Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Adolescents’ emotion regulation (ER) is linked to psychosocial adjustment, with familial emotion socialization playing a crucial role. This study explored how specific maternal reactions to anger (i.e., supportive, unsupportive) and the general mother-adolescent relationship (i.e., closeness, negative interactions) relate to adolescents’ internalizing and externalizing problems, and whether these associations are mediated by adolescents’ use of functional (e.g., reappraisal) and dysfunctional (e.g., rumination) ER strategies. Path analyses (N = 427 adolescents, 10–15 years, 59% female) showed that functional ER mediates the relationships of supportive reactions and closeness with externalizing symptoms. Dysfunctional ER mediated the associations of closeness and negative interactions with both externalizing and internalizing problems. Path comparisons revealed a stronger association of general closeness with functional ER compared to the relation between specific supportive reactions to anger and functional ER. The findings highlight the importance of maternal emotion socialization and, particularly, a close mother-adolescent relationship for adolescents’ ER and adjustment.

Keywords

emotion socialization emotion regulation internalizing and externalizing problems adolescence

Introduction

Emotion Regulation and Adjustment in Adolescence

Emotion regulation (ER) is a key component of emotional competence (e.g., Saarni, 1999), and closely associated with positive developmental outcomes. As defined by Gross (1998, p. 275), ER “refers to the processes by which individuals influence which emotions they have, when they have them, and how they experience and express these emotions”. The goal of ER can be the decrease as well as the increase of both, negative and positive emotions (Gross, 2014), which clarifies that it is not merely about minimizing the emotional experience and expression. Instead, ER is a process of modulation, which determines the temporal features (e.g., onset, duration) and the intensity of emotional states, in accordance with situational demands and individual goals (e.g., building or maintaining social relationships; Bridges et al., 2004). This involves the use of ER strategies, which can be described as functional or dysfunctional based on the mechanisms following the regulatory process (Werner & Gross, 2010) and based on empirical associations with mental health and well-being (e.g., Aldao et al., 2010; Daniel et al., 2020). Functional strategies (e.g., reappraisal, seeking social support) are beneficial for an appropriate perception and processing of emotional arousal, enabling behavioral flexibility with regard to desired (long-term) goals (Werner & Gross, 2010). In contrast, dysfunctional strategies (e.g., rumination, suppression) tend to be ineffective in modifying emotional states in the desired direction or they lead to outcomes with long-term costs exceeding the short-term benefits (John & Gross, 2004). Overall, the use of more functional and less dysfunctional strategies to regulate negative emotions is associated with better psychosocial adjustment, namely fewer internalizing (e.g., anxiety, depression) and externalizing problems (e.g., conduct problems, hyperactivity; Aldao et al., 2010; Compas et al., 2017; Graziano & Garcia, 2016; Schäfer et al., 2017).

In the emotionally challenging developmental phase of adolescence, which is characterized by numerous physiological and psychosocial changes (Meschke et al., 2012; Riediger & Klipker, 2014) as well as an increased risk for developing mental health problems (e.g., Costello et al., 2011), it is essential to handle affective states in an adaptive and appropriate way. However, empirical findings on the use of different ER strategies in adolescence suggest a maladaptive shift especially in the early adolescent years, which is indicated by increased dysfunctional and decreased functional strategy use (e.g., Cracco et al., 2017; Rueth et al., 2023). In light of these findings, this study focuses on the age range between 10 and 15 years and explores how emotion socialization can contribute to favorable developmental outcomes.

Emotion Socialization in the Family

Emotion socialization can be defined as the direct and indirect behaviors that shape the learning processes of children and adolescents with regard to their emotion experience, expression, and regulation. These behaviors, which can be overt, direct, and didactic in nature as well as more covert and subtle (e.g., interpersonal interactions and relationships; Hastings, 2018), are formed by the socializers’ goals, values, and beliefs about emotions and the associated expectations about adaptations to the social environment (Eisenberg, Spinrad, & Cumberland, 1998; Saarni, 1985). Despite the increasing influence of the wider social environment, the family context remains important for emotion socialization during adolescence (Booker & Dunsmore, 2017; Morris et al., 2017). On the one hand, parents in particular can provide a secure base in difficult situations and in times of need, from which emotion-related experiences can be made also in settings outside of the family (e.g., von Salisch, 2001). On the other hand, the frequency and intensity of conflicts with parents increase (Laursen et al., 1998; Morris et al., 2017), which may create frequent emotionally laden situations in which emotion socialization processes come into play and in which ER skills can be practiced and improved.

The specific mechanisms underlying the familial socialization processes related to ER have been theoretically framed in the Tripartite Model by Morris et al. (2007), which assumes that the family context is indirectly linked to psychosocial adjustment via adolescents’ ER skills. With regard to ER socialization, family factors that are considered important in this model include, for example, emotion-related reactions (as part of specific parenting practices) and the mother-child relationship (as part of the general emotional family climate). The present study aims to simultaneously examine the links of the more specific emotion-related reactions versus the more general relationship qualities with adolescents’ ER and adjustment. In doing so, this study focuses specifically on maternal influences because mothers typically tend to spend more time on childcare than fathers (Craig & Mullan, 2011; van Lissa & Keizer, 2020), are more involved in emotional issues of their adolescent children (Klimes-Dougan et al., 2007), and are more active in emotion socialization (Garside & Klimes-Dougan, 2002).

Specific Maternal Emotion-Related Reactions

With regard to specific maternal reactions to the display of emotions, supportive reactions are distinguished from unsupportive reactions (for comprehensive overviews, see Eisenberg, Cumberland, & Spinrad, 1998; Morris et al., 2007): Supportive reactions basically convey that the experience and expression of emotions is considered legitimate, acceptable, and welcome. They include rewarding behaviors that focus on the emotion itself (e.g., by labeling them) and on the emotion causes, aiming to provide the child with the skill to deal with emotionally challenging situations and the resulting arousal. In contrast, unsupportive reactions are behaviors that dismiss, neglect, minimize, or punish the display of negative emotions (O’Neal & Magai, 2005), thereby communicating that experiencing and showing emotions is not appropriate. This may result in emotions being seen as harmful and to be avoided rather than understood, dealt with, and expressed appropriately (Eisenberg et al., 1999). While supportive reactions can reduce negative emotional arousal through constructive coping, unsupportive reactions can intensify and prolong negative arousal, including the physiological components of the emotion (Eisenberg et al., 1999; Eisenberg, Spinrad, & Cumberland, 1998).

Previous studies show that more supportive and less unsupportive emotion socialization is associated with better ER and fewer internalizing and externalizing problems in (early) adolescence (Eisenberg et al., 1999; Howe & Zimmer-Gembeck, 2022; Otterpohl et al., 2022; Raeymaecker & Dhar, 2022). Moreover, empirical studies on the role of (predominantly maternal) reactions to the display of emotions for psychosocial adjustment suggest that adolescents’ ER skills mediate this relationship (Buckholdt et al., 2014; Hale & Zeman, 2023; Raval et al., 2014). When investigating specific reactions to the display of emotions, it must be kept in mind that the socializers’ reactions might depend on the emotion type (e.g., anger, sadness, fear). O’Neal and Magai (2005) found that a measurement model assessing parental emotion socialization in an emotion-specific way fits the data better than a more global model. The current study focuses on maternal reactions to anger, as this emotion (as opposed to more covert emotions such as sadness or fear) is more often expressed outwardly. Furthermore, it is very likely that anger occurs in the increasingly conflictual parent-adolescent interactions (e.g., Laursen et al., 1998). Overall, this may increase the likelihood that emotion socialization occurs through specific maternal reactions to anger.

The General Mother-Adolescent Relationship

Consistent with the assumptions of the Tripartite Model (Morris et al., 2007) and in line with a broader and more comprehensive understanding of the socialization of emotions and their regulation, the general mother-child relationship is another important component of emotion socialization beyond specific emotion-related parenting practices (Eisenberg, Spinrad, & Cumberland, 1998; Hastings, 2018; Morris et al., 2007). The quality of the parent-child relationship in adolescence can be described in terms of closeness, which comprises perceived support, warmth, intimacy, and attachment security, as well as with regard to the frequency of negative interactions and conflict (Furman & Buhrmester, 2009; Laursen et al., 1998; Rice, 1990). Previous research consistently showed that a closer parent-adolescent relationship (i.e., warmth and emotional support, secure attachment) is associated with more functional and less dysfunctional ER (Kullik & Petermann, 2013; Neumann & Koot, 2011). A more favorable attachment style (i.e., more secure attachment and less attachment insecurity, anxiety, and avoidance) is also associated with fewer internalizing and externalizing problems in adolescence (Allen et al., 2007). Moreover, the association of attachment with adolescents’ depressive symptoms has been found to be mediated by their ER skills (Brenning et al., 2012; Kullik & Petermann, 2013). In contrast, more negative interactions between adolescents and their primary caregivers (predominantly mothers) were related to greater ER problems (Neumann & Koot, 2011) as well as more internalizing and externalizing problems (Buist et al., 2017).

Aims of the Study

Previous research consistently indicates that more favorable emotion socialization is associated with better ER and adjustment in adolescence. However, studies on the interplay of different aspects of the socialization of emotions and their regulation are scarce. No study so far has simultaneously explored the role of two key aspects of maternal emotion socialization—maternal reactions to anger and the general mother-adolescent relationship—for adolescents’ internalizing and externalizing problems, as well as the proposed mediating role of their ER skills. This research gap constrains our understanding of the complex interplay between familial factors and adolescent development. By looking at different aspects of emotion socialization simultaneously, this study additionally aims to explore which mechanisms are most important in order to be able to set an appropriate focus in training programs. Furthermore, adolescents’ gender, which has been assigned a moderating role in theoretical models on emotion socialization (Eisenberg, Spinrad, & Cumberland, 1998; Morris et al., 2007), is considered. Moderation by gender would reflect the assumption that different mechanisms could be more or less important for adolescent boys versus girls. However, the research findings in this area are inconsistent. While some studies found no significant differences in the associations for girls and boys (Brenning et al., 2012; Otterpohl et al., 2022), gender proved to be a significant moderator in other studies. In these studies, though, associations were in part more pronounced for boys (Gaylord-Harden et al., 2009) and in part more pronounced for girls (Bender et al., 2012; Kullik & Petermann, 2013; Neumann & Koot, 2011). Given these contradictory findings, adolescent gender is included in this study, but the analyses are exploratory regarding this topic.

Hypotheses and Research Questions

Building on the theoretical frameworks and previous research outlined above, this study examined the interplay of specific maternal reactions to anger as well as the general mother-adolescent relationship with adolescents’ ER skills and their internalizing and externalizing problems. We expect that more supportive maternal reactions to anger (Hypothesis 1a) and less unsupportive reactions to anger (Hypothesis 1b) are associated with fewer internalizing and externalizing problems. Regarding the general mother-adolescent relationship, it is expected that higher closeness (Hypothesis 2a) and fewer negative interactions (Hypothesis 2b) are associated with fewer internalizing and externalizing problems. Both types of adjustment problems were included, as previous studies have shown that not only the mother-adolescent relationship, but also anger-specific reactions are related to both externalizing and internalizing problems (Buist et al., 2017; Otterpohl et al., 2022). Based on theoretical assumptions, it is also hypothesized that the associations as assumed in Hypotheses 1 and 2 are mediated by functional and dysfunctional ER strategies, and we exploratively examined whether they are moderated by gender (Exploratory Research Question 1). Furthermore, it was explored whether adolescents’ ER is more strongly associated with specific maternal reactions to anger or with the general mother-adolescent relationship (Exploratory Research Question 2).

Method

Procedure and Participants

Self-report questionnaire data were collected in schools during a 45-minute lesson. Each question was presented on paper and additionally read aloud by trained instructors, who were also available to answer questions. Procedures were approved by the ethics review board of Bielefeld University. Participation was voluntary and informed consent forms signed by parents were required at the time of the survey (participation rate: 66 %). Four times €50 for the class fund were raffled among the participating classes. A total of 432 students participated in this study, but two cases had to be excluded from the analyses due to missing values for gender (which was part of the analyses). Another three cases were excluded because they were classified as multivariate outliers (see Statistical Analyses for further information). The final sample comprised N = 427 adolescents aged 10–15 years (M = 12.22, SD = 1.27; 59% female) from grades 5 to 8 of secondary schools. Most adolescents went to grammar school (81%), which represents the highest school track in Germany, a smaller proportion of the sample attended lower school tracks (comprehensive school: 14%; intermediate secondary school: 5%).

Measures

Maternal Emotion-Related Reactions

The Emotions as a Child Scales (EAC; Magai & O’Neal, 1997; O’Neal & Magai, 2005) measure specific emotion socialization practices in response to the display of anger, sadness, fear, and shame. In order not to overburden the participants, only the version for anger was used in this study. The 15 items were translated to German in a back-and-forth translation process and synchronized with the German parent version (Otterpohl et al., 2012). For all items, participants rated their mother’s reactions to anger on a 7-point scale (from 1 = never to 7 = almost always). The subscale Reward (4 items, e.g., “She finds out what makes you angry”) measures favorable emotion socialization practices, while the subscales Neglect (3 items; e.g., “She ignores me”), Magnify (2 items; e.g., “She yells back at me”), Punish (3 items: e.g., “She punishes me”), and Override (3 items; e.g., “She tells you to keep quiet”) indicate unfavorable emotion socialization practices. The distinction between favorable and unfavorable practices was also evident in the intercorrelations of the scales, with Reward being negatively associated with all other scales (−.16 ≤ r ≤ −.46), while Neglect, Magnify, Punish, and Override showed positive intercorrelations (.17 ≤ r ≤ .60). However, we found questionable internal consistencies for Override and Neglect (Cronbach’s α_Override = .25, α_Neglect = .47), which has also been reported in previous research (e.g., O’Neal & Magai, 2005). Therefore, item and exploratory factor analyses were conducted, which suggested a two-factor structure. The results supported the original Reward factor, which includes four items and is referred to as Supportive Reactions (Cronbach’s α = .87) in the following. The second factor comprises eight items, which were combined to form the subscale Unsupportive Reactions (Cronbach’s α = .83). Three items were dropped because of low discriminatory power and factor loadings <.40 (Override: “She jokes with you about it”, Neglect: “She usually is not around”, “Most times she does not notice”). Results of previous studies suggest criterion-related validity of the EAC (e.g., Garside & Klimes-Dougan, 2002; Klimes-Dougan et al., 2007).

Mother-Adolescent Relationship

Adolescents’ perception of the relationship with their mothers was assessed using the Network of Relationships Inventory (NRI; Buhrmester & Furman, 2008; Furman & Buhrmester, 2009), which is available in three different versions. It allows for different subscales to be combined depending on the study objective. In this study, the subscales Companionship, Intimate Disclosure, Emotional Support, Approval, and Satisfaction from the Relationship Qualities Version were combined to assess mother-adolescent Closeness (15 items; e.g., “How often do you turn to your mother for support with personal problems?“). Furthermore, the subscales Conflict, Antagonism, and Criticism from the Behavioral Systems Version were used to assess Negative Interactions (9 items; e.g., “How often do you and your mother argue with each other?”). The items, which were translated to German in a back-and-forth translation process or (if available) taken from previous studies (Lohaus et al., 2020; Noack & Buhl, 2005), were answered on a 5-point scale (from 1 = almost never/little or none to 5 = always/the most). Internal consistencies were excellent in this study (Cronbach’s α_Closeness = .92, α_{Negative Interactions} = .91) and validity of the scales has previously been demonstrated (e.g., Furman & Buhrmester, 2009).

Emotion Regulation

The Process-Oriented Emotion Regulation Measure (POEM-CA; Rüth & Lohaus, 2023) is a German self-report questionnaire assessing 8–17-year-olds’ ER skills. The POEM-CA comprises 58 items that are answered on a 4-point scale (from 1 = not true at all to 4 = totally true) and are evenly distributed across the scales measuring Functional ER (e.g., “When I am afraid of something, I ask someone for help”, “When I am nervous, I try to do something relaxing”) and Dysfunctional ER (e.g., “I cannot get rid of thoughts about something that frightens me”, “When something upsets me, I find it hard to control my feelings”). Internal consistencies were excellent (Cronbach’s α_{Functional ER} = .92, α_{Dysfunctional ER} = .90), and previous studies demonstrated construct and criterion-related validity (Rueth & Lohaus, 2022; Rüth & Lohaus, 2023).

Psychosocial Adjustment

The German self-report version of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ; R. Goodman, 1997; Lohbeck et al., 2015) was used to assess adolescents’ adjustment. The SDQ is a widely used screening measure for adolescents aged 11–17 years and comprises 25 items that are answered on a 3-point scale (from 1 = not true to 3 = certainly true). Five primary subscales with five items each can be computed, but only the four problem-focused subscales were used in this study. In line with A. Goodman et al. (2010), the Conduct Problems and Hyperactivity primary scales were combined to form the secondary scale Externalizing Problems (e.g., “I get very angry and often lose my temper”), while the Emotional Problems and Peer Problems primary scales formed the secondary scale Internalizing Problems (e.g., “I am often unhappy, down-hearted or tearful”). Reliabilities of both secondary scales were acceptable in this study (Cronbach’s α_{Internalizing} = .69, α_{Externalizing} = .71) and validity has been demonstrated in previous studies (e.g., A. Goodman et al., 2010). According to the total score, the present sample is predominantly nonclinical (83 % close to average or slightly raised, 17% high or very high).

Statistical Analyses

Analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics 28 and Mplus Version 8.10 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2017). Scale means for each participant were calculated when at least 70% of the responses were available. Missing values at scale level (<1%) were estimated within parameter estimation of the path models using the full-information maximum likelihood method (FIML). Outlier analyses resulted in three cases being excluded because they were classified as multivariate outliers (i.e., large Mahalanobis distance, Cook’s distance, and/or leverage score), which were most likely caused by systematic response patterns. Path analysis models with manifest variables were calculated to test the hypotheses of this study. Model fit was considered good with a comparative fit index (CFI) ≥ .95, a root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) ≤ .06, and a standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) ≤ .08 (Hu & Bentler, 1999). As the assumption of multivariate normal distribution of the data was violated, the robust maximum likelihood estimator (MLR; providing mean-adjusted χ²-values and scaling correction factors) was used for parameter estimation. The corresponding χ²-difference test (Muthén & Muthén, 2017) was calculated for model comparisons when testing for moderation and comparing selected paths of the model (Exploratory Research Questions, see below).

In the path model, the variables measuring adolescents’ psychosocial adjustment (SDQ: Internalizing Problems, Externalizing Problems) were regressed on maternal reactions to anger (EAC: Supportive Reactions, Unsupportive Reactions; Hypothesis 1) and the mother-adolescent relationship (NRI: Closeness, Negative Interactions; Hypothesis 2). Functional ER and Dysfunctional ER (POEM-CA) were included as parallel mediators. Adolescents’ age was entered as a control variable. Moderation by gender (Exploratory Research Question 1) was tested using multi-group path analysis, whereby a model in which all path coefficients can vary between the two groups was compared with a restrictive model constraining all paths to be equal. If there was significant moderation by gender (indicated by a significant χ²-difference test), results would be reported separately for boys and girls. In the case of non-significant moderation, single-group analysis with pooled data from both groups would be conducted, including gender as a control variable.

To examine whether specific maternal reactions to anger or the more general mother-adolescent relationship are more strongly associated with ER (Exploratory Research Question 2), pairwise parameter comparisons were computed. The coefficients of the paths that regressed from Functional or Dysfunctional ER on the positive aspects of the family context (EAC: Supportive Reactions, NRI: Closeness) were compared with each other, as were the path coefficients that regressed on the negative aspects of the family context (EAC: Unsupportive Reactions, NRI: Negative Interactions). Equality constraints were added to the model for the respective parameters. In order to test the difference between the two paths for significance, the constrained model was compared with a model in which both parameters were allowed to vary freely using the χ²-difference test.

Results

Preliminary Analyses

Intercorrelations of all scales were significant and in the expected directions (Table 1). Age was significantly associated with Supportive Reactions (r = −.13, p = .007), Closeness (r = −.17, p < .001), Negative Interactions (r = .23, p < .001), and Externalizing Problems (r = −.13, p = .010), and was therefore included as covariate/control variable in all subsequent analyses. To explore gender differences on the study variables, a multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA; covariate: age) was computed. Results showed a significant multivariate effect for gender, F_{(8, 416)} = 6.88, p < .001, η² = .12, Wilk’s Λ = .88. Univariate analyses (Table 2) revealed that girls (compared to boys) showed significantly higher scores for Closeness, Dysfunctional ER, and Internalizing Problems, but also reported less maternal Unsupportive Reactions.

Table 1.

Intercorrelations for Study Variables and Associations With Age and Gender.

	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)	(6)	(7)	(8)
(1) Supportive reactions	-
(2) Unsupportive reactions	−.39^***	-
(3) Closeness	.68^***	−.42^***	-
(4) Negative interactions	−.39^***	.55^***	−.44^***	-
(5) Functional ER	.38^***	−.20^***	.45^***	−.22^***	-
(6) Dysfunctional ER	−.25^***	.21^***	−.28^***	.30^***	−.54^***	-
(7) Internalizing problems	−.23^***	.18^***	−.18^***	.22^***	−.35^***	.59^***	-
(8) Externalizing problems	−.21^***	.32^***	−.22^***	.32^***	−.40^***	.40^***	.24^***	-
Age	−.13^**	.02	−.17^***	.23^***	−.02	.06	.01	−.13^*
Gender^a	.00	.13^**	−.10^*	.01	−.03	−.18^***	−.22^***	.02

Note. ER = Emotion Regulation. 426 ≤ N ≤ 427.

^a0 = girls, 1 = boys.

^*p < .05. ^**p < .01. ^***p < .001.

Table 2.

Means, Standard Deviations, and Univariate Effects From the MANCOVA Testing for Gender Differences and Controlling for Age.

	Total (N = 426)		Girls (n = 250)		Boys (n = 176)		F _(1,423)	η²
	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	F _(1,423)	η²
Supportive reactions^a	4.85	1.54	4.84	1.58	4.85	1.47	0.00	.00
Unsupportive reactions^a	1.96	0.88	1.86	0.83	2.09	0.94	6.85^**	.02
Closeness^b	3.59	0.70	3.64	0.70	3.50	0.68	4.27^*	.01
Negative interactions^b	2.19	0.75	2.18	0.73	2.19	0.79	0.02	.00
Functional ER^c	2.73	0.48	2.75	0.49	2.72	0.47	0.37	.00
Dysfunctional ER^c	2.38	0.49	2.46	0.51	2.28	0.42	14.12^***	.03
Internalizing problems^d	1.57	0.33	1.63	0.35	1.49	0.28	20.07^***	.05
Externalizing problems^d	1.66	0.34	1.65	0.33	1.67	0.35	0.30	.00

Note. ER = Emotion Regulation.

^aResponse scale from 1 = never to 7 = almost always.

^bResponse scale from 1 = almost never/little or none to 5 = always/the most.

^cResponse scale from 1 = not true at all to 4 = totally true.

^dResponse scale from 1 = not true to 3 = certainly true.

^*p < .05. ^**p < .01. ^***p < .001.

Main Analyses

To test whether the associations between maternal emotion socialization, ER, and adjustment was moderated by gender (Exploratory Research Question 1), a multi-group path model was computed. The path analysis provided good fit indices for the constrained model, χ²(24) = 27.28, p = .29, CFI = .99, RMSEA = .03, 90 % CI [.00; .06], SRMR = .06. This more restrictive model was not significantly different from the unconstrained model, χ²(4) = 6.33, p = .18, CFI = 1.00, RMSEA = .05, 90 % CI [.00; .13], SRMR = .02; Δχ² = 20.69, Δdf = 20, p = .42. Hence, the associations to be tested in this study were not moderated by gender, and the data of boys and girls were analyzed as one group. Gender was included as a control variable instead (in addition to age). The final model showed reasonable fit to the data, χ²(7) = 15.71, p = .03, CFI = .99, RMSEA = .05, 90 % CI [.02; .09], SRMR = .02, revealing several significant associations in the expected direction (Figure 1, ESM Supplemental Table 1).

Figure 1.

Path analysis model of associations between emotion socialization and psychosocial adjustment, mediated by emotion regulation. Note. This path analysis model shows the associations of maternal reactions to anger and the mother-adolescent relationship with internalizing and externalizing problems, mediated by functional and dysfunctional emotion regulation. For visual clarity, non-significant paths and associations with age and gender (control variables) are not displayed. Statistics are standardized correlation and regression coefficients. ER = Emotion Regulation. ^*p < .05. ^**p < .01. ^***p < .001.

More maternal supportive reactions (Hypothesis 1a) were associated with more functional ER, which in turn was associated with less externalizing problems. The significant indirect effect (b = −0.01, SE(b) = 0.00, p < .05, β = −.04, 95% CI(β) [−.072; −.001]) supported the assumed mediation. However, no direct links with psychosocial adjustment or dysfunctional ER were found. In contrast, more maternal unsupportive reactions (Hypothesis 1b) were directly linked with more externalizing symptoms, but no significant associations with ER or internalizing problems were found. With regard to the mother-adolescent relationship, higher closeness (Hypothesis 2a) was linked to more functional ER, which in turn predicted fewer externalizing problems (indirect effect: b = −0.04, SE(b) = 0.01, p < .01, β = −.09, 95% CI(β) [−.132; −.037]). Dysfunctional ER fully mediated the associations of closeness with both internalizing (indirect effect: b = −0.04, SE(b) = 0.02, p < .01, β = −.09, 95% CI(β) [−.157; −.023]) and externalizing problems (indirect effect: b = −0.02, SE(b) = 0.01, p < .05, β = −.04, 95% CI(β) [−.072; −.004]). Similarly, dysfunctional strategies fully mediated the association of negative interactions (Hypothesis 2b) with internalizing problems (indirect effect: b = 0.04, SE(b) = 0.02, p < .01, β = .09, 95% CI(β) [.023; .154]), and partially mediated the relation with externalizing problems (indirect effect: b = 0.02, SE(b) = 0.01, p < .05, β = .04, 95% CI(β) [.005; .069]).

Pairwise parameter comparisons (Exploratory Research Question 2) revealed that the association of closeness with functional ER (b = 0.24, SE(b) = 0.04, p < .001, β = .35) was significantly higher compared to the relation of supportive reactions with functional ER (b = 0.05, SE(b) = 0.02, p < .05, β = .15; Δχ² = 12.49, Δdf = 1, p < .001). However, none of the other pairwise parameter comparisons showed significant differences between the corresponding path coefficients (0.24 ≤ Δχ² ≤ 3.15, Δdf = 1, .08 ≤ p ≤ .49). Additionally, at the descriptive level, both aspects of the mother-adolescent relationship were associated with dysfunctional ER (Closeness: b = −0.12, SE(b) = 0.05, p < .01, β = −.17; Negative Interactions: b = 0.11, SE(b) = 0.04, p < .01, β = .17), whereas the paths regressing on maternal reactions to anger were not statistically significant (Supportive Reactions: b = −0.01, SE(b) = 0.02, p = .50, β = −.04; Unsupportive Reactions: b = 0.03, SE(b) = 0.03, p = .35, β = .05).

Discussion

This study is the first to simultaneously examine and compare the links of two aspects of adolescents’ reports of maternal emotion socialization, namely emotion-related reactions and the general mother-adolescent relationship, with their ER and adjustment. Overall, maternal emotion socialization explained a large part of the variances of ER and adjustment, and multiple significant direct and indirect associations in expected directions were found, mainly confirming the study hypotheses.

Regarding specific emotion-related parenting practices, it can be summarized that adolescents who perceived their mothers as more supportive towards the display of anger (Hypothesis 1a) also reported more functional ER, which in turn was associated with fewer externalizing problems. This significant indirect link is in line with theoretical assumptions and previous empirical findings (Morris et al., 2007; Raval et al., 2014). The mechanism could be explained by the fact that the mother’s supportive approach (e.g., validating emotions, expressing empathy, exploring the causes of emotions together) fosters adolescents’ emotional awareness, especially their understanding of own emotions, which has been found to be linked to functional ER and better psychosocial adjustment (Gross, 2015; Rueth et al., 2019).

As hypothesized, less frequent unsupportive reactions to anger (Hypothesis 1b) were associated with fewer externalizing problems, but no mediation by ER (assessed in a cross-emotional manner) was found. The solely direct link with problem behavior is contrary to our expectations and previous studies on emotion socialization in adolescence (e.g., Buckholdt et al., 2014) but might be explained by the fact that ER was not specifically assessed for anger (see also the discussion of Exploratory Research Question 2). Interestingly, findings from other studies suggest that unsupportive reactions are more important for children’s and adolescents’ ER and adjustment in comparison to supportive reactions (Ravi et al., 2023; Seddon et al., 2020). Nevertheless, the results of the present study indicate that supportive reactions are also relevant, especially for adolescents’ functional ER and externalizing problems.

With regard to internalizing problems, neither perceived supportive nor unsupportive reactions showed significant associations in this study. This might be due to the greater overlap between anger (which was the focus in the assessment of maternal emotion-related reactions) and externalizing problems compared to internalizing problems. For example, Hale and Zeman (2023) found adolescents’ regulation of sadness and worry but not the regulation of anger to mediate the relation of parental emotion socialization with internalizing problems. In a similar way, these emotion-specific pathways could apply for emotion socialization practices of primary caregivers. Therefore, future research should more closely examine the socialization of anger in comparison to other emotions such as sadness and anxiety, as this could broaden the understanding of emotion socialization in general.

Regarding the mother-adolescent relationship, the results are in line with assumptions of the Tripartite Model (Morris et al., 2007) and previous findings (e.g., Allen et al., 2007; Kullik & Petermann, 2013; Neumann & Koot, 2011), mainly supporting the study hypotheses. Adolescents perceiving a higher closeness with their mothers (Hypothesis 2a) also report fewer externalizing and internalizing problems. The association with externalizing problems was fully mediated by both, functional and dysfunctional ER, while the association with internalizing problems was fully mediated by dysfunctional ER only. It seems reasonable that adolescents perceiving a closer relationship with their mothers are more likely to seek comfort and support in emotionally arousing situations. Gaylord-Harden et al. (2009), for example, found in their longitudinal study that a secure attachment between mothers and their adolescent children is particularly associated with increased reliance on social support. In moments of disclosure, emotions may be communicated and labeled, and the causes of emotional states may be explored (Neumann & Koot, 2011; von Salisch, 2001), creating situations in which adolescents and their mothers can work through emotional states constructively together. This could also promote an accepting and positive attitude towards emotions, which is an essential foundation for the use of more functional and less dysfunctional ER strategies and for better psychosocial adjustment. In contrast, as hypothesized and in line with previous findings (e.g., Buist et al., 2017; Neumann & Koot, 2011), fewer negative interactions (Hypothesis 2b) perceived by adolescents were associated with fewer internalizing as well as externalizing problems, which was mediated by dysfunctional ER. This corresponds to the finding that more negative interactions between adolescents and their primary caregivers (predominantly mothers) are related to emotion profiles of high reactivity and negative emotion expression (Turpyn et al., 2015). The meaningful associations could arise from the fact that conflicts potentially include the experience of negative child-directed emotions, which may be experienced as threatening for the interpersonal relationship (Eisenberg, Cumberland, & Spinrad, 1998). This might offer very little space to express emotions freely and to practice functional ER strategies, potentially resulting in the use of dysfunctional strategies such as emotion suppression instead, which in turn could prevent mutual understanding and the offer of support. Negative interactions might further increase the likelihood of escalations of emotionally laden discussions, in a developmental phase that is already characterized by a heightened affective intensity of conflicts (Booker & Dunsmore, 2017; Laursen et al., 1998). As a result, poor adjustment and negative qualities of the mother-adolescent relationship can accumulate and manifest in ongoing internalizing and externalizing problems.

In addition to examining the interplay of perceived emotion socialization, ER, and adjustment, this study was designed to investigate for the first time whether specific maternal emotion-related reactions or the general mother-adolescent relationship is of greater importance for adolescents’ ER (Exploratory Research Question 2). Overall, it was shown that—in descriptive terms—there were more associations as well as stronger associations for the general mother-adolescent relationship than for specific reactions to anger. Furthermore, statistical comparisons of the paths showed that general closeness was more strongly associated with functional ER than specific supportive reactions to anger. Thus, the perception of the more general relationship qualities (although not directly aimed at promoting ER) seem to be of greater importance than the perceived emotion-related parenting practices, which aim to directly promote emotional competencies. This might be due to the fact that adolescents (compared to younger children) regulate their emotions more independently in line with a developmental trend toward greater reliance on internal emotion regulation in adolescence (Zeman et al., 2006). This in turn minimizes the opportunities for targeted emotion coaching, thereby possibly increasing the importance of more general aspects of emotion socialization. In addition, a methodological aspect must be mentioned at this point: Maternal reactions were assessed in an emotion-specific way for anger, as previous studies have shown that emotion socialization behaviors differ depending on the emotion type (e.g., O’Neal & Magai, 2005). Adolescents’ ER, however, was measured across different emotions, which might diminish the associations with specific anger-related reactions and make associations with the parent-adolescent relationship appear larger in comparison. However, functional and dysfunctional ER scales only including items related to anger, bad moods, and being upset (but not items related to sadness and anxiety) were additionally calculated. The pattern of associations between these shorter ER scales with maternal emotion socialization remained the same. This suggests that emotion specific responses might also affect ER in general as improvements in recognizing and reflecting on anger, for instance, could enhance general emotion identification and regulation skills.

Analyses did not reveal significant differences between the paths of negative emotion socialization indicators (i.e., unsupportive reactions, negative interactions) predicting ER. In this regard, it turned out that while the positive aspects were indirectly related to psychosocial adjustment via ER, the negative aspects were rather directly linked to externalizing problems. This might be explained by a reciprocal link between adolescents’ problem behavior and negative parental behavior (e.g., Kuppens et al., 2009; Otterpohl & Wild, 2015). Increased externalizing problems might be associated with more parent-adolescent conflicts and parents might see the need to respond directly to their child’s problem behavior with unsupportive reactions. Supportive reactions and closeness, in contrast, might come into play when there are either no or less obvious adjustment problems (e.g., less observable internalizing symptoms) and when parents feel comfortable in supporting their adolescent children indirectly by fostering their ER skills though supportive emotion-related reactions and building up a close relationship.

Finally, analyses on the moderating effect of gender (Exploratory Research Question 1) revealed that the associations did not differ significantly between boys and girls, although gender-specific mean differences were found for maternal emotion socialization in preliminary analyses. Girls in comparison to boys reported less maternal unsupportive reactions to anger but higher closeness, which is in line with previous findings (e.g., Klimes-Dougan et al., 2007; van Lissa et al., 2019). This suggests that there may be gender-specific needs, such as building a closer relationship particularly in mother-son dyads. However, the underlying emotion socialization mechanisms were similar for boys and girls in this study.

Overall, the results of this study suggest that maternal emotion socialization is not only relevant in childhood but continues to be important during adolescence, when individuals increasingly strive for autonomy and deal with their emotions more independently. Both, adolescents and their parents experience emotionally challenging situations in this developmental period and prevention programs could help to overcome these challenges. It has been shown, for example, that parent emotion socialization trainings (e.g., Tuning in to Teens) not only reduce parental dismissive reactions to emotions and family conflict, but also improves adolescents’ psychosocial adjustment (e.g., Havighurst et al., 2015). Since the results of our study particularly emphasize the importance of a close relationship between mothers and their adolescent children, future studies on training effects as well as on associations among these variables should include measures of the emotional family climate, as these findings can help to fine-tune prevention and intervention programs.

Strengths, Limitations, and Future Research

The most important strength of the present study is that—in contrast to most previous research—two socialization mechanisms were examined simultaneously. This allowed to examine whether specific maternal reactions to anger or the more general mother-adolescent relationship are more important for adolescents’ ER. However, the fact that the maternal reactions were measured solely for anger does not allow generalizations to other emotions. In addition, the mean of the subscale measuring unsupportive reactions to anger was rather low, which can result in smaller variance and reduced associations with other variables, which means that these associations can be underestimated. Furthermore, ER strategies were not assessed in an emotion-specific way. Future studies should therefore assess the reactions to the display of emotions as well as ER specifically for different emotion types (e.g., anger, sadness, anxiety, happiness) in order to gain a deeper understanding of emotion socialization processes. In this context, not only emotion-related reactions, but also emotion-related beliefs and attitudes should be considered, as the so-called meta-emotion philosophy of parents has been found to be meaningful for parental behavior and the emotional development of children and adolescents (e.g., Gottman et al., 1996; Morris et al., 2007). Another limitation of this study is the fact that only the emotion socialization of the mother but not of the father was surveyed. However, research provides evidence that paternal emotion socialization is important beyond the influence of mothers (e.g., van Lissa et al., 2019; van Lissa & Keizer, 2020). Additionally, this study only used cross-sectional data from questionnaires completed by adolescents. This is very common for research in this area (Adrian et al., 2011), but constitutes a further limitation. The cross-sectional design renders conclusions about the direction of effects impossible. There may be reciprocal links between adolescents’ ER or adjustment and maternal emotion socialization that remain undetected by this approach. Longitudinal and/or experimental studies could allow for the investigation of developmental pathways and the direction of effects. Regarding the fact that all study variables were assessed with adolescent self-reports, it should be noted that this might be accompanied by the issue of shared method variance. However, an exploratory factor analysis using the variables from the path model revealed more than one factor, with the first factor explaining 42% of the variance, suggesting that shared method variance alone—although it could be an influential factor—cannot explain the pattern of results. Furthermore, adolescents are a reliable source of information on internal processes such as ER (Adrian et al., 2011; Zhou et al., 2020), and their perceptions of maternal behavior may even be more important compared to mothers’ self-reports, as adolescents typically react on perceived behavior (and not behavior observed by others). In future research, it is nevertheless desirable to include further perspectives in order to validate the findings of this study.

Conclusion

Overall, this study makes an important contribution to understanding the links between maternal emotion socialization and adolescent psychosocial adjustment along with the mediating role of ER as proposed in the Tripartite Model (Morris et al., 2007). While no moderating effect of gender was found, exploratory path comparisons for the overall sample indicated greater importance of a close mother-adolescent relationship for functional ER in comparison to specific supportive reactions to anger. In addition to specific emotion-oriented practices, the results highlight the importance of the general relationship quality for emotion socialization processes, which should be considered in the context of prevention and intervention.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material - Specific Maternal Reactions to Anger and the General Mother-Adolescent Relationship: Links with Adolescents’ Emotion Regulation and Adjustment

Supplemental Material for Specific Maternal Reactions to Anger and the General Mother-Adolescent Relationship: Links with Adolescents’ Emotion Regulation and Adjustment by Jana-Elisa Rueth, Hannah Arens, and Arnold Lohaus in The Journal of Early Adolescence

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,authorship,and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research,authorship,and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Jana-Elisa Rueth

Hannah Arens

Arnold Lohaus

Data Availability Statement

The authors are willing to share their data and research materials with other researchers. The material is available upon request. *

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Author Biographies

Jana-Elisa Rueth is a professor at the Department of Psychology at the University of Münster,Germany. Her research focuses on the development and socialization of socio-emotional competencies in childhood and adolescence,especially with regard to the role of familial,contextual and personal factors for emotional competencies,well-being,and psychosocial adjustment.

Hannah Arens received her Master’s degree in Psychology from Bielefeld University,Germany. She is a psychotherapist in training with research interests in the field of emotional competencies,particularly with regard to their importance for mental health.

Arnold Lohaus is a senior professor at the Department of Psychology at Bielefeld University,Germany. He is a developmental psychologist and conducts research on stress and coping,emotion regulation,resources,and development under adverse living conditions (e.g.,children and adolescents in out-of-home care and refugee youth).

References

Adrian

Zeman

Veits

(2011). Methodological implications of the affect revolution: A 35-year review of emotion regulation assessment in children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 110(2), 171–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2011.03.009

Aldao

Nolen-Hoeksema

Schweizer

(2010). Emotion-regulation strategies across psychopathology: A meta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 30(2), 217–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2009.11.004

Allen

J. P.

Porter

McFarland

McElhaney

K. B.

Marsh

(2007). The relation of attachment security to adolescents’ paternal and peer relationships, depression, and externalizing behavior. Child Development, 78(4), 1222–1239. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01062.x

Bender

P. K.

Reinholdt-Dunne

M. L.

Esbjørn

B. H.

Pons

(2012). Emotion dysregulation and anxiety in children and adolescents: Gender differences. Personality and Individual Differences, 53(3), 284–288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.03.027

Booker

J. A.

Dunsmore

J. C.

(2017). Affective social competence in adolescence: Current findings and future directions. Social Development, 26(1), 3–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12193

Brenning

K. M.

Soenens

Braet

Bosmans

G. U.

(2012). Attachment and depressive symptoms in middle childhood and early adolescence: Testing the validity of the emotion regulation model of attachment. Personal Relationships, 19(3), 445–464. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2011.01372.x

Bridges

L. J.

Denham

S. A.

Ganiban

J. M.

(2004). Definitional issues in emotion regulation research. Child Development, 75(2), 340–345. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00675.x

Buckholdt

K. E.

Parra

G. R.

Jobe-Shields

(2014). Intergenerational transmission of emotion dysregulation through parental invalidation of emotions: Implications for adolescent internalizing and externalizing behaviors. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 23(2), 324–332. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-013-9768-4

Buhrmester

Furman

(2008). The Network of relationships inventory: Relationship qualities version. Unpublished measure. University of Texas at Dallas.

10.

Buist

K. L.

Verhoeven

Hoksbergen

Laak

J. T.

Watve

Paranjpe

(2017). Associations of perceived sibling and parent-child relationship quality with internalizing and externalizing problems: Comparing Indian and Dutch early adolescents. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 37(8), 1163–1190. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431616653473

11.

Compas

B. E.

Jaser

S. S.

Bettis

A. H.

Watson

K. H.

Gruhn

M. A.

Dunbar

J. P.

Williams

Thigpen

J. C.

(2017). Coping, emotion regulation, and psychopathology in childhood and adolescence: A meta-analysis and narrative review. Psychological Bulletin, 143(9), 939–991. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000110

12.

Costello

E. J.

Copeland

Angold

(2011). Trends in psychopathology across the adolescent years: What changes when children become adolescents, and when adolescents become adults? Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 52(10), 1015–1025. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2011.02446.x

13.

Cracco

Goossens

Braet

(2017). Emotion regulation across childhood and adolescence: Evidence for a maladaptive shift in adolescence. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 26(8), 909–921. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00787-017-0952-8

14.

Craig

Mullan

(2011). How mothers and fathers share childcare. American Sociological Review, 76(6), 834–861. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122411427673

15.

Daniel

S. K.

Abdel-Baki

Hall

G. B.

(2020). The protective effect of emotion regulation on child and adolescent wellbeing. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 29(7), 2010–2027. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-020-01731-3

16.

Eisenberg

Cumberland

A. J.

Spinrad

T. L.

(1998). Parental socialization of emotion. Psychological Inquiry, 9(4), 241–273. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli0904_1

17.

Eisenberg

Fabes

R. A.

Shepard

S. A.

Guthrie

I. K.

Murphy

B. C.

Reiser

(1999). Parental reactions to children’s negative emotions: Longitudinal relations to quality of children’s social functioning. Child Development, 70(2), 513–534. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00037

18.

Eisenberg

Spinrad

T. L.

Cumberland

A. J.

(1998). The socialization of emotion: Reply to commentaries. Psychological Inquiry, 9(4), 317–333. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli0904_17

19.

Furman

Buhrmester

(2009). The Network of relationships inventory: Behavioral systems version. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 33(5), 470–478. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025409342634

20.

Garside

R. B.

Klimes-Dougan

(2002). Socialization of discrete negative emotions: Gender differences and links with psychological distress. Sex Roles, 47(3/4), 115–128. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021090904785

21.

Gaylord-Harden

N. K.

Taylor

J. J.

Campbell

C. L.

Kesselring

C. M.

Grant

K. E.

(2009). Maternal attachment and depressive symptoms in urban adolescents: The influence of coping strategies and gender. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 38(5), 684–695. https://doi.org/10.1080/15374410903103569

22.

Goodman

Lamping

D. L.

Ploubidis

G. B.

(2010). When to use broader internalising and externalising subscales instead of the hypothesised five subscales on the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ): Data from British parents, teachers and children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 38(8), 1179–1191. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-010-9434-x

23.

Goodman

(1997). The strengths and difficulties questionnaire: A research note. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 38(5), 581–586. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1997.tb01545.x

24.

Gottman

J. M.

Katz

L. F.

Hooven

(1996). Parental meta-emotion philosophy and the emotional life of families: Theoretical models and preliminary data. Journal of Family Psychology, 10(3), 243–268. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.10.3.243

25.

Graziano

P. A.

Garcia

(2016). Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder and children’s emotion dysregulation: A meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 46, 106–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2016.04.011

26.

Gross

J. J.

(1998). The emerging field of emotion regulation: An integrative review. Review of General Psychology, 2(3), 271–299. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.2.3.271

27.

Gross

J. J.

(2014). Emotion regulation: Conceptual and empirical foundations. In Gross

J. J.

(Ed.), Handbook of emotion regulation (2nd ed., pp. 3–20). The Guilford Press.

28.

Gross

J. J.

(2015). Emotion regulation: Current status and future prospects. Psychological Inquiry, 26(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2014.940781

29.

Hale

M. E.

Zeman

J. L.

(2023). Parent and friend emotion socialization in adolescence: The path to internalizing symptoms. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 85, Article 101513. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2023.101513

30.

Hastings

P. D.

(2018). The socialization of emotion by parents: Following Saarni’s legacy. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 15(6), 694–710. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405629.2018.1482210

31.

Havighurst

S. S.

Kehoe

C. E.

Harley

A. E.

(2015). Tuning in to Teens: Improving parental responses to anger and reducing youth externalizing behavior problems. Journal of Adolescence, 42, 148–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2015.04.005

32.

Howe

S. L.

Zimmer-Gembeck

M. J.

(2022). Person-centered maternal emotion socialization and child temperament: Relations to children’s emotion regulation and anxiety and depressive symptoms. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 31(9), 2644–2659. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-022-02289-y

33.

Bentler

P. M.

(1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118

34.

John

O. P.

Gross

J. J.

(2004). Healthy and unhealthy emotion regulation: Personality processes, individual differences, and life span development. Journal of Personality, 72(6), 1301–1334. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2004.00298.x

35.

Klimes-Dougan

Brand

A. E.

Zahn-Waxler

Usher

Hastings

P. D.

Kendziora

Garside

R. B.

(2007). Parental emotion socialization in adolescence: Differences in sex, age and problem status. Social Development, 16(2), 326–342. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9507.2007.00387.x

36.

Kullik

Petermann

(2013). Attachment to parents and peers as a risk factor for adolescent depressive disorders: The mediating role of emotion regulation. Child Psychiatry & Human Development, 44(4), 537–548. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10578-012-0347-5

37.

Kuppens

Grietens

Onghena

Michiels

(2009). Relations between parental psychological control and childhood relational aggression: Reciprocal in nature? Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 38(1), 117–131. https://doi.org/10.1080/15374410802575354

38.

Laursen

Coy

K. C.

Collins

W. A.

(1998). Reconsidering changes in parent-child conflict across adolescence: A meta-analysis. Child Development, 69(3), 817–832. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1998.tb06245.x

39.

Lohaus

Rueth

J.-E.

Vierhaus

(2020). Cross-informant discrepancies and their association with maternal depression, maternal parenting stress, and mother-child relationship. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 29(3), 867–879. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-019-01625-z

40.

Lohbeck

Schultheiß

Petermann

(2015). Die deutsche Selbstbeurteilungsversion des Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ-Deu-S): Psychometrische Eigenschaften, Faktorenstruktur und Grenzwerte [The German self-report version of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ-Deu-S): Psychometric properties, factor structure, and critical values]. Diagnostica, 61(4), 222–235. https://doi.org/10.1026/0012-1924/a000153

41.

Magai

O’Neal

C. R.

(1997). Emotions as a child (child version). Unpublished Manuscript. Long Island University.

42.

Meschke

L. L.

Peter

C. R.

Bartholomae

(2012). Developmentally appropriate practice to promote healthy adolescent development: Integrating research and practice. Child & Youth Care Forum, 41(1), 89–108. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10566-011-9153-7

43.

Morris

A. S.

Houltberg

B. J.

Criss

M. M.

Bosler

C. D.

(2017). Family context and psychopathology: The mediating role of children’s emotion regulation. In Centifanti

L. C.

Williams

D. M.

(Eds.), The Wiley handbook of developmental psychopathology (pp. 365–389). John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118554470.ch18

44.

Morris

A. S.

Silk

J. S.

Steinberg

Myers

S. S.

Robinson

L. R.

(2007). The role of the family context in the development of emotion regulation. Social Development, 16(2), 361–388. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9507.2007.00389.x

45.

Muthén

L. K.

Muthén

B. O.

(1998–2017). Mplus user’s guide (8th ed.). Muthén & Muthén. https://www.statmodel.com/download/usersguide/MplusUserGuideVer_8.pdf

46.

Muthén

L. K.

Muthén

B. O.

(2017). Chi-square difference testing using the S-B scaled chi-square. Note on Mplus website. https://www.statmodel.com/chidiff.shtml

47.

Neumann

Koot

H. M.

(2011). Emotionsregulationsprobleme im Jugendalter: Zusammenhänge mit Erziehung und der Qualität der Mutter-Kind-Beziehung [Adolescent difficulties in emotion regulation: Associations with parenting and mother-adolescent relationship quality]. Zeitschrift für Entwicklungspsychologie und Pädagogische Psychologie, 43(3), 153–160. https://doi.org/10.1026/0049-8637/a000043

48.

Noack

Buhl

H. M.

(2005). Relations with parents and friends during adolescence and early adulthood. Marriage & Family Review, 36(3–4), 31–51. https://doi.org/10.1300/J002v36n03_03

49.

O’Neal

C. R.

Magai

(2005). Do parents respond in different ways when children feel different emotions? The emotional context of parenting. Development and Psychopathology, 17(2), 467–487. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579405050224

50.

Otterpohl

Imort

Lohaus

Heinrichs

(2012). Kindliche Regulation von Wut: Effekte familiärer Kontextfaktoren [Anger regulation in children: Effects of contextual factors]. Kindheit und Entwicklung, 21(1), 47–56. https://doi.org/10.1026/0942-5403/a000069

51.

Otterpohl

Wild

(2015). Cross-lagged relations among parenting, children’s emotion regulation, and psychosocial adjustment in early adolescence. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 44(1), 93–108. https://doi.org/10.1080/15374416.2013.862802

52.

Otterpohl

Wild

Havighurst

S. S.

Stiensmeier-Pelster

Kehoe

C. E.

(2022). The interplay of parental response to anger, adolescent anger regulation, and externalizing and internalizing problems: A longitudinal study. Research on Child and Adolescent Psychopathology, 50(2), 225–239. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-021-00795-z

53.

Raeymaecker

K. D.

Dhar

(2022). The influence of parents on emotion regulation in middle childhood: A systematic review. Children, 9(8), Article 1200. https://doi.org/10.3390/children9081200

54.

Raval

V. V.

Raval

P. H.

Deo

(2014). Mothers’ socialization goals, mothers’ emotion socialization behaviors, child emotion regulation, and child socioemotional functioning in Urban India. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 34(2), 229–250. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431613485821

55.

Ravi

Havewala

Kircanski

Brotman

M. A.

Schneider

Degnan

Almas

Fox

Pine

D. S.

Leibenluft

Filippi

(2023). Parenting and childhood irritability: Negative emotion socialization and parental control moderate the development of irritability. Development and Psychopathology, 35(3), 1444–1453. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579421001346

56.

Rice

K. G.

(1990). Attachment in adolescence: A narrative and meta-analytic review. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 19(5), 511–538. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01537478

57.

Riediger

Klipker

(2014). Emotion regulation in adolescence. In Gross

J. J.

(Ed.), Handbook of emotion regulation (2nd ed., pp. 187–202). The Guilford Press.

58.

Rueth

J.-E.

Kerkhoff

Lohaus

(2023). Latent growth curve analyses of emotional awareness and emotion regulation in early and middle adolescence. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 47(4), 294–305. https://doi.org/10.1177/01650254231168695

59.

Rueth

J.-E.

Lohaus

(2022). Process-oriented measurement of emotion regulation: General and specific associations with psychosocial adjustment and well-being in (pre-) adolescence. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 13, Article 904389. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2022.904389

60.

Rueth

J.-E.

Lohaus

Vierhaus

(2019). The German version of the Emotion Awareness Questionnaire for children and adolescents: Associations with emotion regulation and psychosocial adjustment. Journal of Personality Assessment, 101(4), 434–445. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2018.1492414

61.

Rüth

J.-E.

Lohaus

(2023). Fragebogen zur prozessorientierten Emotionsregulationsmessung im Kindes- und Jugendalter (POEM-KJ) [Process-Oriented Emotion Regulation Measure for Children and Adolescents (POEM-CA)]. Hogrefe.

62.

Saarni

(1985). Indirect processes in affect socialization. In Lewis

Saarni

(Eds.), Genesis of behavior: Vol. 5. The socialization of emotions (pp. 187–209). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-2421-8_9

63.

Saarni

(1999). The development of emotional competence. Guilford Press.

64.

Schäfer

J. Ö.

Naumann

Holmes

E. A.

Tuschen-Caffier

Samson

A. C.

(2017). Emotion regulation strategies in depressive and anxiety symptoms in youth: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 46(2), 261–276. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-016-0585-0

65.

Seddon

J. A.

Abdel-Baki

Feige

Thomassin

(2020). The cascade effect of parent dysfunction: An emotion socialization transmission framework. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, Article 579519. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.579519

66.

Turpyn

C. C.

Chaplin

T. M.

Cook

E. C.

Martelli

A. M.

(2015). A person-centered approach to adolescent emotion regulation: Associations with psychopathology and parenting. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 136(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2015.02.009

67.

van Lissa

C. J.

Keizer

(2020). Mothers’ and fathers’ quantitative and qualitative parenting in relation to children’s emotional adjustment: A between- and within-family investigation. Developmental Psychology, 56(9), 1709–1722. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0001042

68.

van Lissa

C. J.

Keizer

van Lier

P. A. C.

Meeus

W. H. J.

Branje

(2019). The role of fathers’ versus mothers’ parenting in emotion-regulation development from mid-late adolescence: Disentangling between-family differences from within-family effects. Developmental Psychology, 55(2), 377–389. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000612

69.

von Salisch

(2001). Children’s emotional development: Challenges in their relationships to parents, peers, and friends. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 25(4), 310–319. https://doi.org/10.1080/01650250143000058

70.

Werner

Gross

J. J.

(2010). Emotion regulation and psychopathology: A conceptual framework. In Kring

A. M.

Sloan

D. M.

(Eds.), Emotion regulation and psychopathology: A transdiagnostic approach to etiology and treatment (pp. 13–37). Guilford Press.

71.

Zeman

Cassano

Perry-Parrish

Stegall

(2006). Emotion regulation in children and adolescents. Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics, 27(2), 155–168. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004703-200604000-00014

72.

Zhou

Daukantaitė

Lundh

L.-G.

Wångby-Lundh

Ryde

(2020). Adolescents’ Emotion Regulation Strategies Questionnaire: Initial validation and prospective associations with nonsuicidal self-injury and other mental health problems in adolescence and young adulthood in a Swedish youth cohort. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 11, 462. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2020.00462

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.09 MB

0.00 MB