Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2020 Nov 30.
Published in final edited form as: J Adolesc. 2019 Feb 27;72:42–51. doi: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2019.02.005

Longitudinal relations between emotional awareness and expression, emotion regulation, and peer victimization among urban adolescents

Tennisha N Riley a,*, Terri N Sullivan a, Tiffany S Hinton b, Wendy Kliewer a
PMCID: PMC7703847  NIHMSID: NIHMS1647141  PMID: 30825753

Abstract

Introduction:

There are potential long-term psychosocial effects of experiencing peer victimization during adolescence, including: internalizing symptoms, externalizing behaviors, and risks behaviors such as substance use. While social-emotional theories of development note associations between deficits in emotion competencies and peer victimization in childhood, these associations are less established among adolescent samples. Identifying which inadequacies in emotional competence place particular adolescents at risk for peer victimization may provide insight into the developmental pathways leading to unfavorable outcomes.

Methods:

The current study examined the relation between emotional competence and overt peer victimization among adolescents. Adolescents living in a mid-sized urban city in the southeastern region of the United States (N = 357; Mage = 12.14 years, 92% African American) reported their emotional awareness and reluctance to express emotion at baseline. Two years later, adolescents reported their regulation of anger and caregivers reported on adolescents' global emotion regulation. Adolescents also reported on occurrences of overt peer victimization during the previous 30 days at baseline and during the two-year follow up.

Results:

Our hypothesized model fit the data adequately. Greater emotion awareness was associated with higher scores on caregiver-rated emotion regulation and adolescent-rated anger regulation two years later, and in turn, lower frequencies of overt victimization by peers. Further, greater expressive reluctance was associated with greater anger regulation, and in turn, lower frequencies of overt victimization by peers. Patterns of associations did not vary by sex or age.

Conclusions:

The present study extends models of social-emotional development and peer interactions into the development age stage of adolescence.

Keywords: Emotion competence, Emotion regulation, Peer victimization, Adolescence

1. Introduction

Peer victimization occurs often during adolescence and can have negative long-term effects on psychosocial adjustment (Reijntjes et al., 2011; Reijntjes, Kamphuis, Prinzie, & Telch, 2010). Specifically, overt peer victimization, which encompasses direct verbal (e.g., being called names) and physical (e.g., being hit or threatened with violence) victimization is associated with poor developmental outcomes during adolescence. These outcomes include internalizing symptoms (Bowes, Joinson, Wolke, & Lewis, 2015; Flanagan, Erath, & Bierman, 2008; Klomek, Marrocco, Kleinman, Schonfeld, & Gould, 2008; Reijntjes et al., 2010), substance use, externalizing behaviors such as aggression, and other concerning behaviors such as weapon carrying (Dijkstra, Gest, Lindenberg, Veenstra, & Cillessen, 2012; Reijntjes et al., 2011; Sullivan, Farrell, & Kliewer, 2006).

Given these negative consequences, identifying factors that place adolescents at risk for peer victimization can provide insight into developmental pathways leading to such adverse outcomes, thus providing empirically supported directions for prevention. Social-emotional models of development, such as the Affective Social Competence Model (Halberstadt, Denham, & Dunsmore, 2001) may help guide our understanding by highlighting the role of emotion in developing and maintaining peer relationships, with implications for understanding peer victimization outcomes.

The Affective Social Competence Model (Halberstadt et al., 2001) specifies that effectively experiencing, receiving, and sending emotion messages is necessary for the maintenance of social-emotional competence (i.e., one's self-efficacy in social interactions that involve emotions) (Booker & Dunsmore, 2017; Halberstadt et al., 2001). Within the three domains, there are key emotion competencies for successful social interactions (i.e., awareness and identification of emotions, appropriate emotional expression, and the ability to regulate emotions). Emotional awareness and identification is the knowledge of and ability to recognize one's internal emotional experiences (Ciarrochi, Heaven, & Supavadeeprasit, 2008), while emotion expression refers to one's willingness to then express or communicate those emotions to others (Garner & Hinton, 2010; Penza-Clyve & Zeman, 2002). Both emotional awareness and emotional expression support social communication and the regulation of emotion—an adaptive process that requires monitoring, evaluating, and modifying emotional reactions (Zimmermann & Iwanski, 2014).

Previous research utilizing the Affective Social Competence model and other social-emotional models of development (e.g., Differential Emotions Theory and Development of Emotional Competence models) propose that a lack of emotional competence may leave youth vulnerable for poor social interactions and negative peer relationships, such as those characterized by peer victimization (Camras & Shuster, 2013). For example, young children who lack emotional awareness tend to have difficulties regulating emotion expression, which in turn may have a negative effect on their social competence (Denham, 2007). In addition, reluctance to express negative emotion has been associated with poor social functioning among children (Jacob, Suveg, & Whitehead, 2014). Specifically, reluctance to express negative emotion reduces opportunities to engage in social interactions and develop the emotion regulation skills that are necessary to build positive social relationships (Penza-Clyve & Zeman, 2002; Perry-Parrish, Waasdorp, & Bradshaw, 2012).

While considerable research has examined emotional competence in social contexts and its influence on peer relationships, the extant literature primarily focuses on early childhood and middle childhood with a lack of understanding how these competencies manifest in later development. In particular, emotion competencies (i.e., emotion awareness and emotion expression), as well as emotion regulation become more advanced and complex as youth enter into early adolescence and aid in the achievement of social goals. Peers become increasingly important during adolescence (Smetana, Campione-Barr, & Metzger, 2006) and the social goal of positive peer interactions is impacted by the ways in which adolescents effectively communicate and manage emotions (Halberstadt et al., 2001; Parkinson & Manstead, 2015). However, few studies have tested theoretical path models that demonstrate how emotion competencies (i.e., emotional awareness and expression) influence emotion regulation, which then is associated with peer victimization among adolescents. Emotion-related factors that precipitate the development of negative peer relationships might help identify points of intervention for adolescents who are vulnerable to peer victimization.

Developmental researchers have examined individual characteristics in an effort to identify factors that make particular adolescents a target for peer victimization. For example, Schwartz, Proctor, and Chien (2001) suggest that emotion dysregulation increases youths' vulnerability to peer victimization, underscoring the importance of emotion regulation. Additionally, previous research suggests that adolescents who identify as “victims” in peer interactions tend to express more sadness and anger, and report problems regulating these negative emotions (Mahady-Wilton, Craig, & Pepler, 2000). Thus, one key area to consider is the identification of individual emotion competencies that lead to effective emotion regulation and subsequent associations between emotion regulation and peer victimization. However, these relations remain unclear in adolescent populations.

In one of the few studies conducted with adolescents, Mahady-Wilton et al. (2000) identified two “coping clusters” among victims of bullying; one group characterized by ignoring, acceptance, and instrumental coping, and a second group characterized by physical and verbal aggression, and venting. In their examination of associations between the coping clusters and potential effects of bullying resolution or perpetuation, the cluster characterized by physical and verbal aggression, and venting as an emotion regulation strategy in response to victimization was less likely to be associated with bullying de-escalation. Further, this cluster was more likely to be associated with further perpetuation of peer victimization than the cluster characterized by ignoring, acceptance, and instrumental coping (Mahady-Wilton et al., 2000). However, the study focuses on victims of repeated, systematic, and structural victimization (i.e., bullying) (Olweus, 2013). The influence of emotional competence on more general peer victimization experiences during adolescence has not yet been examined.

The current study utilizes the Affective Social Competence model to examine the relation between emotional competence and overt peer victimization among adolescents—aligned with previous literature in early and middle childhood. Emotion awareness and expression support emotion regulation (Booker & Dunsmore, 2017), which is essential in peer interactions (Godleski, Kamper, Ostrov, Hart, & Blakely-Mcclure, 2014; Ostrov & Kamper, 2015). Understanding how emotion competencies inform the developmental pathways of peer relationships and social interactions such as victimization is important because it allows for the extension of social-emotional development models and peer interactions into adolescence. During adolescence two important changes emerge that impact development—a shift in social context that includes a greater interest in engaging with peers (Collins & Steinberg, 2006; Smetana et al., 2006), and biological changes such as pubertal development that have an influence on emotion processing and emotional reactivity (Crone & Dahl, 2012). These two changes impact how adolescents navigate social interactions. Adolescents often experience heightened emotional reactivity and sensitivity to rejection of peers (Crone & Dahl, 2012; Silvers et al., 2012), with the task to manage emotions motivated by their own personal goals (i.e., to gain peer acceptance), the changing social goals of their peers (e.g., changes in dominance and leadership in peer relationships), and the development of intimacy in peer relationships.

1.1. Age and sex differences in emotion competencies during adolescence

Social-emotional models acknowledge that emotional competence develops in stages as social interactions and social goals change across the lifespan (Halberstadt et al., 2001)—guided by social norms and expectations. This fundamental idea about changes in emotional development across the lifespan serves as the rationale for the current study's examination of age- or sex-related differences among the hypothesized pathways. For example, Gullone, Hughes, King, and Tonge (2010) examined differences across adolescent age, and found that older adolescents used less suppression of emotion than their younger peers.

In the current study, we examine whether differences in adolescent age exist by examining a group of 5th grade and 8th grade students. Comparing these two groups allows for the assessment of emotion competencies and peer victimization at the start of adolescence (marked by the onset of puberty and high emotional reactivity) as well as during adolescence. As adolescents age emotion competencies become more fine-tuned due to repeated opportunities to practice skills—gaining the ability to better understand discrete internal emotional states, assess social goals, and respond accordingly (Ciarrochi et al., 2008).

In addition, there are substantial cognitive gains over the course of adolescence such as perspective-taking, deductive reasoning, meta-cognitive processes, and abstract thinking (Blakemore & Choudhury, 2006; Kilford, Garrett, & Blakemore, 2016). These cognitive gains shape adolescents' perspectives of their social context through introspection of their own emotions and the emotions of others, and the development of understanding abstract emotions that characterize intimacy and closeness in peer relationships (i.e., shame, love, pride, fear). Social-cognition is a particularly important mechanism for awareness of one's own emotions and others' perceptions of emotion regulation abilities (Lemerise & Arsenio, 2000)—impacting adolescenťs social goals. For example, as adolescents become increasingly aware of others' perceptions of their ability to regulate emotions, as well as other's intentions and actions, they must then decide if their social goals involve inclusion into such peer relationships or avoidance of such relationships. Therefore, changes across adolescent development may contribute to the relation between emotional competence and peer victimization in different ways based on adolescent age.

Research that examines sex differences in the development of peer relationships is grounded in gender-schema models (Ostrov & Godleski, 2010), which propose that the tendency to engage in particular peer groups shapes behaviors such as aggression, as well as emotion competencies such as emotion expression. Males tend to form peer groups that are large in size and characterized by a system of hierarchy, while females tend to engage in long-term dyadic relationships (Rose & Rudolph, 2006). Peer group characteristics have implications for adolescent emotion processing within social relationship and thus peer victimization. Research indicates that adolescent females are less likely to suppress their emotions than adolescent males (Gullone et al., 2010). The smaller and more intimate social relationships of adolescent females provides a context for greater self-disclosure of negative emotions (i.e., greater expression of negative emotion and less reluctance) (Chaplin & Aldao, 2013; Rose & Rudolph, 2006). For adolescent females, willingness to express emotions may provide more opportunities to adapt the regulation of negative emotions, and thus experience fewer incidents of peer victimization.

1.2. The current study

The development of emotional competence includes learning and effectively managing the emotional skills necessary to be an effective partner in social relationships. The current study tests a longitudinal model linking adolescent emotion awareness, expressive reluctance, emotion regulation (both global emotion regulation and adolescent regulation of anger), and overt peer victimization among adolescents living in a mid-sized urban city in the southeastern United States. Based on the literature, we propose that lack of emotional awareness and greater reluctance to express emotion will be associated with less competent emotion regulation (both globally and more specifically for adolescent anger regulation). Less competent emotion regulation, in turn, will be positively associated with peer victimization. We focus on the relations between emotional competence and anger regulation because previous research suggests that regulation of anger is an essential component of social relationships for adolescents (Sullivan, Helms, Kliewer, & Goodman, 2010).

Given models and data that suggest sex differences in the development of emotion competencies, we expect the relations between emotional competence, emotion regulation, and overt peer victimization to be influenced by adolescent sex with no expectation for specific differences between male and female adolescents. Further, our sample was selected to assess these associations at the start and in the middle of adolescence, while most developmental models have contrasted younger youth with adolescents. Examining age differences across adolescence was exploratory, with uncertain expectations of the influence of age on the hypothesized pathways.

2. Methods

2.1. Participants

Participants in the current study included 357 adolescents in fifth (N = 190; Mage = 10.78; 51% female) and eighth (N = 167; Mage = 13.68; 56% female) grades, and their maternal caregivers participating in a longitudinal study of exposure to violence, coping, and adjustment among urban youth. Caregivers included adolescents' biological mothers (86%), grandmothers (7%), female relatives (2.5%), and adoptive mothers (2%). The remaining 2.5% of caregivers were adolescents' stepmothers, fathers' girlfriends, or other relations (including female caregivers with guardianship of the youth). Youth and their families participated in annual in-home assessments. Demographic information was assessed at year 1/baseline of the study.

Most adolescents and caregivers (> 90%) identified as African American/Black. Caregiver education level varied, with 23% of caregivers reporting having not received a high school diploma, 31% had graduated high school or received a general education diploma (GED), 46% had some training beyond high school, including 10% who had earned a bachelor's, master's, or advanced degree. The median household income for the families was $401–500 per week. Family structures include 41% who had never married, 32% were married or cohabitating, 14% were separated, 11% were divorced, and 2% were widowed. Living arrangements included youth who lived primarily with their biological mother (69%), with both biological parents (19%), with their biological father (1%), and with neither biological parent (11%).

2.2. Measures

Data on all measures were collected at baseline and two years later. Measures were selected based on their validity in assessing each study construct of interest for adolescent populations.

2.2.1. Emotion expression

Emotional awareness and reluctance was measured at baseline, using the Emotion Expression Scale for Children (EESC; Penza-Clyve & Zeman, 2002). The emotional awareness subscale measures difficulties in identifying internal emotional experiences (e.g., “I have feelings that I canť figure out.”), while the expressive reluctance subscale measures lack of motivation or willingness to communicate or express negative emotions to others (e.g., “I prefer to keep my feelings to myself.”). Each subscale contains 8 items with a response scale ranging from (1) not at all true to (5) extremely true, with higher scores indicating poor emotional awareness and greater reluctance to express negative emotions. Construct validity is supported by positive correlations with measures of emotion management and affect regulation (Penza-Clyve & Zeman, 2002; Sim & Zeman, 2004; Zeman, Shipman, & Suveg, 2002). Alphas for the present study at baseline were 0.76 and 0.70 for the emotional awareness and expressive reluctance subscales, respectively.

2.2.2. Emotion regulation

Caregiver-rated emotion regulation was assessed two years after baseline using the 8-item emotion regulation subscale from the Emotion Regulation Checklist (ERC; Shields & Cicchetti, 1997). Each item is rated on a four-point Likert scale from (1) never to (4) always. The emotion regulation subscale assesses adaptive regulation, including situationally appropriate positive and negative display of emotions and empathy (e.g., “Can say when she/he is feeling sad, angry, or mad, fearful or afraid.”). Prior studies showed the emotion regulation subscale of the ERC has excellent reliability and validity (e.g., correlations with other measures of emotion regulation, lability, and both positive and negative mood states) (Shields & Cicchetti, 1997). The alpha in the present study was 0.69.

2.2.3. Regulation of anger

Adolescents self-reported emotion management two years after baseline using the anger regulation coping subscale of the Children's Anger Management Scale (CAMS; Zeman et al., 2002). This 5-item subscale assesses how youth have managed the emotional arousal of anger over the past two weeks (e.g., “When I am feeling mad, I control my temper.”) and is based on a three-point item response scale ranging from (1) hardly ever to (3) often. Construct validity for the measure is supported by positive correlations with measures of emotion, psychopathology, and social functioning (Zeman et al., 2002; Zeman, Shipman, & Penza-Clyve, 2001). The alpha for anger regulation subscale in the current study was 0.60.

2.2.4. Peer victimization

Adolescents reported on experiences of overt forms of peer victimization using the overt victimization subscale of the Problem Behavior Frequency Scale (PBFS; Farrell, Kung, White, & Valois, 2000) at baseline and at follow-up assessment two years later. The six-item overt victimization subscale assesses the frequency of being physically harmed, called mean names, asked to fight, or threatened with harm by a peer in the past 30 days (e.g., How many times in the past 30 days have you been hit by another kid”). Respondents endorse the frequency of each item using a six-point scale (i.e., never, 1–2 times, 3–5 times, 6–9 times, 10–19 times, and 20 times or more). The PBFS is well-validated for use in adolescent populations, with noted positive associations between overt victimization and risk behaviors (i.e., delinquent peer associations and normalizing/supporting aggressive behaviors) (Farrell, Sullivan, Goncy, & Le, 2016). Alphas for the current study were 0.78 at baseline, and 0.83 at follow-up two years later.

2.3. Procedures

The University's Institutional Review Board approved all study procedures. The current study utilized data from a larger longitudinal study in which participants were recruited through community agencies and events, and by canvassing qualifying neighborhoods via flyers posted door-to-door. The larger study focuses on violence exposure and community effects, and so qualifying neighborhoods were selected based on police statistics and census data from the year 2000 (e.g., DeNavas-Walt, Proctor, Hill Lee, & U.S. Census Bureau, 2010) that reflected low-income housing and higher levels of crime relative to other areas of the city. Interested families contacted the principal investigator for an initial screening of eligibility. To be eligible for participation, families had to have an adolescent living in the home (fifth or eighth grade), a maternal caregiver willing to participate, and had to speak English. Sixty-three percent of eligible families enrolled in the study. The remaining 37% of the families who were approached and were eligible to participate declined (either they did not sign up at time of recruitment or did not call in for an appointment), which is consistent with similar studies using the same research design (cf. Luthar & Goldstein, 2004). Families enrolled in the study agreed to participate in a series of annual interviews that were conducted in the home unless families chose to complete the interviews at another location.

A team of interviewers, who participated in a 20-h interviewer training class, conducted the interviews during data collection. Using random selection, two members of the interview team were chosen and assigned to an adolescent-caregiver pair. Interview team members were of various racial backgrounds and sex. Tests for interviewer race and sex effects revealed no systematic biases, (ps > .10), with one exception for adolescent females who reported less overt peer victimization when interviewed by a male. Informed parental consent and adolescent assent was obtained prior to data collection. Face-to-face interviews were conducted with all questions being read aloud and visual aids were used for all response choices. Each annual interview protocol (including caregiver and adolescent interviews) lasted approximately 2.5 h and families received $50 in gift cards at each assessment point.

2.4. Data analysis

A longitudinal path model using Mplus 8 (Muthén & Muthén, 2017) was conducted to test the key hypotheses. To examine relations between emotional competence, emotion regulation, and overt victimization, a longitudinal model controlling for previous victimization was conducted. Model fit was assessed using the χ2 value, the Comparative Fit Index (CFI), and the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA), and Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR), with missing data handled by the using maximum likelihood (ML) estimates. Values of 0.90 or above for the CFI (Bentler, 1992) and 0.08 or below for the RMSEA and SRMR (Browne, Cudeck, Bollen, & Long, 1993; Hu & Bentler, 1999) indicated a model that adequately fit the data.

Multiple group analyses were used to evaluate whether adolescent sex or age moderated the examined pathways. An unconstrained model where the path coefficients were allowed to vary by sex or age (5th graders represented younger adolescents and 8th graders represented older adolescents) was compared to a constrained model where path coefficients were set to be equal across groups. The fit for the unconstrained and constrained models was evaluated by the χ2 difference test and differences in the Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC). For the BIC, decreases of 10 points or more for the constrained model show that it is more parsimonious and favored over the unconstrained model (Raftery, 1993)—and indicate no differences in the strength of relations between examined pathways by sex or age group.

3. Results

3.1. Attrition analyses

At baseline, 357 adolescents and their maternal caregivers completed the interviews. Two years later, 268 families continued their participation in the study—a retention rate of 74.8%. Chi square test and t-tests were used to compare potential differences in age, sex, and the mean value for study variables at baseline for families who remained in the study two years later with those who dropped out. No significant differences were found (all ps > .05), suggesting no systematic bias due to attrition.

3.2. Descriptive information and bivariate analyses

Table 1 displays the descriptive statistics and correlations for study variables. Higher ratings on the self-report of emotional awareness measure (indicating lack of emotional awareness) was positively associated with expressive reluctance and overt peer victimization at baseline and two years later, and negatively associated with emotion regulation and anger regulation. Expressive reluctance was positively associated with overt peer victimization at baseline and two years later, and negatively associated with emotion regulation. Emotion regulation was positively associated with anger regulation and negatively associated with peer victimization at baseline and two years later, while anger regulation was negatively associated with peer victimization only at the two-year follow-up. Overt peer victimization at baseline was positively associated with overt peer victimization two years later. No significant correlations were found between expressive reluctance and anger regulation, or baseline overt victimization and anger regulation.

Table 1.

Descriptive Information on and Correlations among Study Variables.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1-Poor Emotional Awareness (W1) – .61*** −.21*** −.16** .26*** .29*** −.21* −.05
2-Expressive Reluctance (W1) – −.13* .01 .18** .23*** −.07 −.09
3-Emotion Regulation (W3) – .21** −.13* −.21** .02 .07
4-Anger Regulation (W3) – −.10 −.18** .08 .05
5-Peer Victimization (W1)a – .34*** −.03 −.16**
6-Peer Victimization (W3)a – −.08 −.10
7-Grade – .05
8-Sex –
M 20.54 20.88 24.90 8.22 .53 .49
SD 7.01 6.43 3.66 1.77 .41 .35
Open in a new tab

Note(s).

Ns range from 264 to 355 due to missing data.

Higher values of poor emotional awareness indicate greater difficulty in identifying internal emotional experiences.

Higher values of expressive reluctance indicate greater unwillingness to communicate or express emotions to others.

Male = 0, female = 1.

*

p < .05

**

p < .01

***

p < .001.

a

Log transformed.

Prior to exporting data into Mplus, t-tests were calculated and the skewness and kurtosis of each variable was examined using cutoffs values of greater than 2 or less than −2(George & Mallery, 2010). At baseline and follow-up, overt peer victimization was positively skewed and kurtotic; therefore, these variables were log transformed. In addition, comparison of means tests were conducted to assess study sample differences between adolescent sex and age on all study variables. Results indicated higher frequencies of overt peer victimization at baseline for male adolescents (M = .56, SD = 0.36) as compared to female adolescents (M = 0.44, SD = 0.34) t (354) = 3.10, p <.01, d = 0.34. Additionally, adolescents in the 5th grade reported less emotional awareness (M = 21.33, SD = 7.19) in comparison to 8th grade adolescents (M = 19.63, SD = 6.71) t (352) = 2.29 p = .02, d = 0.24. No other significant mean differences were found across study variables.

3.3. Model testing of key hypotheses

The model assessing relations between emotional awareness, expressive reluctance, caregiver-rated emotion regulation and self-reported anger regulation, and overt peer victimization fit the data adequately (N = 268; χ2 (8) = 12.36, p = .14; RMSEA = 0.045 [90% CI = 0.00, 0.092]; CFI = 0.942; SRMR = 0.035). As seen in Fig. 1, lack of emotional awareness at baseline was associated with decreased levels of caregiver-rated emotion regulation (β = −0.22, p < .01) and self-reported anger regulation (β = −0.29, p < .001) two years later. In turn, emotion regulation (β = −0.13, p = .02) and anger regulation (β = −0.13, p = .03) were both associated with overt peer victimization, controlling for overt victimization at baseline. Greater reluctance to express emotion at baseline was associated with increased levels of self-reported anger regulation two years later (β = 0.20, p = .01), and in turn anger regulation was associated with overt peer victimization. However, reluctance to express emotion at baseline was not associated with parent-rated emotion regulation.

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1.

Open in a new tab

Longitudinal path model linking poor emotional awareness, expressive reluctance, caregiver-reported emotion regulation, adolescent self-reported anger regulation, and overt peer victimization. N = 268; χ2 (8) = 12.36, p = .14; RMSEA = 0.045 [90% CI = 0.00, 0.092]; CFI = 0.942; SRMR = 0.035. *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001. Note. Model presents standardized estimates.

3.4. Differences in relations among study variables by age and sex

Multiple group models were conducted in order to assess potential sex and age differences in the strengths of associations found between study variables. The first multiple group model assessed sex differences. The constrained model fit the data well (N = 268; χ2 (16) = 18.67, p = .29; CFI = 0.96; RMSEA = 0.035 [90% CI = 0.00, 0.091]), and was favored over the unconstrained model based on the non-significant χ2 difference test and improvement in the BIC values (2791.67 and 2829.47, respectively). For the multiple group model assessing possible age-related differences, the constrained model adequately fit the data (N = 268; χ2 (16) = 24.43, p = .08; CFI = 0.90; RMSEA = 0.06 [90% CI = 0.00, 0.110]), and was favored over the unconstrained model based on the non-significant χ2 difference test and improvement in the BIC values (2794.90 and 2827.78 respectively). These results indicate no significant differences in the strength of associations between emotional awareness, expressive reluctance, caregiver-reported emotion regulation, anger regulation, and overt peer victimization by sex or age (see Table 2).

Table 2.

Multi-group Model Fit and Model Comparison.

Model χ2 df CFI RMSEA BIC χ2diff value
Model linking emotional competence, emotion regulation, anger regulation, and overt peer victimization 6.93 (8) p = .54
Adolescent Sex - Unconstrained 11.74 8 .948 .06 2829.47
Adolescent Sex - Constrained 18.67 16 .963 .04 2791.67
Model linking emotional competence, emotion regulation, anger regulation, and overt peer victimization 11.85 (8) p = .16
Adolescent Grade - Unconstrained 12.58 8 .943 .07 2827.78
Adolescent Grade - Constrained 24.43 16 .895 .06 2794.90
Open in a new tab

Note: CFI = comparative fit index, RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation, and BIC = Bayesian information criterion.

4. Discussion

In the current study, we examined a longitudinal path model assessing relations between adolescent emotion awareness, expressive reluctance, emotion regulation, and peer victimization across three years among a sample of primarily African American adolescents. We found that higher levels of emotion awareness predicted increased global emotion regulation and the ability to regulate anger two years later, and in turn higher levels of emotion and anger regulation were associated with lower frequencies of overt victimization. In addition, higher levels of reluctance to express emotion was associated with a greater ability to regulate anger two years later. The strength of these associations did not vary by adolescent age or sex.

Our study findings with an adolescent sample converge with previous findings noting associations between emotion awareness, emotion regulation, and social interactions among early and middle childhood populations (Denham, 2007; Garner & Hinton, 2010; Jacob et al., 2014; Penza-Clyve & Zeman, 2002; Perry-Parrish et al., 2012). Specifically, we showed that emotional awareness predicted the ability to regulate global and negative emotions (i.e., anger) in adolescence. In addition, we showed that deficits in global emotion regulation and anger regulation were associated with peer victimization in adolescence (Cooley & Fite, 2016; Garner & Hinton, 2010). Overall, the current study findings support social-emotional models of development that highlight the importance of emotion competencies in influencing peer victimization.

In contrast to the findings among early and middle childhood samples, in our study expressive reluctance was positively and not negatively associated with emotion regulation among adolescents. We hypothesized a negative relation between these constructs based on a literature that suggested openly expressing negative emotions during social interactions provides opportunities for learning emotion regulation skills in peer contexts across development (Halberstadt et al., 2001; Jacob et al., 2014). Previous research in emotional competence indicates that reluctance to express emotion is associated with inappropriate emotional displays and poor emotion regulation among young children (Penza-Clyve & Zeman, 2002). Our divergent findings in an adolescent sample suggest that emotion expression may serve different purposes at different points in development. The Affective Social Competence model notes that while social-emotional processes are structurally similar across developmental stages, it is the real-time occurrence of social-emotional actions that may differ across age, culture, and social goals (Halberstadt et al., 2001). For young children, emotional expression serves as a means of social communication with peers, and a foundational building block to further the development of emotional competence. Young children's social context supports the practice and refinement of social-emotional skills (Halberstadt et al., 2001; Saarni, 2001). However, for adolescents the developmental changes in their social context produce a keen awareness of the interpersonal consequences of emotion expression (Collins & Steinberg, 2006; Smetana et al., 2006), which may influence reluctance to express specific emotions in peer contexts.

Adolescents, relative to younger children, better perceive the importance of their emotions in social context and the social norms that govern appropriate emotion expression (i.e., display rules) in specific contexts, roles, and relationships (Booker & Dunsmore, 2017; Ciarrochi et al., 2008). Further, adolescents are increasingly concerned about peers' perceptions of them due to the development of cognitive skills that allow them to consider what other's think or feel (e.g., perspective taking) (Blakemore & Choudhury, 2006). Adolescents also are developing more intimate relationships with trusted peers (Blakemore& Mills, 2014; Smetana et al., 2006), and their increased understanding of emotions in social context may influence decisions to express or mask their emotions for the sake of their peer relationships. Emotion competencies are adaptive in social interactions (Van Kleef, De Dreu, & Manstead, 2010), and so the social context of peers may promote expressive reluctance as a means of coping, selective disclosure, or avoidance of negative social outcomes such as peer victimization. Thus, the skill to express emotion may be less important than the willingness to express emotion in specific adolescent social contexts.

4.1. Strengths and limitations

The current study extends the current knowledge of emotional competence and peer victimization into the developmental stage of adolescence. Our longitudinal design allowed us to examine adolescent emotion competence and peer victimization, and the temporal sequence of these constructs. The inclusion of caregiver- and adolescent-reported emotion regulation provides a multi-informant perspective. Most studies to date have used cross-sectional designs, concurrently examining associations between emotion-related constructs and peer victimization. Our longitudinal design may help to understand associations between emotional competence and peer victimization over time during adolescence, given the assessment of associations over the course of three years (baseline and two years later).

Prior research on adolescent peer victimization primarily focuses on developmental outcomes as a result of peer victimization (Bowes et al., 2015; Doyle & Sullivan, 2017; Flanagan et al., 2008; Sullivan et al., 2006). Our study adds to this literature by considering emotion-specific precursors that may leave some adolescents vulnerable to overt peer victimization. Understanding these precursors can inform intervention development and implementation. The current study's sample of predominately low-income African American adolescents further broadens our knowledge of how emotion competence operates in this adolescent context, as prior studies included primarily middle-class Caucasian youth (Mahady-Wilton et al., 2000). The associations between emotional development and peer relations rarely is examined among African American adolescents as a heterogeneous group (i.e., without comparison to Caucasian youth). Our findings help to narrow the gap in the extant literature and push future work to consider the influence of race, ethnicity, and culture on emotion competencies and peer victimization.

The current study is not without limitations. The self-reported adolescent anger regulation coping measure had a low reliability score (.60), and there was potential bias in female adolescent report of overt peer victimization due to sex of the interviewer based on our assessment of interviewer effects. We interpret our findings related to these constructs with caution. In addition, our use of particular emotion measures may tap into shared and/or similar constructs. Specifically, the caregiver report of emotion regulation shares similar underlying constructs with the adolescent report of both emotion awareness and emotion reluctance. Research in emotion and emotion regulation have noted that while the two are distinct processes, some overlap exists between the constructs—a result of defining emotion regulation from various theoretical perspectives (e.g., functionalist, biological, and constructivist theories) (Thompson, 2011). Our study falls within this limitation of defining the distinction between emotion and emotion regulation. While we attempt to address this by including both adolescent and caregiver report, future research in adolescent emotion competencies and peer relations should use measures that are better able to untangle emotion from emotion regulation. Further, the current study examines anger regulation based on its importance in previous research. However, future studies may consider the regulation of other negative emotions (i.e., sadness) in order to broaden our understanding of adolescent emotion management.

Our study focused on African American adolescents living in one urban geographical setting which may limit its generalizability to adolescents from other racial-ethnic backgrounds or adolescents in other geographical settings. Our study expands the current literature by focusing on an understudied population. However, future research should examine culturally-specific influences on adolescent emotion expression, regulation and social outcomes for African American adolescents. In fact, newly conceptualized models present evidence that the interdependence of both racial socialization and emotion socialization may influence the development of social-emotional skills for African American youth (Dunbar, Leerkes, Coard, Supple, & Calkins, 2016).

While our findings expand previous research, another limitation of the study exist in that the similarities and differences between our findings and those with younger samples may be due to adolescent age, ethnicity, or a combination of both. In addition, the use of self-report to examine emotional competence and peer victimization also is a limitation. The validity of self-report measures of emotional experiences and behaviors often is questioned, because youth may not be aware of how they feel, or they may report their experiences inaccurately to avoid appearing vulnerable. Thus, researchers who study emotional development have called for multi-method approaches (observational methods and other informant reports, in addition to self-report instruments) for quantifying emotional experiences and behaviors in youth to gain a broader perspective (Adrian, Zeman, & Veits, 2011; Zeman, Klimes-Dougan, Cassano, & Adrian, 2007). In the current study, we attempt to address this by using both caregiver report and adolescent report of emotion regulation to examine the longitudinal pathway to overt peer victimization. However, our use of two different emotion regulation measures limits the ability to directly compare emotion regulation across caregiver and adolescent report.

4.2. Future directions

An important implication of the current study is that associations between emotional competence and peer victimization may operate in different ways due to social goals that are specific to the developmental stage of adolescence (e.g., avoidance of negative peer interactions). It is first important to acknowledge that emotion competence deficits may leave some youth vulnerable to peer victimization. Intervention development should target these vulnerabilities as a way to empower victims who often have little agency in navigating the social context of peers. Emotion awareness and emotion regulation interventions (e.g., mindfulness interventions) show promise in equipping adolescents with the tools and knowledge of how to navigate social context by promoting the intrapersonal development of emotion skills (Metz et al., 2013). In addition, our findings suggest that adolescents may use their emotional competence skills selectively. Research that can examine the impact of adolescents' social relationships with trusted peers on the utilization of emotional competence skills may provide further information for interventions that target the larger social context and relationships of adolescents. Overall, the current study highlights the important role of emotion competencies relative to peer victimization for adolescents.

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by National Institute on Drug Abuse [Grants K01 DA015442 01A1, R21 DA 020086-02] awarded to Wendy Kliewer. We thank the families who participated in this study and the research staff who supported this work.

References

  1. Adrian M, Zeman J, & Veits G (2011). Methodological implications of the affect revolution: A 35-year review of emotion regulation assessment in children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 110, 171–197. 10.1016/j.jecp.2011.03.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Bentler PM (1992). On the fit of models to covariances and methodology to the Bulletin. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 400–404. 10.1037/0033-2909.112.3.400. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Blakemore SJ, & Choudhury S (2006). Development of the adolescent brain: Implications for executive function and social cognition. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 47, 296–312. 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2006.01611.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Blakemore SJ, & Mills KL (2014). Is adolescence a sensitive period for sociocultural processing? Annual Review of Psychologyeview of Psychology, 65, 187–207. 10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115202. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Booker JA, & Dunsmore JC (2017). Affective social competence in adolescence: Current findings and future directions. Social Development, 26, 3–20. https://doi. org/10.1111/sode.12193. [Google Scholar]
  6. Bowes L, Joinson C, Wolke D, & Lewis G (2015). Peer victimisation during adolescence and its impact on depression in early adulthood: Prospective cohort study in the United Kingdom. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed), 350, h2469 10.1136/bmj.h2469. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Browne MW, Cudeck R, Bollen KA, & Long JS (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit In Bollen KA, & Scott LJ (Eds.). Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications. [Google Scholar]
  8. Camras LA, & Shuster MM (2013). Current emotion research in developmental psychology. Emotion Review, 5, 321–329. 10.1177/1754073913477516. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  9. Chaplin TM, & Aldao A (2013). Gender differences in emotion expression in children: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 139, 735–765. 10.1037/a0030737.Gender. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Ciarrochi J, Heaven PCL, & Supavadeeprasit S (2008). The link between emotion identification skills and socio-emotional functioning in early adolescence: A 1-year longitudinal study. Journal of Adolescence, 31, 565–582. 10.1016/j.adolescence.2007.10.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Collins WA, & Steinberg L (2006). Adolescent development in interpersonal context In Damon W, & Lerner RM (Eds.). Child and adolescent development: An advanced course (pp. 551–578). Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. [Google Scholar]
  12. Cooley JL, & Fite PJ (2016). Peer victimization and forms of aggression during middle childhood: The role of emotion regulation. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 44, 535–546. 10.1007/s10802-015-0051-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Crone EA, & Dahl RE (2012). Understanding adolescence as a period of social–affective engagement and goal flexibility. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 13, 636–650. 10.1038/nrn3313. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. DeNavas-Walt C, Proctor BD, & Hill Lee C (2010). Income, poverty, and health insurance coverage in the United States (2005) U.S. Census Bureau, Current population reports (pp. 60–231). Washington, D.C: U.S. Government Printing Office. [Google Scholar]
  15. Denham SA (2007). Dealing with feelings: How children negotiate the worlds of emotions and social relationships. Cognition, Brain, Behavior, 11, 1–48. [Google Scholar]
  16. Dijkstra JK, Gest SD, Lindenberg S, Veenstra R, & Cillessen AHN (2012). Testing three explanations of the emergence of weapon carrying in peer context: The roles of aggression, victimization, and the social network. The Journal of Adolescent Health, 50, 371–376. 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2011.08.010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Doyle ST, & Sullivan TN (2017). Longitudinal relations between peer victimization, emotion dysregulation, and internalizing symptoms among early adolescents. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 37, 165–191. 10.1177/0272431615594458. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  18. Dunbar AS, Leerkes EM, Coard SI, Supple AJ, & Calkins SD (2016). An integrative conceptual model of parental racial/ethnic and emotion socialization and links to children's social-emotional development among african american families. Child Development Perspectives, 0, 1–7. 10.1111/cdep.12218. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  19. Farrell AD, Kung EM, White KS, & Valois RF (2000). The structure of self-reported aggression, drug use, and delinquent behaviors during early adolescence. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 29, 282–292. 10.1207/S15374424jccp2902. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Farrell AD, Sullivan TN, Goncy EA, & Le ATH (2016). Assessment of adolescents' victimization, aggression, and problem behaviors: Evaluation of the problem behavior frequency scale. Psychological Assessment, 28, 702–714. 10.1037/pas0000225. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Flanagan KS, Erath SA, & Bierman KL (2008). Unique associations between peer relations and social anxiety in early adolescence. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 37, 759–769. 10.1080/15374410802359700. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Garner PW, & Hinton TS (2010). Emotional display rules and emotion self-regulation: Associations with bullying and victimization in community-based after school programs. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 20, 480–496. 10.1002/casp. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  23. George D, & Mallery P (2010). SPSS for windows step by step: A simple study guide and reference17.0 update 10th Edition(10th ed.). Pearson. [Google Scholar]
  24. Godleski SA, Kamper KE, Ostrov JM, Hart EJ, & Blakely-Mcclure SJ (2014). Peer victimization and peer rejection during early childhood. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 0, 1–13. 10.1080/15374416.2014.940622. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. 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, 567–574. 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2009.02183.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Halberstadt AG, Denham SA, & Dunsmore JC (2001). Affective social competence. Social Development, 10,79–119. [Google Scholar]
  27. Hu LT, & Bentler PM (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55. 10.1080/10705519909540118. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  28. Jacob ML, Suveg C, & Whitehead MR (2014). Relations between emotional and social functioning in children with anxiety disorders. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 45, 519–532. 10.1007/s10578-013-0421-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Kilford EJ, Garrett E, & Blakemore SJ (2016). The development of social cognition in adolescence: An integrated perspective. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 70, 106–120. 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.08.016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Klomek AB, Marrocco F, Kleinman M, Schonfeld IS, & Gould MS (2008). Peer victimization, depression, and suicidiality in adolescents. Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior, 38, 166–180. 10.1521/suli.2008.38.2.166. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Lemerise EA, & Arsenio WF (2000). An integrated model of emotion processes and cognition in social information processing. Child Development, 71, 107–118. 10.1111/1467-8624.00124. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Luthar SS, & Goldstein A (2004). Children's exposure to community violence: Implications for understanding risk and resilience. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 33, 499–505. 10.1207/s15374424jccp3303. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Mahady-Wilton MM, Craig WM, & Pepler DJ (2000). Emotional regulation and display in classroom victims of bullying: Characteristic expressions of affect, coping styles and relevant contextual factors. Social Development, 9, 227–245. 10.1111/1467-9507.00121. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  34. Metz SM, Frank JL, Reibel D, Cantrell T, Sanders R, & Broderick PC (2013). The effectiveness of the learning to BREATHE program on adolescent emotion regulation. Research in Human Development, 10, 252–272. 10.1080/15427609.2013.818488. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  35. Muthén LK, & Muthén BO (2017). Mplus statistical modeling software: Release 8.0. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén. [Google Scholar]
  36. Olweus D (2013). School bullying: Development and some important challenges. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 9, 751–780. 10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-050212-185516. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Ostrov JM, & Godleski SA (2010). Toward an integrated gender-linked model of aggression subtypes in early and middle childhood. Psychological Review, 117, 233–242. 10.1037/a0018070. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Ostrov JM, & Kamper KE (2015). Future directions for research on the development of relational and physical peer victimization. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 0, 1–11. 10.1080/15374416.2015.1012723. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Parkinson B, & Manstead ASR (2015). Current emotion research in social psychology: Thinking about emotions and other people. Emotion Review, 7, 371–380. 10.1177/1754073915590624. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  40. Penza-Clyve S, & Zeman J (2002). Initial validation of the emotion expression scale for children (EESC). Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 31, 540–547. 10.1207/S15374424JCCP3104. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Perry-Parrish C, Waasdorp TE, & Bradshaw CP (2012). Peer nominations of emotional expressivity among urban children: Social and psychological correlates. Social Development, 21, 88–108. 10.1111/j.1467-9507.2011.00615.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Raftery AE (1993). Bayesian model selection in structural equation models In Bollen KA, & Long SJ (Eds.). Testing sructural equation models (pp. 163–180). Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications Inc. [Google Scholar]
  43. Reijntjes A, Kamphuis JH, Prinzie P, Boelen PA, Van Der Schoot M, & Telch MJ (2011). Prospective linkages between peer victimization and externalizing problems in children: A meta-analysis. Aggressive Behavior, 37, 215–222. 10.1002/ab.20374. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Reijntjes A, Kamphuis JH, Prinzie P, & Telch MJ (2010). Peer victimization and internalizing problems in children: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Child Abuse & Neglect, 34, 244–252. 10.1016/j.chiabu.2009.07.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Rose AJ, & Rudolph KD (2006). A review of sex differences in peer relationship processes: Potential trade-offs for the emotional and behavioral development of girls and boys. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 98–131. 10.1037/0033-2909.132.1.98. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Saarni C (2001). Cognition, context, and goals: Significant components in social-emotional effectiveness. Social Development, 10, 125–129. 10.1111/1467-9507.00152. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  47. Schwartz D, Proctor LJ, & Chien DH (2001). The aggressive victim of bullying In Juvonen J, & Graham S (Eds.). Peer harassment in school: The plight of the vulnerable and victimized (pp. 147–174). New York, NY, US: Guilford (New York, NY). [Google Scholar]
  48. Shields A, & Cicchetti D (1997). Emotion regulation among school-age children: The development and validation of a new criterion Q-sort scale. Developmental Psychology, 33, 906–916. 10.1037//0012-1649.33.6.906. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Silvers JA, McRae K, Gabrieli JDE, Gross JJ, Remy KA, & Ochsner KN (2012). Age-related differences in emotional reactivity, regulation, and rejection sensitivity in adolescence. Emotion, 12, 1235–1247. 10.1037/a0028297.Age-Related. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Sim L, & Zeman J (2004). Emotion awareness and identification skills in adolescent girls with bulimia nervosa. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 33, 760–771. 10.1207/s15374424jccp3304. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Smetana JG, Campione-Barr N, & Metzger A (2006). Adolescent development in interpersonal and societal contexts. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 255–284. 10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190124. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Sullivan TN, Farrell AD, & Kliewer W (2006). Peer victimization in early adolescence: Association between physical and relational victimization and drug use, aggression, and delinquent behaviors among urban middle school students. Development and Psychopathology, 18, 119–137. 10.1017/S095457940606007X. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Sullivan TN, Helms SW, Kliewer W, & Goodman KL (2010). Associations between sadness and anger regulation coping, emotional expression, and physical and relational aggression among urban adolescents. Social Development, 19,30–51. 10.1111/j.1467-9507.2008.00531.x.Associations. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Thompson RA (2011). Emotion and emotion regulation: Two sides of the developing coin. Emotion Review, 3, 53–61. 10.1177/1754073910380969. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  55. Van Kleef GA, De Dreu CKW, & Manstead ASR (2010). An interpersonal approach to emotion in social decision making: The emotions as social information (EASI) model. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 45–96. 10.1016/S0065-2601(10)42002-X. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  56. Zeman J, Klimes-Dougan B, Cassano M, & Adrian M (2007). Measurement issues in emotion research with children and adolescents. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 14, 377–401. 10.1111/j.1468-2850.2007.00098.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  57. Zeman J, Shipman KL, & Penza-Clyve S (2001). Development and initial validation of the children's sadness management scale. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 25, 187–205. 10.1023/A:1010623226626. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  58. Zeman J, Shipman KL, & Suveg C (2002). Anger and sadness regulation: Predictions to internalizing and externalizing symptoms in children. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 31, 393–398. 10.1207/S15374424JCCP3103_11. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Zimmermann P, & Iwanski A (2014). Emotion regulation from early adolescence to emerging adulthood and middle adulthood: Age differences, gender differences, and emotion-specific developmental variations. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 38, 182–194. Retrieved from 10.1177/0165025413515405. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES