with the Maltreatment and Abuse Chronology of Exposure scale (MACE; Teicher & Parigger, 2015). MACE uses 52 items to examine the severity of exposure to various types of maltreatment throughout childhood (ages 1–18). Adolescents retrospectively reported at which ages they experienced the events. Abuse was made up of the subscales of sexual abuse (7 items), verbal abuse (4 items), physical abuse (6 items), and non-verbal abuse (6 items). Neglect was made up of the subscales of emotional neglect (5 items) and physical neglect (5 items). Items included “Intentionally pushed, pinched, slapped, kicked, etc.” (physical abuse), “Swore at you, called you names, said insulting things like you are “fat”, “ugly”, “stupid”, etc.” (verbal abuse), “You had to wear dirty clothes” (physical neglect), and “Parents made inappropriate sexual comments or suggestions to you” (sexual abuse). The analyses in the current study utilized retrospective reports of maltreatment that occurred from ages 0–13 that were perpetrated by caregiver figures with the exception of sexual abuse. The subscale scores were scaled with an algorithm provided by Teicher and Parigger (2015), with higher scores indicative of more maltreatment. Existing literature indicates excellent test-retest reliability (Teicher & Parigger, 2015). These subscale items were used for confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and the factor scores for both neglect and abuse were extracted from separate CFAs.

Emotion Regulation:

A composite for emotion regulation difficulties was created using two subscales of the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale (DERS; Gratz & Roemer, 2004): difficulty in engaging in goal-directed behavior when distressed and difficulties with controlling impulsive behaviors when distressed. Higher scores indicated greater difficulties with controlling one’s emotions. Reliability was good, ranging from α = .84 to α = .88 across the six time points and two subscales. The two subscales of the Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (ERQ; Gross & John, 2003) were used to assess cognitive reappraisal and expressive suppression. Reliability was acceptable, ranging from α = .62 to α = .89 across the six time points and two subscales. The DERS and the ERQ emphasize different and important components of emotion regulation. The DERS concentrates on one’s ability to regulate emotions more generally, whereas the ERQ gains insight into an individual’s use of two distinct strategies. While the DERS may capture the larger picture of one’s inability to properly regulate their emotions, the ERQ could offer further insight into if an individual is using common adaptive or maladaptive strategies.

Data Analytic Plan

Descriptive statistics were analyzed to examine the normality of distributions and outliers for all variables, and skewness and kurtosis were also analyzed for all variable distributions. The acceptable levels were less than 3 and 10, respectively (Kline, 2011). Outliers were determined as values that were greater than 3.29 standard deviations from the mean, and any outliers were Winsorized to preserve statistical power (Ghosh & Vogt, 2012). Multivariate General Linear Modeling (GLM) analyses tested for demographic covariates (e.g., income, sex, and race). Full information maximum likelihood (FIML) estimation procedures were used for missing data, as this method is superior to other methods with listwise deletion (Schafer & Graham, 2002).

First, univariate growth curve modeling (GCM) was performed for difficulties in emotion regulation and emotion regulation strategies to fit the baseline models across six time points. The first latent factor was the intercept, and all of the factor loadings were fixed to one. The second latent factor was the slope, which was indicative of the growth of the function and changes over time. Nested model comparisons were utilized to compare the no-growth, linear growth, and latent basis growth models in order to determine the shape of the trajectories. In the no growth model, it was assumed that there is a non-significant change in the slope. In the linear growth model, it was assumed that there is a linear pattern of growth, and the factor loadings were fixed to 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. The latent basis growth model allows the data to estimate the shape of the growth trajectories by fixing the first time (i.e., age 14) point to 0 and the last time point (i.e., age 20) to 1 while allowing the other 4 time points to be freely estimated Model fit indices were examined by Chi-square value, degrees of freedom, the corresponding p-value, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA), and the Confirmatory Fit Index (CFI). RMSEA values of less than .08 were considered acceptable and CFI values that are greater than .90 were considered acceptable fits (Little, 2013). The χ2 difference test was used to compare the nested models and the models that were most parsimonious and with acceptable fits were chosen as the best-fitting models.

To examine how abuse and neglect were differentially related to emotion regulation, three separate models were tested: models comparing abuse and neglect’s effects on the growth of emotion regulation, examining cognitive reappraisal, expressive suppression, and emotion regulation difficulties. The hypothesized models are depicted in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

Conceptual model for the conditional growth curve model of emotion regulation predicted by abuse and neglect.

Note. ER = Emotion Regulation; T = Time.

Next, conditional univariate GCM models were tested. The best-fitting growth curve models from the unconditional univariate GCMs were used, and each univariate GCM was run with abuse and neglect to test the contributions of abuse and neglect separately. As shown in Figure 1, correlations were estimated between the intercepts and slope factors of emotion regulation and correlations were estimated between abuse and neglect.

Power

In order to estimate power, an a priori sample size calculator was used (Soper, 2022) for testing the desired sample size for hypothetical effect sizes of .10, .30, and .50 (small, medium, and large, as described by Cohen, 1988) with the desired power of .80. The sample sizes that were necessary for effect sizes .10, .30, and .50 were 947, 90, and 23, respectively. A meta-analysis study suggested effect sizes between maltreatment and emotion dysregulation and emotional regulation ranged from .24 to .28, indicating a medium effect size (Gruhn & Compas, 2020). Our power calculations suggested a sample size of 90 for a medium effect size, thus our analyses were deemed to have sufficient power (>.80) to detect at least medium effect size using our sample size of 167.

Results

Descriptive statistics for all study variables are presented in Table 1 and correlations for all study variables are presented in Table 2. The results from the multivariate GLM testing the covariates showed that demographic covariates (i.e., income-to-needs ratio, sex, and race) were not significantly associated with emotion regulation difficulties or expressive suppression (p = .091 to .758), and thus were not added to the models. Sex and race were not significantly associated with cognitive reappraisal (p = .095 to p = .804), but income-to-needs ratio was (p = .006), and thus, it was added to the model.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics for Subtypes of Maltreatment, Difficulties In Emotion Regulation, Reappraisal, Suppression, Sex, and Race.

M SD Min Max
Sexual Abuse 0.51 1.51 0.00 7.00
Verbal Abuse 2.39 3.52 0.00 10.00
Non-Verbal Abuse 2.12 2.51 0.00 10.00
Physical Abuse 3.15 2.79 0.00 10.00
Emotional Neglect 1.74 2.33 0.00 10.00
Physical Neglect 1.03 1.84 0.00 6.00
DERS T1 2.33 0.83 1.00 4.82
DERS T2 2.37 0.78 1.00 4.67
DERS T3 2.35 0.76 1.00 4.33
DERS T4 2.30 0.79 1.00 4.67
DERS T5 2.21 0.72 1.00 4.31
DERS T6 2.24 0.73 1.00 4.05
Reappraisal T1 4.93 0.94 2.33 7.00
Reappraisal T2 4.87 0.88 2.50 7.00
Reappraisal T3 4.92 1.07 1.67 7.00
Reappraisal T4 4.96 0.94 2.17 7.00
Reappraisal T5 4.84 1.13 1.67 7.00
Reappraisal T6 4.72 1.15 1.00 7.00
Suppression T1 3.78 1.17 1.25 7.00
Suppression T2 3.85 1.14 1.25 6.75
Suppression T3 3.78 1.16 1.25 6.25
Suppression T4 3.85 1.19 1.50 7.00
Suppression T5 3.90 1.14 1.00 6.50
Suppression T6 4.00 1.07 1.00 7.00
Sex (0 = male) 0.47 0.50 0.00 1.00
Race (0 = White) 0.20 0.40 0.00 1.00
Open in a new tab

Note. DERS = Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale; T = Time.

Table 2.

Correlations for All Study Variables (DERS, Reappraisal, and Suppression)

Abuse Neglect 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
(3) DERS T1 .18* .22*
(4) DERS T2 .17* .10 .56*
(5) DERS T3 .13 .14 .45* .56*
(6) DERS T4 .15 .13 .47* .47* .60*
(7) DERS T5 .33* .23* .28* .41* .49* .66*
(8) DERS T6 .28* .07 .28* .39* .47* .53* .64*
(9) Reappraisal T1 −.08 .05 −.20* −.20* −.09 −.16 −.16 −.15
(10) Reappraisal T2 −.20* −.05 −.13 −.25* −.27* −.11 −.15 −.07 .44*
(11) Reappraisal T3 −.11 −.13 −.08 −.27* −.24* −.01 −.13 −.13 .30* .53*
(12) Reappraisal T4 −.12 −.06 −.25* −.30* −.24* −.32* −.44* −.25* .33* .28* .42*
(13) Reappraisal T5 −.10 .03 .03 −.20* −.23* −.27* −.33* −.29* .29* .24* .29* .56*
(14) Reappraisal T6 −.05 .11 −.01 −.22* −.14 −.17 −.33* −.33* .14 .25* .38* .53* .59*
(15) Suppression T1 .004 .06 .14 .15 .16 .09 .06 .16 .04 −.07 −.09 −.02 .04 −.14
(16) Suppression T2 .05 −.01 .22* .21* .11 .02 .09 .15 −.05 −.06 .02 −.05 −.01 −.06 .58*
(17) Suppression T3 .14 .05 .13 .07 .05 .02 .04 .03 −.05 −.14 −.01 −.07 −.08 −.10 .53* .62*
(18) Suppression T4 .14 .16 .10 .18* .11 −.06 −.03 −.05 .001 −.05 −.14 −.10 −.10 −.15 .44* .49* .61*
(19) Suppression T5 −.13 .04 .13 .09 .06 −.07 −.01 −.09 −.04 −.01 −.08 −.14 −.06 −.07 .33* .32* .52* .51*
(20) Suppression T6 .15 .08 .05 .03 .04 −.01 −.004 −.09 .13 .02 −.01 −.07 .01 .01 .18 .24* .46* .42* .50*
Open in a new tab

Note. DERS = Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale; T = Time.

*

p < .05.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

The results of the CFA for abuse and neglect are presented in Supplemental Materials (see Table S1).

Unconditional Growth Curve Models

Three alternative models were fit so that the shape of the trajectories of emotion regulation difficulties, cognitive reappraisal, and expressive suppression could be determined (see Supplemental Materials, Table S2).

For the emotion regulation difficulties, a linear growth model provided the best fit for the data (χ2 = 25.64, df = 21, p = .221, RMSEA = 0.04, CFI = 0.99) (see Supplemental Materials, Figure S1 for the trajectory shape based on estimated means). The variances of the intercept (σ = 0.45, SE = 0.07, p < .001) and slope (σ = 0.02, SE = 0.00, p < .001) were significant, indicating significant individual differences in initial levels and growth in emotion regulation difficulties. The mean of the intercept (M = 2.37, SE = 0.06, p < .001) was significantly different from zero, but the mean of the slope (M = −0.02, SE = 0.02, p = .126) was not, indicating that the level of emotion regulation difficulties did not change over time for the sample as a whole.

For cognitive reappraisal, a linear growth model provided the best fit for the data (χ2 = 32.76, df = 17, p = .049, RMSEA = 0.06, CFI = 0.94) (see Supplemental Materials, Figure S2 for the trajectory based on estimated means). The variances of the intercept (σ = 0.43, SE = 0.08, p < .001) and slope (σ = 0.04, SE = 0.01, p < .001) were significant, indicating significant individual differences in initial levels and growth in cognitive reappraisal. The mean of the intercept (M = 4.93, SE = 0.07, p < .001) was significantly from zero and but the mean of the slope (M = −0.03, SE = 0.02, p = .22) was not, indicating that the level of cognitive reappraisal did not change over time for the sample as a whole.

For suppression, a linear growth model provided the best fit for the data (χ2 = 24.77, df = 21, p = .257, RMSEA = 0.03, CFI = 0.99) (see Supplemental Materials, Figure S3 for the trajectory based on estimated means). The variances of the intercept (σ = 0.93, SE = 0.14, p < .001) and slope (σ = 0.04, SE = 0.01, p < .001) were significant, indicating significant individual differences in initial levels and growth in suppression. The means of the intercept (M = 3.77, SE = 0.09, p < .001) and the slope (M = 0.05, SE = 0.02, p = .044) were significantly different from zero, indicating that suppression use increased over time for the sample as a whole.

Conditional Growth Curve Models

Conditional growth curve models were used to examine the associations between maltreatment (abuse and neglect) in ages 1–13 and the growth trajectories of emotion regulation from ages 14 to 20. The best-fitting unconditional growth models for each of the composite and individual components were used to test the differential effects of abuse and neglect.

The conditional growth curve model that examined the effects of abuse and neglect on emotion regulation difficulties demonstrated good fit (χ2 = 43.22, df = 29, p = .043, RMSEA = 0.05, CFI = 0.96). Abuse was a significant predictor of the slope, indicating that greater amounts of abuse were associated with increases in emotion regulation difficulties across six time points, from age 14 to 20 (see Table 3). Abuse was not a significant predictor of emotion regulation difficulties at age 14 (see Table 3). Further, neglect was a significant predictor of the intercept, indicating that greater levels of neglect were associated with higher amounts of emotion regulation difficulties at age 14 (see Table 3). Additionally, neglect was not a significant predictor of changes in emotion regulation difficulties across ages 14 to 20 (see Table 3).

Table 3.

Results of Conditional Growth Curve Models of Abuse and Neglect Effects on Difficulties in Emotion Regulation, as measured by the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale.

β Estimate
(Est) 		Std. Error
(SE) 		Est/SE p
Factor Loadings
Time 1 → DERS Slope .00 0 =
Time 2 → DERS Slope .17 1 =
Time 3 → DERS Slope .36 2 =
Time 4 → DERS Slope .55 3 =
Time 5 → DERS Slope .72 4 =
Time 6 → DERS Slope .85 5 =
Regression effects on slope
Abuse→ DERS Slope .25 0.05 .02 2.06 .039
Neglect → DERS Slope -.21 −0.03 .02 −1.70 .089
Regression effects on intercept
Abuse → DERS Intercept .08 0.08 .10 0.73 .468
Neglect → DERS Intercept .24 0.18 .08 2.20 .028
Factor covariances
DERS Intercept ↔ DERS Slope −.59 −0.05 .01 −3.61 <.001
Abuse ↔ Neglect .34 0.20 .06 3.73 <.001
Open in a new tab

Note. DERS = Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale. = indicates fixed parameters. The boldface indicates significant effects.

The conditional growth curve model that examined the effects of abuse and neglect on cognitive reappraisal controlling for income-to-needs ratio demonstrated a mediocre fit (χ2 = 60.42, df = 35, p = .005, RMSEA = 0.07, CFI = 0.89). Income-to-needs ratio was not a significant predictor of slope (B = .004, SE = .01, p = .709) or intercept (B = −.02, SE = .04, p = .545) and was removed from the model. The model without controlling for income-to-needs ratio demonstrated good fit (χ2 = 42.82, df = 29, p = .047, RMSEA = 0.05, CFI = 0.93). However, none of the regression paths estimating the effects of abuse and neglect on the growth factors of cognitive reappraisal were significant (see Table 4).

Table 4.

Results of Conditional Growth Curve Models of Abuse and Neglect Effects on Reappraisal.

β Estimate
(Est) 		Std. Error
(SE) 		Est/SE p
Factor Loadings
Time 1 → Reappraisal Slope .00 0 =
Time 2 → Reappraisal Slope .21 1 =
Time 3 → Reappraisal Slope .42 2 =
Time 4 → Reappraisal Slope .60 3 =
Time 5 → Reappraisal Slope .73 4 =
Time 6 → Reappraisal Slope .83 5 =
Regression effects on slope
Abuse→ Reappraisal Slope -.03 −0.01 .04 −0.26 .796
Neglect → Reappraisal Slope→ .16 0.04 .03 −1.21 .228
Regression effects on intercept
Abuse → Reappraisal Intercept -.14 −0.14 .11 −1.20 .232
Neglect → Reappraisal Intercept −.05 −0.04 .09 −0.41 .685
Factor covariances
Reappraisal Intercept ↔ Reappraisal Slope −.40 −0.05 .02 −2.22 .027
Abuse ↔ Neglect .33 0.20 .05 3.71 <.001
Open in a new tab

Note. = indicates fixed parameters. The boldface indicates significant effects.

The conditional growth curve model that examined the effects of abuse and neglect on suppression demonstrated good fit (χ2 = 42.00, df = 29, p = .056, RMSEA = 0.05, CFI = 0.95). However, none of the regression paths estimating the effects of abuse and neglect on the growth factors of suppression use were significant (see Table 5).

Table 5.

Results of Conditional Growth Curve Models of Abuse and Neglect Effects on Suppression.

β Estimate
(Est) 		Std. Error
(SE) 		Est/SE p
Factor Loadings
Time 1 → Suppression Slope .00 0 =
Time 2 → Suppression Slope .17 1 =
Time 3 → Suppression Slope .36 2 =
Time 4 → Suppression Slope .55 3 =
Time 5 → Suppression Slope .71 4 =
Time 6 → Suppression Slope .85 5 =
Regression effects on slope
Abuse→ Suppression Slope −.01 −0.002 .04 −0.05 .957
Neglect → Suppression Slope .07 0.02 .03 0.50 .620
Regression effects on intercept
Abuse → Suppression Intercept .05 0.07 .15 0.45 .653
Neglect → Suppression Intercept .00 0.00 .12 0.04 .997
Factor covariances
Suppression Intercept ↔ Suppression Slope −.58 −0.11 .03 −3.55 <.001
Abuse ↔ Neglect .33 0.20 .05 3.71 <.001
Open in a new tab

Note. = indicates fixed parameters. The boldface indicates significant effects.

Discussion

Existing literature indicates that child maltreatment is associated with altered brain development associated with affective functions (McCrory et al., 2017). Sufficient emotion regulation skills are crucial for healthy development throughout adolescence and into young adulthood, and dampened emotion regulation abilities have been tied to many issues, including psychopathology, substance use, and greater levels of risk-taking behaviors (Aldao et al., 2010; Magar et al., 2008; Weiss et al., 2022). Yet, it is not clearly understood how abuse and neglect may differentially impact the development of emotion regulation difficulties and strategy use. Understanding the differential impacts may allow for more precise targets of prevention and interventions for the problems of emotion regulation among young people experienced maltreatment in early life. The current study utilized growth curve modeling to examine how abuse and neglect between ages 1 and 13 predicted the developmental trajectories of emotion regulation difficulties and the emotion regulation strategies of cognitive reappraisal and expressive suppression from age 14 to 20.

We hypothesized that greater levels of abuse experience would predict higher initial levels of emotion regulation difficulties, less use of cognitive reappraisal, and greater use of suppression. We further expected there would be less growth (i.e., fewer reductions in emotion regulation difficulties, fewer reductions in the use of suppression, and fewer increases in the use of cognitive reappraisal) for individuals who experienced abuse. We also expected that the effects of abuse would be stronger on emotion regulation difficulties, cognitive reappraisal, and expressive suppression than the effects of neglect, given prior research highlighting detrimental effects of abuse on emotion regulation (Sheridan & McLaughlin, 2014; Shields & Cicchetti, 1998). Our hypothesis was partially supported. While we found that emotion regulation difficulties did not change over time for the group as a whole, we did find significant individual differences in the developmental trajectories of emotion regulation difficulties, and those developmental differences were explained by childhood abuse. Specifically, young people who experienced greater levels of abuse in childhood exhibited an increase in emotion regulation difficulties across adolescence and into young adulthood. These findings add to the previous literature suggesting detrimental effects of maltreatment on emotion regulation abilities during childhood and adolescence (Gruhn & Compas, 2020) by illustrating that it is abuse, rather than neglect, that seems to be more impactful for the developmental trajectories of emotion regulation abilities during adolescence into young adulthood. In addition to the significant abuse effects, we found that greater levels of neglect were significantly associated with greater emotion regulation difficulties in early adolescence. A prior study demonstrated that children who experienced neglect have fewer adaptive emotion regulation skills and display less situationally appropriate emotional displays compared to non-neglect children (Shipman et al., 2005). Our finding extends previous research by illustrating the link between childhood neglect experiences and adolescent emotion regulation difficulties, even after controlling for the effects of abuse.

There was not a significant effect of abuse on the initial level of emotion regulation difficulties, indicating that abuse specifically was associated with an increase in difficulties in emotion regulation across ages 14–20 rather than the level of emotion regulation difficulties at age 14. Similarly, the findings showed that neglect was significantly associated with higher levels of emotion regulation difficulties at age 14 rather than changes in emotion regulation difficulties across ages 14–20. These findings indicate that neglect may have an initial impact on emotion regulation difficulties in early adolescence, but this effect is limited in the sense that neglect no longer significantly predicts developmental changes in emotion regulation difficulties throughout adolescence. On the other hand, the effects of abuse on emotion regulation difficulties are not yet apparent in early adolescence, but these effects become stronger as individuals move through adolescence and into young adulthood, which is a time that may require more emotion regulation skills. Our findings of significant neglect effects on the initial levels and significant abuse effects on the growth rates of emotion regulation abilities clarify a previous finding that showed a significant negative correlation between emotion regulation abilities and exposure to both abuse and neglect among children at ages 10–12 (Duprey et al., 2023). That is, one may find significant associations of emotion regulation abilities with both abuse and neglect in childhood and adolescence but abuse rather than neglect seems to have a long-lasting impact on the growth of emotion regulation abilities throughout adolescence and beyond. More importantly, compared to childhood, adolescence is a time when emotion reactivity is at its peak (McRae et al., 2012; Steinberg, 2005). Thus, those with early experiences of abuse may be especially vulnerable to difficulties in managing these heightened emotions during this time. Therefore, it is crucial to understand the impacts of abuse and how we can prevent the cascading effects of earlier abuse experiences to later psychopathology and substance use. Indeed, emotion regulation difficulties have been shown to be associated with various forms of psychopathology (Sheppes et al., 2015 for a review). These findings provide evidence that child maltreatment impacts aspects of emotion processing, which further leads to psychopathology.

Our data demonstrated that suppression use increased across adolescence as a whole group, whereas cognitive reappraisal use did not show a significant change. This finding appears to be partially contradictory to a prior study that examined 12- to 19-year-olds in a cross-sectional sample and reported higher use of adaptive (i.e., cognitive reappraisal, cognitive distraction, putting into perspective) and maladaptive (i.e., self-blame, rumination, expressive suppression) cognitive strategies as well as using more behavioral adaptive regulation strategies (i.e., relaxation, behavioral distraction, behavioral problem solving) than younger adolescents who used more behavioral maladaptive regulation strategies (i.e., direct expression, indirect expression) (te Brinke et al., 2021). The discrepancy may be due to the fact that our study examined longitudinal within-person changes in emotion regulation strategies across adolescence instead of assessing age-related differences and that our study focused solely on cognitive strategies rather than behavioral ones as well. The findings that abuse predicts increasing emotion regulation difficulties in adolescence and the transition to young adulthood point to the need for targeted intervention efforts to avoid worsening emotion regulation at a time when emotion regulation skills are especially crucial. Although neglect significantly predicted emotion regulation difficulties at age 14, it did not show a significant association with the trajectory from age 14 to 20. This finding indicates that intervention efforts may be more important to occur before the age of 14, given the detrimental effect of neglect experience predicting high emotion regulation difficulty at age 14 but not affecting development changes.

We did not find any significant associations with abuse or neglect affecting the initial status or growth of cognitive reappraisal or expressive suppression. With respect to our findings of the non-significant effects of abuse and neglect on specific emotion regulation strategies, data seem to suggest that emotion regulation strategies, unlike emotion regulation abilities, may be less likely to be affected by parenting behaviors. Shedding light on a previous finding that suggested childhood maltreatment exposure predicts problems with emotion regulation in general—i.e., emotion regulation difficulties, maladaptive strategies, and high negative affect (Warmingham et al., 2023), our findings highlight that it is emotion regulation difficulties that are more prominently affected by childhood abuse and neglect including difficulties with accessing adaptive emotion regulation strategies (i.e., cognitive reappraisal). More research is needed to examine differing influences of diverse contextual factors surrounding adverse experiences, such as the level of controllability (Troy et al., 2013), on cognitive reappraisal and expressive suppression specifically.

While child maltreatment in our study was not shown to prospectively predict emotion regulation strategy use, it may have impacted the effectiveness of the strategies. Specifically, there is evidence from cross-sectional studies that the effectiveness of cognitive reappraisal at reducing negative affect increases from middle childhood through adolescence (McRae et al., 2012; Silvers et al., 2012). This continued development of the effectiveness of emotion regulation strategies in general across adolescence is proportionate to a peak of emotional reactivity, as indicated by greater emotional volatility and intensity as compared to childhood and adulthood (Gunnar et al., 2009; Guyer et al., 2016). Previous literature has found that tendencies to engage in cognitive reappraisal were not associated with child maltreatment (Weissman et al., 2019). These authors proposed that the capacity to utilize cognitive reappraisal effectively, rather than the capacity per se, may be diminished in children and adolescents who were exposed to maltreatment (Weissman et al., 2019). That is, even though there were no statistically significant associations between abuse and neglect experiences in childhood and self-reported emotion regulation strategies in adolescence, it is plausible that those who experienced abuse or neglect may not be able to use cognitive reappraisal as effectively.

It has been suggested that while cognitive reappraisal is thought of as adaptive, there may be some indications that the adaptive nature changes depending on the context a person is in (McRae et al., 2016). For example, it has been suggested that cognitive reappraisal works best if an individual is in a situation that they cannot control (Troy et al. 2013). There is also evidence that the uncontrollability of maltreatment experiences may cause children to believe that any stressor is out of their control, which then teaches children to avoid stressors or their own responses to stressors (Gruhn & Compas, 2020). Further, while it may be useful when growing up in an abusive or neglectful home to hide one’s emotions, this behavior may impede adaptive emotion regulation development and be linked to psychopathology (e.g., Compas et al., 2017). It follows that the lack of associations between abuse and neglect with suppression could be indicative of adaption to the adverse environment.

Constraints on Generality

There were limitations in the current study that should be addressed in future work. Although our analysis was a longitudinal design across six time points, the correlational data do not allow us to infer causality. Additionally, future work should aim to examine the trajectories across even longer amounts of time. For example, significant associations may be present earlier in life, such as in late childhood. Further, child maltreatment was assessed with retrospective self-report. We used MACE with 18- to 19-year-olds whose ages were as close as possible to childhood; however, retrospective self-reports could have been affected by recall bias. Existing research indicates that retrospective self-reports of maltreatment are verifiable (Chu et al., 1999), related to poor health and behavior outcomes regardless of their concordance with official records (Negriff et al., 2017), and self-report is a strong predictor for psychopathology (Danese & Widom, 2020).

It should be noted that a recent paper advised caution against using categorization based on the tendencies of adversities to co-occur for the dimensional model of adversity and psychopathology (McLaughlin et al., 2023). We also clarify that we used latent factors based on subscales that represent theoretical dimensions of abuse and neglect, and our approach did not rely on capturing co-occurring adversity experiences. Future work can use different statistical modeling approaches to examine adversity within the dimensional model of adversity and psychopathology. For example, formative models, rather than reflexive models, allow the indicators (e.g., the subscales of abuse and neglect) to define the latent variables rather than having the indicators be affected by the latent variable (McLaughlin et al., 2023). Finally, our sample was predominantly non-Hispanic Whites. While this was representative of the region in which our data was collected, the generalizability of our findings to a wider range of backgrounds needs further replications.

However, despite the limitations noted, there were significant strengths of the present study. We were able to examine trajectories of emotion regulation abilities across six time points throughout adolescence and into young adulthood, which allows us to examine the developmental trajectories, and the effects earlier abuse and neglect experiences have on them.

Conclusions

Overall, the current findings add to the existing literature that has proposed that abuse and neglect have differential impacts on emotion regulation abilities. We found that greater amounts of abuse were associated with increasing emotion regulation difficulties throughout adolescence and into young adulthood, and higher levels of neglect were associated with greater emotion regulation difficulties in early adolescence. Abuse and neglect did not significantly predict the use of cognitive reappraisal or expressive suppression strategies, suggesting that abuse and neglect may have a stronger impact on emotion regulation abilities rather than on specific strategies. These findings highlight that it may be more beneficial to focus on enhancing overall emotion regulation abilities rather than on specific emotion regulation strategies to improve emotion regulation development among adolescents who experienced abuse or neglect.

Supplementary Material

2

Acknowledgments:

Research reported in this publication was supported by the National Institute on Drug Abuse at the National Institutes of Health under Award Numbers R01 DA036017 and R01 DA061024 to Jungmeen Kim-Spoon and Brooks Casas. We thank the former and current members of the JK Lifespan Development Lab at Virginia Tech for their help with data collection. We are grateful to the adolescents and parents who participated in our study.

Footnotes

Conflict of Interest: All authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Ahmed SP, Bittencourt-Hewitt A, & Sebastian CL (2015). Neurocognitive bases of emotion regulation development in adolescence. Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, 15, 11–25. 10.1016/j.dcn.2015.07.006 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Aldao A, Nolen-Hoeksema S, & Schweizer S (2010). Emotion-regulation strategies across psychopathology: A meta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 30(2), 217–237. 10.1016/j.cpr.2009.11.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Beauchaine TP (2015). Future direction in emotion dysregulation and youth psychopathology. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 44(5), 875–896. 10.1080/15374416.2015.1038827 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Berzenski SR (2019). Distinct emotion regulation skills explain psychopathology and problems in social relationships following childhood emotional abuse and neglect. Development and Psychopathology, 31(2), 483–496. https://doi.org/1017/S0954579418000020 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Briere J, & Jordan CE (2009). Childhood maltreatment, intervening variables, and adult psychological difficulties in women: An overview. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 10(4), 375–388. 10.1177/1524838009339757 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Cicchetti D, Ackerman BP, & Izard CE (1995). Emotions and emotion regulation in developmental psychopathology. Development and Psychopathology, 7(1), 1–10. 10.1017/S0954579400006301 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  7. Chu JA, Frey LM, Ganzel BL, & Matthews JA (1999). Memories of childhood abuse: Dissociation, amnesia, and cooroboration. American Journal of Psychiatry, 156, 749–755. 10.1176/ajp.156.5.749 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Cohen J (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 1–567. 10.4324/9780203771587 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  9. Cole PM, Hall SE, & Hajal NJ (2013). Emotion dysregulation as a risk factor for psychopathology. In Beauchaine TP & Hinshaw SP (Eds.), Child and Adolescent Psychopathology (2nd ed., pp. 341–373) [Google Scholar]
  10. Compas BE, Jaser SS, Bettis AH, Watson KH, Gruhn MA, Dunbar JP, Williams E, & Thigpen JC (2017). Coping, emotion regulation, and psychopathology in childhood and adolescence: A meta-analysis and narrative review. Psychological Bulletin, 143(9), 939. 10.1037/bul0000110 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Danese A, & Widom CS (2020). Objective and subjective experiences of child maltreatment and their relationships with psychopathology. Nature Human Behavior, 4(8), 811–818. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Duprey EB, Handley ED, Russotti J, Manly JT, & Cicchetti D (2023). A longitudinal examination of child maltreatment dimensions, emotion regulation, and comorbid psychopathology. Research on Child and Adolescent Psychopathology, 51(1), 71–85. 10.1007/s10802-022-00913-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Ernst M, Pine DS, & Hardin M (2006). Triadic model of the neurobiology of motivated behavior in adolescence. Psychological Medicine, 36(3), 299–312. 10.1017/S0033291705005891 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Frankenhuis WE, & Del Giudice M (2012). When do adaptive developmental mechanisms yield maladaptive outcomes? Developmental Psychology, 48(3), 628–642. 10.1037/a0025629 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Ghosh D, & Vogt A. (2012). Outliers: An evaluation of methodologies. In Joint Statistical Meetings (Vol. 2012). [Google Scholar]
  16. Gratz KL, & Roemer L (2003). Multidimensional assessment of emotion regulation and dysregulation: Development, factor structure, and initial validation of the difficulties in emotion regulation scale. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 26(1), 41–54. 10.1023/B:JOBA.0000007455.08539.94 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  17. Gresham D & Gullone E (2012). Emotion regulation strategy use in children and adolescents: The explanatory roles of personality and attachment. Personality and Individual Differences, 52(5), 616–621. 10.1016/j.paid.2011.12.016 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  18. Gross JJ, & John OP (2003). Individual differences in two emotion regulation processes: Implications for affect, relationships, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(2), 348–362. 10.1037/0022-3514.85.2.348 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Gross JJ, Richards JM, & John OP (2006). Emotion regulation in everyday life. 10.1037/11468-001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  20. Gruhn MA, & Compas BE (2020). Effects of maltreatment on coping and emotion regulation in childhood and adolescence: A meta-analytic review. Child Abuse & Neglect, 103, 104446. 10.1016/j.chiabu.2020.104446 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Gullone E, Hughes EK, King NJ, & Tonge B (2010). The normative development of emotion regulation strategy use in children and adolescents: A 2-year follow-up study. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 51(5), 567–574. 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2009.02183.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Gunnar MR, Wewerka S, Frenn K, Long JD, & Griggs C (2009). Developmental changes in hypothalamus-pituitary-adrenal activity over the transition to adolescence: Normative changes and associations with puberty. Development and Psychopathology, 21(1), 69–85. 10.1017/S0954579409000054 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Guyer AE, Silk JS, & Nelson EE (2016). The neurobiology of the emotional adolescent: From the inside out. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 70, 74–85. 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.07.037 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Hardy SA, Baldwin CR, Herd T, & Kim-Spoon J (2020). Dynamic associations between religiousness and self-regulation across adolescence into young adulthood. Developmental Psychology, 56(1), 180–197. 10.1037/dev0000841 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Herd T, King-Casas B, & Kim-Spoon J (2020). Developmental Changes in Emotion Regulation during Adolescence: Associations with Socioeconomic Risk and Family Emotional Context. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 49(7), 1545–1557. 10.1007/s10964-020-01193-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Herd T, Brieant A, King-Casas B, & Kim-Spoon J (2022). Associations between developmental patterns of negative parenting and emotion regulation development across adolescence. Emotion, 22(2), 270–282. 10.1037/emo0000997 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Jaffe M, Gullone E, & Hughes EK (2010). The roles of temperamental dispositions and perceived parenting behaviours in the use of two emotion regulation strategies in late childhood. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 31(1), 47–59. 10.1016/j.appdev.2009.07.008 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  28. Joormann J, & Stanton CH (2016). Examining emotion regulation in depression: A review and future directions. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 86, 35–49. 10.1016/j.brat.2016.07.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Kim J, & Cicchetti D (2010). Longitudinal pathways linking child maltreatment, emotion regulation, peer relations, and psychopathology. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 51(6), 706–716. 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2009.02202.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Kline RB, (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guildford Publications [Google Scholar]
  31. Lambert HK, King KM, Monahan KC, & Mclaughlin KA (2017). Differential associations of threat and deprivation with emotion regulation and cognitive control in adolescence. Development and Psychopathology, 29(3), 929–940. 10.1017/S0954579416000584 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Lavi I, Ozer EJ, Katz LF, & Gross JJ (2021). The role of parental emotion reactivity and regulation in child maltreatment and maltreatment risk: A meta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 90, 102099. 10.1016/j.cpr.2021.102099 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Lee FS, Heimer H, Giedd JN, Lein ES, Šestan N, Weinberger DR, & Casey BJ (2014). Adolescent mental health—Opportunity and obligation. Science, 346(6209), 547–549. 10.1126/science.1260497 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Little TD (2013). Longitudinal structural equation modeling. Guilford Press. [Google Scholar]
  35. Magar ECE, Phillips LH, & Hosie JA (2008). Self-regulation and risk-taking. Personality and Individual Differences, 45(2), 153–159. 10.1016/j.paid.2008.03.014 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  36. McCrory EJ, Gerin MI, & Viding E (2017). Annual research review: Childhood maltreatment, latent vulnerability and the shift to preventative psychiatry – the contribution of functional brain imaging. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 58(4), 338–357. 10.1111/jcpp.12713 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. McLaughlin KA, Peverill M, Gold AL, Alves S, & Sheridan MA (2015). Child maltreatment and neural systems underlying emotion regulation. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 54(9), 753–762. 10.1016/j.jaac.2015.06.010 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. McRae K, Gross JJ, Weber J, Robertson ER, Sokol-Hessner P, Ray RD, Gabrieli JDE, & Ochsner KN (2012). The development of emotion regulation: An fMRI study of cognitive reappraisal in children, adolescents and young adults. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 7(1), 11–22. 10.1093/scan/nsr093 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. McRae K (2016). Cognitive emotion regulation: A review of theory and scientific findings. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 10, 119–124. 10.1016/j.cobeha.2016.06.004 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  40. Morris AS, Silk JS, Steinberg L, Myers SS, & Robinson LR (2007). The role of the family context in the development of emotion regulation. Social Development, 16, 361–388. 10.1111/j.1467-9507.2007.00389.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Negriff S, Schneiderman JU, & Trickett PK (2017). Concordance between self-reported childhood maltreatment versus case record reviews for child welfare-affiliated adolescents: Prevalence rates and associations with outcomes. Child Maltreatment, 22, 34–44. 10.1177/1077559516674596 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Nikulina V, & Widom CS (2013). Child maltreatment and executive functioning in middle adulthood: A prospective examination. Neuropsychology, 27(4), 417–427. 10.1037/a0032811 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Pollak SD, Cicchetti D Hornung K, & Reed A (2000). Recognizing emotion in faces: developmental effects of child abuse and neglect. Developmental Psychology, 36(5), 679. 10.10137//0012-1649.36.5.679 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Rogosch FA, & Cicchetti D (2004). Child maltreatment and emergent personality organization: Perspectives from the five-factor model. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 32, 123–145. 10.1023/B:JACP.00000019766.47625.40 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Schafer JL, & Graham JW (2002). Missing data: Our view of the state of the art. Psychological Methods, 7, 147–177. 10.1037/1082-989X.7.2.147 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Sheppes G, Suri G, & Gross JJ (2015). Emotion regulation and psychopathology. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 11(1), 379–405. 10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032814-112739 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Sheridan MA, & McLaughlin KA (2014). Dimensions of early experience and neural development: Deprivation and threat. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18(11), 580–585. 10.1016/j.tics.2014.09.001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Shields A, & Cicchetti D (1998). Reactive aggression among maltreated children: The contributions of attention and emotion dysregulation. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 27(4), 381–395. 10.1207/s15374424jccp2704_2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Shipman K, Edwards A, Brown A, Swisher L, & Jennings E (2005). Managing emotion in a maltreating context: A pilot study examining child neglect. Child Abuse & Neglect, 29(9), 1015–1029. 10.1016/j.chiabu.2005.01.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Shipman KL, Schneider R, Fitzgerald MM, Sims C, Swisher L, & Edwards A (2007). Maternal emotion socialization in maltreating and non-maltreating families: Implications for children’s emotion regulation. Social Development, 16(2), 268–285. 10.1111/j.1467-9507.2007.00384.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  51. Shirtcliff EA, Coe CL, & Pollak SD (2009). Early childhood stress is associated with elevated antibody levels to herpes simplex virus type 1. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106, 2963–2967. 10.1073/pnas.0806660106 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Shulman EP, Smith AR, Silva K, Icenogle G, Duell N, Chein J, & Steinberg L (2016). The dual systems model: Review, reappraisal, and reaffirmation. Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, 17, 103–117. 10.1016/j.dcn.2015.12.010 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Silvers JA, McRae K, Gabrieli JD, Gross JJ, Remy KA, & Ocshner KN (2012). Age-related differences in emotional reactivity, regulation, and rejection sensitivity in adolescence. Emotion, 12(6), 1235–1247. 10.1037/a0028297 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Silvers JA (2022). Adolescence as a pivotal period for emotion regulation development. Current Opinion in Psychology, 44, 258–263. 10.1016/j.cpsyc.2021.09.023 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Simon E, Raats M, & Erens B (2014). Neglecting the impact of childhood neglect: A scoping review of the relation between child neglect and emotion regulation in adulthood. Child Abuse & Neglect, 153, 106802. 10.1016/j.chiabu.2024.106802 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Soper DS (2022). A-priori sample size calculator for student t-tests. Statistics calculators. [Google Scholar]
  57. Steinberg L (2005). Cognitive and affective development in adolescence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9(2), 69–74. 10.1016/j.tics.2004.12.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Steinberg L (2008). A social neuroscience perspective on adolescent risk-taking. Developmental Review, 28, 78–106. 10.1016/j.dr.2007.08.002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. te Brinke LW, Menting AT, Schuiringa HD, Zeman J, & Dekovic M (2021). The structure of emotion regulation strategies in adolescence: Differential links to internalizing and externalizing problems. Social Development, 30(2), 536–553. 10.1111/sode.12496 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  60. Teicher MH, & Parigger A (2015). The ‘Maltreatment and Abuse Chronology of Exposure’ (MACE) scale for the retrospective assessment of abuse and neglect during development. PLoS ONE, 10(2), e0117423. 10.1371/journal.pone.0117423 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  61. Troy AS, Wilhelm FH, Shallcross AJ, & Mauss IB (2010). Seeing the silver lining: Cognitive reappraisal ability moderates the relationship between stress and depressive symptoms. Emotion, 10(6), 783–795. 10.1037/a0020262 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  62. Troy AS, Shallcross AJ, & Mauss IB (2013). A person-by-situation approach to emotion regulation: Cognitive reappraisal can either help or hurt, depending on the context. Psychological Science, 24(12), 2505–2514. 10.1177/0956797613496434 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  63. Warmingham JM, Duprey EB, Handley ED, Rogosch FA, & Cicchetti D (2023). Patterns of childhood maltreatment predict emotion processing and regulation in emerging adulthood. Development and Psychopathology, 35(2), 766–781. 10.1017/S0954579422000025 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  64. Weiss NH, Kiefer R, Goncharenko S, Raudales AM, Forkus SR, Schick MR, & Contractor AA (2022). Emotion regulation and substance use: A meta-analysis. Drug and Alcohol Dependence (230)1, 109131. 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2021.109131 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  65. Weissman DG, Bitran D, Miller AB, Schaefer JD, Sheridan MA, & McLaughlin KA (2019). Difficulties with emotion regulation as a transdiagnostic mechanism linking child maltreatment with the emergence of psychopathology. Development and Psychopathology, 31(3), 899–915. 10.1017/S0954579419000348 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

2
NIHMS2096772-supplement-2.docx (36KB, docx)

RESOURCES