Handbook of Emotional Development 2019
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-17332-6_10
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Sadness in Youth: Socialization, Regulation, and Adjustment

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
11
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 170 publications
0
11
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Consistent with past studies (e.g., Farrell et al, 2012), the Regulation Coping and reverse‐scored Dysregulation subscale items were averaged to create a seven‐item composite for anger (i.e., four Regulation Coping and three reverse‐scored Dysregulation items) and a 14‐item composite for sadness/worry regulation (i.e., five Sadness Regulation Coping, three reverse‐scored Sadness Dysregulation, three Worry Regulation Coping, and three reverse‐scored Worry Dysregulation items) at T1, T2, and T3. Given the theoretical and empirical support for overlap between sadness and worry experience (Lerner & Keltner, 2001), their mutual relation to internalizing symptomatology risk (McLaughlin et al, 2011; Zeman et al, 2019) and the strong associations between sadness and worry Regulation composite scores in this study (Time 1 r = .43, p < .001; Time 2 r = .51, p < .001; Time 3 r = .58, p < .001), we averaged together items from the sadness Regulation and worry Regulation composites. Internal consistencies were acceptable for the anger Regulation composite (T1 ω = 0.78, 95% CI [0.72, 0.83], T2 ω = 0.65, 95% CI [0.54, 0.73], T3 ω = 0.71, 95% CI [0.61, 0.79]) and the sadness/worry Regulation composite (T1 ω = 0.68, 95% CI [0.60, 0.74], T2 ω = 0.65, 95% CI [0.53, 0.74], T3 ω = 0.73, 95% CI [0.64, 0.81]).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Consistent with past studies (e.g., Farrell et al, 2012), the Regulation Coping and reverse‐scored Dysregulation subscale items were averaged to create a seven‐item composite for anger (i.e., four Regulation Coping and three reverse‐scored Dysregulation items) and a 14‐item composite for sadness/worry regulation (i.e., five Sadness Regulation Coping, three reverse‐scored Sadness Dysregulation, three Worry Regulation Coping, and three reverse‐scored Worry Dysregulation items) at T1, T2, and T3. Given the theoretical and empirical support for overlap between sadness and worry experience (Lerner & Keltner, 2001), their mutual relation to internalizing symptomatology risk (McLaughlin et al, 2011; Zeman et al, 2019) and the strong associations between sadness and worry Regulation composite scores in this study (Time 1 r = .43, p < .001; Time 2 r = .51, p < .001; Time 3 r = .58, p < .001), we averaged together items from the sadness Regulation and worry Regulation composites. Internal consistencies were acceptable for the anger Regulation composite (T1 ω = 0.78, 95% CI [0.72, 0.83], T2 ω = 0.65, 95% CI [0.54, 0.73], T3 ω = 0.71, 95% CI [0.61, 0.79]) and the sadness/worry Regulation composite (T1 ω = 0.68, 95% CI [0.60, 0.74], T2 ω = 0.65, 95% CI [0.53, 0.74], T3 ω = 0.73, 95% CI [0.64, 0.81]).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The EAC has five subscales assessing different emotion socialization responses: Reward (e.g., “Comforted my child”), Override (e.g., “Told him/her not to worry”), Magnify (e.g., “Got angry with my child”), Neglect (e.g., “Usually didn't notice [when my child was sad]”), and Punish (e.g., “Punished him/her [when my child was worried]”). Guided by prior research (e.g., McLaughlin et al, 2011; Zeman et al, 2019) and consistent with our approach to the CEMS ER categories, sadness and worry subscales were combined per parent emotion socialization strategy. See Table S1 in the Supplement for correlations (all p s < .001) between sadness and worry for each strategy type.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Studies of ER often focus on the regulation of emotions generally, rather than on specific emotions (Zeman et al, 2019). Functionalist theory (Campos et al, 1989) and burgeoning evidence suggest that the type of emotion experienced may influence the ways in which it is regulated.…”
Section: Er By Emotion Typementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Adolescence, encompassing the time period of roughly 12–17 years of age, represents a window of development uniquely important to ER processes (Zimmermann & Iwanski, 2014). Over the course of development, children transition from near-exclusive dependence on their caregivers for ER to more sophisticated, independent ER strategy usage (Zeman et al, 2019). By adolescence, patterns of ER responses have become inculcated, with youth opting to engage in a limited repertoire of ER strategies (Zimmermann & Iwanski, 2014).…”
Section: Er In Adolescence: Control Of Expression and Copingmentioning
confidence: 99%