. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2013 Dec 1.

Published in final edited form as: J Res Pers. 2012 Dec 1;46(6):780–784. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2012.09.006

Table 2.

4-Year Longitudinal Effects of Emotion Regulation Assessed Before College on Peer-Rated Social Functioning at the End-College

	Emotion Regulation
Social Functioning Outcomes	Suppression	Reappraisal
Social connection
Interpersonal warmth
Model 1: Simple cross-time effects	−.15 (.06)^*	.16 (.05)^*
Model 2: Controlling for baseline interpersonal warmth	−.21 (.08)^*	.25 (.10)^*
Model 3: Controlling for baseline warmth and Big 5	−.20 (.09)^*	.25 (.12)^*
Closeness to others
Model 1: Simple cross-time effects	−.15 (.06)^*	.13 (.06)^*
Model 2: Controlling for baseline closeness to others	−.21 (.10)^†	.37 (.12)^*
Model 3 Controlling for baseline closeness and Big 5	−.24 (.10)^*	.41 (.14)^*
Sociometric standing
Social status
Model 1: Simple cross-time effects	−.09 (.06)	.14 (.06)^*
Model 2: Controlling for baseline social status	−.02 (.10)	.37 (.12)^*
Model 3: Controlling for baseline social status and Big 5	−.06 (.09)	.59 (.13)^*
Likeability
Model 1: Simple cross-time effects	.06 (.06)	.10 (.06)^†
Model 2: Controlling for baseline likeability	.09 (.10)	.22 (.12)^*
Model 3: Controlling for baseline likeability and Big 5	−.01 (.08)	.40 (.11)^*

Note. Unstandardized HLM coefficients (with standard errors listed in parentheses) from analyses predicting social functioning at the end of college from suppression and reappraisal assessed before college (i.e., simple cross-time effects), after controlling for the peer-rated social indicator at baseline, and after controlling for both baseline social and Big 5 personality. Scores on all measures were rescaled to have a theoretical range from 0 to 100 (Cohen, Cohen, Aiken, & West, 1999) in order to transform the HLM coefficients into a more interpretable metric.

p < .05

^†

p < .10