Children's Strategies for Displaying Anger and Sadness: What
Works With Whom?
Shipman, Kimberly L.
Zeman, Janice.
Nesin, April E.
Fitzgerald, Monica.
Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, Volume 49, Number 1, January 2003, pp.
100-122 (Article)
Published by Wayne State University Press
DOI: 10.1353/mpq.2003.0006
For additional information about this article
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/mpq/summary/v049/49.1shipman.html
Access Provided by College of William __ACCESS_STATEMENT__ Mary __ACCESS_STATEMENT__ (Viva
MPQ_49_1_05_ShipmanIIIII 12/4/02 1:39 PM Page 100
M E R R I L L - P A L M E R Q U A R T E R LY , V O L . 4 9 , N O . 1
Children’s Strategies for Displaying Anger
and Sadness: What Works With Whom?
Kimberly L. Shipman, University of Georgia
Janice Zeman and April E. Nesin, University of Maine
Monica Fitzgerald, University of Georgia
This study examined the influence of expressive strategies (i.e., verbal, facial,
crying, sulking, and aggressive), emotion type (i.e., anger, sadness), social context (i.e., mother, father, best friend), age (i.e., 7, 10 years), and gender on 144
children’s expectancies regarding interpersonal responses to their emotional
expression. Participants included 72 boys and 72 girls, with an average age of
8 years and 10 months. Results indicate that children expect others to respond
more positively to certain expressive strategies (e.g., verbal, facial) as compared
to others (e.g., aggression) and that these expectancies vary as a function of the
type of emotion experienced, the social context, age, and gender. Consistent
with the functionalist approach to emotion, findings suggest that, through social
interaction, children learn culturally appropriate strategies for emotional expression that facilitate their ability to elicit a desired response from social partners.
The functionalist approach to children’s emotional development
(Barrett & Campos, 1987; Campos, Mumme, Kermoian, & Campos,
1994; Saarni, Mumme, & Campos, 1998) defines emotion from within
an interpersonal context, emphasizing the role that emotional expression plays in facilitating children’s adaptation to their social environment. According to this perspective, emotion serves as a source of
communication between the child and the child’s social partner. For
example, the expression of sadness is thought to elicit support and
assistance from significant others in the child’s environment. As such,
Kimberly L. Shipman, Department of Psychology; Janice Zeman, Department of Psychology; April E. Nesin, Department of Psychology; Monica M. Fitzgerald, Department of
Psychology.
This research was funded by a grant from the National Institute of Mental Health to
the first author.
Correspondence should be addressed to the first author at the University of Georgia,
Department of Psychology, Athens, Georgia 30602–3013. E-mail: kshipman@arches.uga.edu.
Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, January 2003, Vol. 49, No. 1, pp. 100–122. Copyright © 2003
by Wayne State University Press, Detroit, MI 48201
100
MPQ_49_1_05_ShipmanIIIII 12/4/02 1:39 PM Page 101
Emotional Display
101
children’s understanding and use of emotionally expressive behavior is
essential to their development of socioemotional competence (Parke,
Cassidy, Burks, Carson, & Boyum, 1992; Saarni, 1999). Research has
demonstrated a relation between children’s ability to manage emotional expression in culturally appropriate ways and their social competence and psychological adjustment (Denham et al., 2001; Eisenberg
et al., 2001; Fabes, Leonard, Kupanoff, & Martin, 2001; Saarni, 1999).
As children develop, they must learn to modify their emotional
behavior in a way that best facilitates their adaptation to the social environment. Two core skills associated with the development of competent
emotion regulation require that children learn when emotional expression is appropriate and how to express emotion in a culturally appropriate manner (see Saarni, 1999). Through socialization experiences, children are thought to learn about the contingencies associated with
emotional expressivity and to develop expectancies regarding interpersonal responses to their emotionally expressive behavior (Saarni et al.,
1998; Saarni, 1999). Consistent with the functionalist approach, children do develop expectancies regarding when emotional expression is
appropriate and these expectancies vary as a function of factors that
influence the child’s relationship with the social environment, including
social context, type of emotion, child age, and child gender (Fuchs &
Thelen, 1988; Saarni, 1988; Zeman & Garber, 1996; Zeman & Shipman,
1996, 1998). In relation to social context, findings have indicated that
preschool- and elementary-school-age children prefer to express emotions to parents rather than peers (Saarni, 1988; Zeman & Garber, 1996;
Zeman, Penza, Shipman, & Young, 1997), given that parents are
expected to provide support and understanding in response to children’s
emotional displays. In addition, one study found that children perceived
mothers as more understanding of sadness expression than fathers
(Fuchs & Thelen, 1988), with other studies finding no differences
(Zeman & Garber, 1996; Zeman et al., 1997). Younger children, as compared to older children, report more supportive interpersonal responses
to their emotional displays and indicate that they are more likely to display their emotional experiences in the presence of others (Fuchs &
Thelen, 1988; Zeman & Garber, 1996). Finally, girls report displaying
vulnerable emotions (i.e., sadness, fear, pain) more than boys and expect
more positive responses to their displays (Fuchs & Thelen, 1988; Terwogt & Olthof, 1989; Zeman & Garber, 1996). Of particular interest
within this area of research is the consistent relation between children’s
expectations of support following their emotional displays and the likelihood that children will express emotions to others (Fuchs & Thelen,
1988; Shipman & Zeman, 1999, 2001).
MPQ_49_1_05_ShipmanIIIII 12/4/02 1:39 PM Page 102
102
Merrill-Palmer Quarterly
The research described above provides convincing evidence that
children learn when emotional expression is appropriate, at least in
part, through family and peer interaction. Somewhat surprisingly,
however, little empirical attention has been directed toward understanding the processes through which children learn how to express
emotion in a culturally appropriate manner. From a functionalist perspective, learning appropriate strategies for displaying emotion will
facilitate children’s adaptation to their social environment by eliciting a
desired response from others. In contrast, children who consistently
express emotion in inappropriate ways are likely to alienate themselves
from others, jeopardizing their ability to obtain necessary support and
assistance from their environment. For example, research indicates that
children who have poor control over anger expression and who are
emotionally negative experience peer rejection (Coie, Dodge, & Kupersmidt, 1990; Stocker & Dunn, 1990). Clearly, developing the skills necessary to express emotion in culturally appropriate ways is a crucial
developmental task that has important implications for children’s
socioemotional functioning.
According to the functionalist perspective (Barrett & Campos,
1987), each emotion is associated with an action tendency, best
described as a readiness to engage in a variety of behaviors that serve a
specific function for the child. For example, anger is associated with
several different expressive behaviors (e.g., displaying an angry facial
expression, verbalizing anger, engaging in aggressive behavior) that
function to help a child eliminate obstacles that interfere with his or
her ability to attain a given goal. Based on socialization experiences,
children are thought to develop a set of expectancies regarding the
appropriateness of emotional expression, which then serve to guide
their subsequent emotional behavior (Denham, 1998; DePaulo, 1991;
Underwood, Coie, & Herbsman, 1992). For example, children may
learn that certain strategies for displaying emotion (e.g., verbalizing
anger) are more adaptive than other strategies (e.g., aggression),
although this has received little empirical attention.
Preliminary research (Zeman & Garber, 1996; Zeman & Shipman,
1996) examining children’s expressive strategies indicates that children
use a variety of methods to communicate emotion. In response to
open-ended questioning (Zeman & Garber, 1996), elementary-schoolage children reported several strategies for communicating emotion to
others, including verbalizations, facial expressions, crying, sulking, and
aggression. Use of these strategies varied as a function of child age and
child gender (Zeman & Garber, 1996; Zeman & Shipman, 1996). For
example, younger elementary-school-age children reported crying to
MPQ_49_1_05_ShipmanIIIII 12/4/02 1:39 PM Page 103
Emotional Display
103
express emotion more than did older children. Girls endorsed using
crying more than boys, whereas boys reported using mild aggressive
strategies more than girls. This research provides descriptive information regarding children’s reported use of specific expressive strategies.
What is missing from these studies, however, is an examination of children’s expectations regarding the outcome of using different methods
of emotional expression and how these expectations may vary as a
function of type of emotion and social context. This is an important
issue given that the type of expressive strategy used is likely to impact
the response of significant others to the child’s emotional display
(Saarni et al., 1998). Competent emotion regulation requires that children express emotion in a way that will best facilitate their adaptation
within a given social context.
The present study provides a unique examination of the role that
social interaction may play in children’s understanding of how to
express emotion in culturally appropriate ways. This study investigated
elementary-school-age children’s expectations regarding interpersonal
responses to their emotional displays as a function of (a) expressive
strategy (i.e., verbal, facial, crying, sulking, aggressive), (b) type of
emotion (i.e., anger, sadness), (c) social context (i.e., mother, father,
best friend), (d) child age (i.e., 7 years, 10 years), and (e) child gender.
The dependent variables included children’s report of the likelihood
that they would use a given strategy to display emotion, the perceived
social appropriateness of a given strategy, their expectations of receiving support from their social partner in response to their emotional
displays, and their expectations of receiving conflict from their social
partner in response to emotional displays. This study expands on past
research by examining children’s expectancies about interpersonal
responses to their emotional displays as a function of the type of
expressive strategy used (e.g., using words versus aggression). Past
research has focused only on expectancies regarding the outcome of
emotional expressiveness (i.e., showing versus dissembling emotion),
with no attention to the specific nature of the emotional display.
Research in this area will provide new insight into the role that emotion
socialization processes may play in the development of children’s emotionally competent behavior.
Strategies included in this study were selected based on children’s
open-ended responses regarding methods that they use most frequently
to express their emotions (Zeman & Garber, 1996). Specifically, five
expressive strategies were selected, including verbal expressions of
emotion (i.e., saying you are angry), facial expressions, crying, sulking,
and mild aggressive behaviors (i.e., stomping around and yelling).
MPQ_49_1_05_ShipmanIIIII 12/4/02 1:39 PM Page 104
104
Merrill-Palmer Quarterly
These strategies have often been described by emotion theorists as signals used to convey emotion to social partners (Barrett & Campos,
1987; Denham, 1998; Izard & Malatesta, 1987; Lewis & Michalson,
1983) and are frequently observed in the social behavior of preschooland elementary-school-age children. Further, these strategies have
been suggested to vary in terms of their cultural appropriateness
(Lewis & Michalson, 1983). For example, children are thought to learn
from an early age that crying and aggression are inappropriate strategies for displaying emotion (Lewis & Michalson, 1983).
Two types of emotion (i.e., anger, sadness) were included because
they are frequently experienced in childhood and, when managed
appropriately, are thought to facilitate children’s adaptation to their
social environment. From the functionalist perspective (Barrett &
Campos, 1987; Campos et al., 1994), each emotion is posited to serve a
unique function and, in turn, is expected to result in different responses
from the child’s social partner. Consistent with this notion, research
has demonstrated that children’s expectations for interpersonal outcomes following emotional displays vary as a function of emotion type
(Fuchs & Thelen, 1988; Shipman & Zeman, 2001). Similarly, through
social interaction, children may learn that the appropriateness of certain strategies for displaying emotion also depends on the type of emotion. For example, it is possible that certain strategies (e.g., crying) may
receive a more positive response when used to signal sadness than
when used for anger. A focus on negative emotion was selected given
that socialization pressure to manage emotional displays in accordance
with cultural expectations is likely to be higher for negative than positive emotions (Shipman & Zeman, 1999, 2001).
To investigate the potential impact of social context on children’s
strategies for emotional expression, three types of social partners (i.e.,
mother, father, best friend) were included. Past research has indicated
that parents and peers play a central role in children’s socioemotional
development (Parke et al., 1992), and that children’s expectations
regarding the interpersonal outcomes of their emotional expressiveness (e.g., showing versus dissembling emotional experience) vary as a
function of the socialization agent with whom they are interacting
(Fuchs & Thelen, 1988; Shipman, Zeman, Penza-Clyve, & Champion,
2000; Zeman & Shipman, 1996). Inclusion of these three social partners will enable an examination of the role that parent-child and peer
interaction may play in the development of children’s expectations
regarding the appropriateness of using different strategies when displaying negative emotions. Similarly, inclusion of both parents will
MPQ_49_1_05_ShipmanIIIII 12/4/02 1:39 PM Page 105
Emotional Display
105
permit the examination of similarities and differences in children’s
perceptions of their mothers’ and fathers’ responses to emotional displays.
Child characteristics of age and gender were included based on
research that indicates that children’s motivation and ability to manage
emotionally expressive behavior vary as a function of these factors
(Brody & Hall, 2000; Fuchs & Thelen, 1988; Gnepp & Hess, 1986;
Saarni, 1988, 1999; Zeman & Garber, 1996; Zeman & Shipman, 1996).
In relation to child age, research indicates a developmental shift across
the elementary-school years in which older children, as compared to
younger children, demonstrate increased understanding regarding the
appropriateness of emotional expression in given situations (Gnepp &
Hess, 1986; Saarni, 1988) and report greater socialization pressure to
regulate emotional displays (Gnepp & Hess, 1986; Fuchs & Thelen,
1988). Age groups for this study were selected to reflect these different
levels of emotional competence as well as to allow for consistency in
comprehension of research protocols across groups. With respect to
child gender, there is considerable evidence that girls and boys have different emotion socialization experiences within both family and peer
contexts (Brody & Hall, 2000). For example, beginning in infancy,
mothers respond more negatively to distress cries in boys than girls
(Brooks-Gunn & Lewis, 1982; Malatesta, Grigoryev, Lamb, Albin, &
Culver, 1986; Malatesta & Haviland, 1982). Similarly, parents of
preschoolers talk more about emotion with girls than boys, with
increased emphasis on discussion of emotional experience and expression (Brody & Hall, 2000). Brody and Hall suggest that, based on gender differences in emotion socialization, girls may learn to use expressive strategies (e.g., verbal, facial) that differ from those used by boys
(e.g., overt action such as aggression). Taken together, this research
indicates the importance of considering age and gender when examining the potential impact of emotion socialization experiences on children’s emotionally expressive behavior.
Based on the tenets of the functionalist approach and available
research, we hypothesized that children’s expectations regarding the
outcome of emotional displays would vary as a function of type of
strategy (i.e., verbal, facial, crying, sulking, and aggressive), type of
emotion (i.e., anger, sadness), social context (i.e., mother, father, best
friend), child age, and child gender. In relation to type of strategy, we
hypothesized that: (a) children would expect the most positive
expectancies (i.e., acceptability, support) and the least conflict for verbal displays of emotion, followed by facial displays and crying, with
MPQ_49_1_05_ShipmanIIIII 12/4/02 1:39 PM Page 106
106
Merrill-Palmer Quarterly
the least positive expectancies and most conflict for sulking and
aggressive displays and (b) that children would report more frequent
use of strategies associated with positive expectancies (i.e., acceptability, support) than for strategies that yield negative outcomes. In relation to social context, it was hypothesized that (a) children would
report more support for emotional displays with parents than peers,
except following the use of aggressive strategies, and (b) peers would be
more tolerant of aggressive displays (i.e., greater acceptability, less conflict) than parents. Finally, in relation to child age and gender, it was
hypothesized that (a) younger children would report more positive
expectancies (i.e., acceptability, support) and less conflict for emotional displays than older children, regardless of the type of strategy
used, (b) younger children would report using all strategies more frequently than older children, and (c) girls, as compared to boys, would
report expecting more support following crying and more conflict following aggressive strategies. These hypotheses are based, to a large
extent, on research that identifies these factors as central to children’s
expectations regarding when emotional expression is appropriate
(Denham, 1998; DePaulo, 1991; Fuchs & Thelen, 1988; Saarni, 1989,
1999; Zeman & Garber, 1996; Zeman & Shipman, 1996). Given that
there is no research that has examined children’s expectations of the
social appropriateness of given strategies for emotional display, these
predictions remain speculative.
Method
Participants
Participants were 144 elementary-school-age children recruited
from two public schools serving a lower- to middle-class, small urban
area. Children in the younger age group were recruited from 1st and 2nd
grades, whereas older children were recruited from 4th and 5th grades.
In order to recruit participants, consent forms were sent to all parents
of children in the relevant age groups at participating schools. Children with parental consent to participate were given a brief description of the project and asked individually for their verbal assent.
Each age group consisted of 36 girls and 36 boys, with 12 children in
each Age Sex Social Context cell (age for girls, younger, M 7
years, 4 months, SD 5.36 months; older, M 10 years, 6 months, SD 8.96 months; age for boys, younger, M 7 years, 3 months, SD 6.64
months; older, M 10 years, 8 months, SD 5.87 months). There was
no significant difference in age as a function of sex. Participants were
predominantly Caucasian (96%), with a small portion of children of
MPQ_49_1_05_ShipmanIIIII 12/4/02 1:39 PM Page 107
Emotional Display
107
African American and Hispanic heritage (4%). The majority of children lived with both biological parents (80%), although others resided
with their mother only (13%), their mother and stepfather (5%), father
only (1%), and their grandparents (1%). Children assigned to the different social context conditions did not differ significantly regarding
family composition.
Design
This study was a 5 (Strategy) 2 (Emotion) 3 (Social Context)
2 (Grade) 2 (Sex) mixed-model design. Social context (i.e.,
mother, father, best friend) was designated a between-subjects factor to
reduce the possibility of carry-over effects and to ensure that the protocol was a reasonable length so as to avoid undue fatigue for children.
Type of strategy (i.e., verbal, facial, crying, sulking, aggressive) was
designated a within-subjects factor along with type of emotion (i.e.,
anger, sadness).
Materials
Children were administered a structured interview that was
developed based on past research (Shipman, 1998; Shipman et al.,
2000; Zeman & Garber, 1996) to assess children’s expectations
regarding the interpersonal outcomes of different methods of emotional display. Children were presented with two anger- and two sadness-invoking vignettes in which one of the three social partners (i.e.,
mother, father, best friend) was responsible for causing the emotion.
The vignettes were the same for each social partner. Vignette themes
included the child receiving blame for something he did not do (i.e.,
anger) and the social partner not appreciating a special project made
by the child (i.e., sadness). Each story was written in the first person
narrative, and the emotion experienced was labeled for the child. Past
research (Shipman & Zeman, 2001; Shipman et al., 2000) and pilot
testing with elementary-school-age children indicated that the
vignettes successfully elicited the intended emotion. Each vignette
was presented five times, with the final sentence varied such that it
reflected the type of strategy that the child used to display emotion to
the social partner (e.g., “You show your sad feelings to your mom
with a sad look on your face.”).
Given that each child responded to mad and sad stories, emotion
type was counterbalanced, with stories within emotion types as well as
story questions administered in random order. To minimize the potential carry-over effects for strategy, the type of strategy used was highlighted for children at the end of each story (e.g., “You show your mad
MPQ_49_1_05_ShipmanIIIII 12/4/02 1:39 PM Page 108
108
Merrill-Palmer Quarterly
feelings to your dad with a mad look on your face.”) and throughout
questioning (e.g., “Now remember, you showed your mad feelings on
your face.”). In terms of emotion type, children were told that the first
set of stories involved the specified emotion (e.g., “The first group of
stories that we are going to read are all about mad feelings.”) and,
when moving to the next emotion, children’s attention was directed
toward this change. In addition, type of emotion experienced was
highlighted in each story and in subsequent questioning.
Following each story, children were asked to respond to questions
on a 5-point Likert scale (1 not at all, 3 some, 5 a whole lot)
regarding the: (a) likelihood that they would use the strategy indicated
to express emotion (e.g., “How likely would you show your sad feelings to your mom by crying?”), (b) their expectations regarding the
acceptability of the strategy for emotional display (e.g., “How much
would your mom think it was okay for you to show your sad feelings
by crying?”), (c) their expectations of receiving support from their
social partner in response to their emotional displays (behavioral support, “How much would your mom try to help you feel better or fix
the situation if you cried?”; affective support, “How much would your
mom feel sad or concerned for you if you cried?”), and (d) their expectations of receiving conflict from their social partner in response to
their emotional displays (behavioral conflict; “How much would your
mom give you some negative consequences or punishment like going
to your room if you cried?”; affective conflict, “How much would your
mom feel mad or frustrated with you if you cried?”). As indicated
above, children were asked two questions regarding their expectations
of support and two questions about expectations of conflict with
regard to the responses of their social partner. These questions were
designed to measure behavioral and affective aspects of support and
conflict. Given the high correlations between children’s responses to
the behavioral and affective questions for expectations of support
(anger: r (142) .78, p .001; sadness: r (142) .80, p .001) and
expectations of conflict (anger: r (142) .78, p .001; sadness: r
(142) .80, p .001), mean support and mean conflict scores were
computed.
Procedure
Children with parental consent were interviewed individually in
the school context by one of three female research assistants with specialized training in conducting child research interviews. Children were
randomly assigned to a social context condition (i.e., mother, father,
MPQ_49_1_05_ShipmanIIIII 12/4/02 1:39 PM Page 109
Emotional Display
109
best friend). In the two instances in which children had no contact with
their father, they were asked to think of a paternal figure with whom
they had significant contact (i.e., stepfather). In one case, the child was
reassigned to another social context condition, given that he could not
identify a paternal figure. In the best friend condition, children were
asked to identify a same-sex best friend by name, in order to make it
more comparable to other social context conditions (i.e., mother,
father) in which a specific person was identified. Children with
parental consent (70.3%) were selected randomly from within their
classrooms to participate. In a few instances, we had more children in
one group than needed for the project given that we required equal cell
sizes. In these cases (n 9), children were interviewed briefly (e.g., the
project was described and they completed a few questions) and they
were given a token of appreciation (i.e., small toy).
To facilitate children’s understanding of the 5-point Likert scale
used throughout the study, children were provided with an index card
with circles varying in size associated with each of the scale points
(i.e., smallest circle for not at all, largest circle for a whole lot).
Although they used the index card throughout the interview, children
were required to respond verbally to ensure that they understood the
question and the response options rather than relying on pointing to
the response options. The interview took approximately 30 minutes to
complete and children were given a token of appreciation (i.e., small
toy) for their time. To ensure that children remained engaged throughout the interview, they were provided with frequent praise and reinforcement (i.e., stickers) for continued effort and were given breaks
when needed.
Results
Data Analysis Plan
Repeated measures analyses of variance (RM-ANOVA) were conducted for each of the four dependent variables (i.e., use of strategy,
acceptability of strategy, expectations of support, expectations of
conflict). Scores for each of the dependent variables were computed as
the sum of the ratings for the two stories within emotion type for a
given strategy. Between-subjects variables were social context (i.e.,
mother, father, best friend), child age (i.e., younger, older), and child
sex. Within-subjects variables included type of strategy (i.e., verbal,
facial, crying, sulking, aggressive) and type of emotion (i.e., anger,
sadness). Significant interactions were broken down using simple
MPQ_49_1_05_ShipmanIIIII 12/4/02 1:39 PM Page 110
110
Merrill-Palmer Quarterly
main effects. Individual mean comparisons were conducted using t
tests with Bonferroni corrections. In accordance with recommendations of Hertzog and Rovine (1985) for repeated measures analyses,
we evaluated the degree to which the assumption of sphericity was
met using the Greenhouse-Geisser epsilon value. In the instance that
this assumption was not met, the degrees of freedom were adjusted in
order to maintain the Type 1 error rate at conservative levels. Finally,
to maintain a conservative family wise error rate, a Bonferroni correction was conducted such that the p value of .0125 was used for overall
analyses (obtained by dividing the p value of .05 by the number of
RM-ANOVAs).
Results of repeated measures RM-ANOVAs will be presented by
dependent variable. All comparisons among strategies indicated below
are significant unless otherwise indicated.
Use of Strategy
Strategy by Emotion interaction. A Strategy Emotion interaction emerged, F(4, 528) 8.68, p .001, indicating that strategy use
varied as a function of emotion type. Analyses were conducted to
examine strategy differences within anger and sadness. Main effects for
strategy emerged for anger, F(4, 129) 35.35, p .001, and sadness,
F(4, 129) 64.87, p .001. For anger, verbal and facial strategies were
used most, with crying, sulking, and aggressive strategies endorsed
with the least frequency. For sadness, verbal and facial strategies were
used most frequently, followed by crying, then sulking, and, finally,
aggressive strategies. See Table 1 for means and standard deviations.
Strategy by Sex interaction. A Strategy Sex interaction
emerged, F(4, 528) 4.09, p .01, indicating that strategy use varied
as a function of child sex. Analyses were conducted to examine sex
differences within strategy type. A main effect for sex emerged for crying, F(1, 132) 17.39, p .001, with no sex differences for the other
strategies. Findings indicated that girls (M 5.63, SD 2.28)
endorsed using crying significantly more than did boys (M 4.24, SD
1.84).
Age main effect. A main effect for age emerged, F(1, 132) 17.87,
p .001, in which the mean rating for younger children (M 5.77, SD
1.37), as compared to older children (M 4.87, SD 1.19), indicated greater frequency of use across all strategies combined.
Acceptability of Strategy
Strategy by Emotion interaction. A Strategy Emotion interaction
emerged, F(4, 528) 3.44, p .01, indicating that the acceptability of
MPQ_49_1_05_ShipmanIIIII 12/4/02 2:46 PM Page 111
Emotional Display
111
Table 1. Means and Standard Deviations for Strategy Emotion Interaction
for Strategy Use and Acceptability
Question
TYPE OF STRATEGY
Facial
Crying
Verbal
Sulking
Aggression
Strategy use
Anger
Sadness
abc
4.78ad
4.72be
4.35cf
(2.07)
(2.42)
(2.20)
(2.14)
6.42def
5.10adgh
4.28begi
3.66cfhi
(2.16)
(2.35)
(2.14)
(2.02)
6.74
6.20
(2.01)
6.97abc
(2.06)
def
Acceptability
Anger
Sadness
7.19abcd
5.56aef
5.48bgh
4.49cegi
3.68dfhi
(2.19)
(2.31)
(2.55)
(2.43)
(2.01)
7.39abcd
6.21aef
5.98bgh
4.68cegi
3.59dfhi
(2.16)
(2.32)
(2.34)
(2.44)
(2.14)
Note. Means are presented followed by standard deviations in parentheses. In each row,
superscripts that match are significantly different from one another (p .05). Note that
the values presented reflect summing across two stories for each emotion.
strategies varied as a function of emotion type. Analyses were conducted to examine strategy differences within anger and sadness. Main
effects emerged for anger, F(4, 129) 59.32, p .001, and sadness, F(4,
129) 72.29, p .001. Findings for both anger and sadness indicated
that verbal strategies were viewed as most acceptable, followed by facial
strategies and crying, then sulking, and, finally, aggression. See Table 1
for means and standard deviations.
Strategy by Social Context interaction. A Strategy Social Context interaction emerged, F(6, 416) 3.72, p .001, indicating that the
acceptability of strategies varied as a function of social context. Analyses were conducted to examine differences between social contexts
within strategy type. Main effects for social context emerged for aggressive strategies, F(2, 132) 12.56, p .05, and verbal strategies, F(2,
132) 5.10, p .01. Findings indicated that peers were expected to
find aggressive strategies more acceptable than did mothers or fathers.
In addition, fathers were expected to find verbal strategies to be more
acceptable than did peers, with mothers not significantly different from
fathers or peers. See Table 2 for means and standard deviations.
Age main effect. A main effect for age emerged, F(1, 132) 6.61, p
.01, in which the mean rating for younger children (M 5.76, SD 1.72), as compared to older children (M 5.09, SD 1.34), indicated
higher acceptability across all strategies combined.
MPQ_49_1_05_ShipmanIIIII 12/4/02 1:39 PM Page 112
Merrill-Palmer Quarterly
112
Table 2. Means and Standard Deviations for Strategy Social Context Interaction for Acceptability Question
Strategy
Mother
Social context
Father
Best friend
Verbal
7.36 (1.85)
7.84a (1.71)
6.67a (1.92)
Facial
5.64 (2.13)
6.37 (2.26)
5.66 (1.85)
Crying
5.50 (2.41)
6.19 (2.09)
5.49 (2.06)
Sulking
4.39 (2.51)
4.66 (2.18)
4.71 (1.98)
Aggression
3.27a (1.99)
3.41b (1.62)
4.22ab (2.05)
Note. Means are presented followed by standard deviations in parentheses. In each row,
superscripts that match are significantly different from one another (p .05). Note that
the values presented are scaled such that they reflect summing across two stories.
Expectations of Support
Strategy by Emotion interaction. A Strategy Emotion interaction emerged, F(4, 528) 3.36, p .01, indicating that the support
expected for given strategies varied as a function of emotion type.
Analyses were conducted to examine strategy differences within anger
and sadness. Main effects for strategy emerged for anger, F(4, 129) 11.83, p .001, and sadness, F(4, 129) 14.06, p .001. For anger,
children expected more support in response to crying, verbal, and
facial strategies than sulking or aggressive strategies. For sadness, children expected more support in response to crying, facial, and verbal
strategies than sulking, with the least support for aggression. See Table
3 for means and standard deviations.
Age main effect. A main effect for age emerged, F(1, 132) 20.24,
p .001, in which the mean rating for younger children (M 7.30,
SD 1.65), as compared to older children (M 6.09, SD 1.56),
indicated greater expectations of support across all strategies combined.
Expectations of Conflict
Strategy by Emotion interaction. A Strategy Emotion interaction emerged, F(4, 528) 8.28, p .001, indicating that the conflict
expected for given strategies varied as a function of emotion type.
Analyses were conducted to examine strategy differences within anger
and sadness. Main effects for strategy emerged for anger, F(4, 129) 30.44, p .001, and sadness, F(4, 129) 44.64, p .001. For anger,
MPQ_49_1_05_ShipmanIIIII 12/4/02 1:39 PM Page 113
Emotional Display
113
Table 3. Means and Standard Deviations for Strategy Emotion Interaction for
Support and Conflict Questions
Question
Verbal
Type of strategy
Facial
Crying
Sulking
Aggression
Support
Anger
6.70ab
6.66cd
6.93ef
Sadness
6.31ace
6.15bdf
(1.86)
(1.91)
(1.90)
(2.21)
(2.11)
7.12ab
7.17cd
7.19ef
6.63aceg
6.14bdfg
(1.88)
(1.98)
(1.90)
(2.23)
(2.24)
Anger
4.00abc
4.56adef
5.01bdgi
6.01cehi
(1.80)
(1.82)
(1.85)
(2.04)
(2.16)
Sadness
3.13abc
3.25def
3.59adgh
4.31begi
5.50cfhi
(1.53)
(1.53)
(1.70)
(1.91)
(2.18)
Conflict
4.16fgh
Note. Means are presented followed by standard deviations in parentheses. In each row,
superscripts that match are significantly different from one another (p .05). Note that
the values presented reflect summing across two stories for each emotion.
children expected the most conflict in response to aggressive strategies,
followed by sulking, then facial strategies, with the least conflict
expected in response to crying and verbal strategies. For sadness, children expected the most conflict in response to aggressive strategies, followed by sulking, then crying, with the least conflict expected in
response to facial and verbal strategies. See Table 3 for means and standard deviations.
Strategy by Social Context interaction. A Strategy Social Context interaction emerged, F(8, 528) 7.06, p .001, indicating that the
conflict expected for given strategies varied as a function of social context. Analyses were conducted to examine differences between social
contexts within strategy type. A main effect for social context emerged
for aggressive strategies, F(2, 132) 6.78, p .01. Findings indicated
that mothers and fathers were expected to respond to aggressive strategies with more conflict than were peers. There were no significant differences for other strategies as a function of social context. See Table 4
for means and standard deviations.
Age main effect. A main effect for age emerged, F(1, 132) 7.59, p
.01, in which the mean rating for younger children (M 4.66, SD 1.43), as compared to older children (M 4.04, SD 1.22), indicated
greater expectations of conflict across all strategies combined.
MPQ_49_1_05_ShipmanIIIII 12/4/02 1:39 PM Page 114
Merrill-Palmer Quarterly
114
Table 4. Means and Standard Deviations for Strategy Social Context Interaction for Conflict Question
Strategy
Mother
Social context
Father
Best friend
Verbal
3.35 (1.47)
3.38 (1.44)
3.96 (1.64)
Facial
3.83 (1.45)
3.81 (1.39)
4.07 (1.62)
Crying
3.84 (1.79)
3.64 (1.52)
4.14 (1.62)
Sulking
4.70 (1.81)
4.69 (1.81)
4.60 (1.91)
Aggression
6.26a (2.07)
6.06b (1.91)
4.93ab (1.68)
Note. Means are presented followed by standard deviations in parentheses. In each row,
superscripts that match are significantly different from one another (p .05). Note that
the values presented are scaled such that they reflect summing across two stories.
Discussion
A functionalist view of emotional development suggests that, as
children develop, they must learn to manage their emotional displays
in such a way as to facilitate their adaptation to the social environment. To do this effectively, children must learn not only when emotional expression is appropriate but also how to express emotion in
accordance with cultural expectations. Through social interaction,
children are thought to develop a set of expectancies regarding the
appropriateness of emotional displays that influence their subsequent emotional behavior. Findings of the present study support
functionalist tenets by demonstrating that children do form
expectancies regarding the outcomes of emotional displays and that
these expectancies vary as a function of the expressive strategy used,
the type of emotion experienced, the social context, child age, and
child gender.
In relation to use of specific expressive strategies, we hypothesized
that children would report using verbal displays most frequently, followed by facial displays and crying, and finally, sulking and aggressive
displays. Although this pattern varied somewhat as a function of emotion type, results support this general pattern. In particular, for sadness, children reported using verbal and facial displays, followed by
crying, then sulking, with aggressive strategies used with the least frequency. For anger, a similar pattern emerged, with the exception that
there were no differences in reported use of crying, sulking, and
aggressive strategies. For the question regarding the perceived acceptability of different expressive strategies, findings indicated that verbal
strategies were deemed most acceptable, followed by facial displays and
MPQ_49_1_05_ShipmanIIIII 12/4/02 1:39 PM Page 115
Emotional Display
115
crying, then sulking, and aggression. These findings suggest that children recognize that certain expressive strategies are considered to be
more socially acceptable than others and that such knowledge may
influence their decisions regarding the use of expressive strategies
when interacting with their social environment. Finally, with regard to
child gender, findings supported our hypothesis that girls would report
using crying to display emotion more than boys. This findings is consistent with past research (Zeman & Garber, 1996; Zeman & Shipman,
1996) as well as with theories of gender role socialization that suggest
that certain display strategies such as crying are considered to be more
culturally appropriate for females as compared to males (Brody &
Hall, 2000).
Interestingly, in relation to questions about interpersonal responses
to emotional displays, children indicated that facial displays and crying
resulted in as much support as verbal displays. Although children recognize that verbal displays are deemed the most acceptable, they perceive that facial displays and crying also result in supportive interpersonal responses. It may be that children are socialized to use verbal
expressive strategies (e.g., “use your words”) when possible, but that
they are not expected to have the necessary skills to effectively manage
facial displays and crying on a consistent basis. Similarly, facial displays and crying may be deemed as acceptable strategies for emotional
expression, as long as these strategies are not used with high frequency
or in inappropriate ways. It also may be that children perceived that the
emotion-eliciting events in the vignettes were of sufficient intensity to
warrant a response (e.g., crying, grimacing) that they might otherwise
control given a less intense, milder emotional experience. This interpretation receives support from research that has demonstrated that children believe it is acceptable to display emotions when experiencing
intense emotions even if the situation might otherwise call for emotional dissemblance (Saarni, 1991, 1999). It would be interesting to see
if a different pattern of findings would emerge if the emotional events
in this study had been of less intensity, given that children might perceive facial displays and crying as less justifiable in those circumstances.
Consistent with research examining children’s aggressive behavior
(Coie et al., 1999; Coie, Christopoulos, Terry, Dodge, & Lochman,
1989; Underwood et al., 1992), findings clearly indicate that children
expect high levels of conflict from social partners in response to
aggressive displays for both anger and sadness. From an early age, children are instructed by parents to control aggressive behavior and to
display emotion using more constructive strategies (Lewis & Michal-
MPQ_49_1_05_ShipmanIIIII 12/4/02 1:39 PM Page 116
116
Merrill-Palmer Quarterly
son, 1983; Pepler & Rubin, 1991). In addition, peers often respond to
children’s aggression with active rejection (Coie et al., 1989; Coie, Belding, & Underwood, 1988). Interestingly, sulking was also considered to
be an undesirable behavior that would evoke interpersonal conflict.
Little research has examined children’s sulking behaviors as a means
for communicating emotion given that the focus of research has generally been on the more overt, disruptive, externalizing types of emotional displays.
Children’s expectations regarding outcomes of specific strategies
also varied as a function of social context. As hypothesized, children
reported that, in comparison to their best friend, parents viewed
aggressive means of expressing emotion as less acceptable and indicated that use of aggression would be more likely to result in negative
interpersonal consequences. Further, they reported that fathers would
find verbal expressions of emotion more acceptable than would
friends, with mothers not significantly different from either social partner. It appears that parents place considerable emphasis on socializing
children to respond to negative emotional events in more constructive
ways than stomping around, slamming doors, and yelling. With peers,
however, these behaviors are not viewed as negatively as with parents.
It may be that peers allow each other some behavioral latitude with
respect to mild aggressive behaviors as long as the aggression does not
involve direct personal attacks that could negatively affect the friendship. It is important to note, however, that peers do view aggressive
behavior as the least appropriate strategy for displaying emotion and
suggest that aggressive strategies are the most likely to result in interpersonal conflict. That is, although parents respond more negatively
than peers to aggressive emotional displays, both parents and peers
play a significant role in socializing children to avoid aggressive behavior (Carson & Parke, 1996; Patterson, Capaldi, & Bank, 1991; Pepler &
Rubin, 1991).
Somewhat surprisingly, children did not report more positive
responses from parents than peers in response to expressing emotion
via display strategies other than aggression (e.g., verbalizations, facial
expressions, crying). In fact, children’s expectations of support and
conflict did not vary as a function of social context for verbal, facial,
crying, or sulking display strategies. Past research has suggested, in
general, that elementary-school-age children prefer to express emotion
to parents rather than to peers (Saarni, 1988, 1999). This finding, however, did not receive support from the present study. It may be that the
intensity of children’s emotional expression is greater with parents
MPQ_49_1_05_ShipmanIIIII 12/4/02 1:39 PM Page 117
Emotional Display
117
than peers, and, given this greater intensity, parents are not expected to
respond with more support. It may also be that children expected a
generally high level of support from all three social partners for each of
these expressive strategies because of the close, intimate nature of the
relationships selected for this study. It would be interesting to vary the
degree of relationship affiliation (e.g., stranger, acquaintance, intimate)
and note whether children’s expressive strategies varied as a function of
this variable.
Of note, no significant differences between children’s report of
their mothers’ and fathers’ responses to expressive strategies were
found on the four dependent variables. The literature is equivocal with
respect to potential differences between mothers and fathers with
some studies finding that children perceive their mothers as being
more accepting of certain emotional displays than fathers (Fuchs &
Thelen, 1988) and other research indicating no parental differences
(Zeman & Garber, 1996; Zeman & Shipman, 1996). It may be that
there are more similarities than differences in parents’ socialization of
their children’s emotional expressivity or that differences in parental
response only emerge in certain contexts. As such, the vignettes used
in this study may not have presented situations that could capture the
sensitive distinctions between mothers’ and fathers’ responses to their
children’s expressive strategy use. Clearly this is an area that needs
further careful investigation to determine the nature and impact of
mothers’ versus fathers’ emotion socialization on their sons and
daughters.
Child Age
Compared to older children, younger children consistently
reported more frequent use of expressive strategies, higher levels of
perceived acceptability for strategy use, and higher levels of expected
support and conflict when using strategies in the presence of all social
partners. These findings are generally consistent with the emotion literature. That is, past research has indicated that as children develop, they
exhibit increasing ability and motivation to control emotionally
expressive behavior (Gnepp & Hess, 1986; Saarni, 1979; Zeman &
Garber, 1996; Zeman & Shipman, 1996). In particular, older children,
as compared to younger children, are less likely to display negative
emotion and more likely to view their ability to control emotion and
maintain composure as important to their social functioning (Parker &
Gottman, 1989; Underwood, Hurley, Johanson, & Mosley, 1999). Further, older children perceive that their displays of emotion will be met
MPQ_49_1_05_ShipmanIIIII 12/4/02 1:39 PM Page 118
118
Merrill-Palmer Quarterly
with less acceptance and support than do younger children (Fuchs &
Thelen, 1988; Zeman & Garber, 1996; Zeman & Shipman, 1996). It
may be that younger children do indeed express their emotions in a
variety of ways to others and believe that such expression is acceptable.
Given that younger children are learning to manage their emotional
displays in accordance with cultural rules, it may also be that their
social partners respond with both more support and more conflict.
That is, young children are not yet expected to have the requisite control over their expressive behavior and, as a result, they may receive
support in circumstances that older children would not. When younger
children use inappropriate means for expressing emotion, however,
their social partner is likely to communicate his or her dissatisfaction
to the child, thereby teaching the child how to manage emotion more
effectively in the future.
Limitations and Directions for Future Research
Although these findings provide important information, it is
important to consider study limitations and directions for future
research. One limitation involves the interpretation of findings with
regard to developmental differences. Although the developmental findings from this study are generally consistent with other research, these
findings do pose an interesting methodological question. It may be that
these findings reflect a response bias from younger children in which
they prefer to respond to questions using higher points on the Likert
scale (e.g., some, a lot, a whole lot). Although the interviewers in this
study trained the children in the use of the scale and reminded children
throughout the interview that they should consider all five response
options, a response bias still may have occurred. Future research should
consider this potential confound when designing self-report studies
with young children. In addition, future research would benefit from
including a larger sample size to ensure that there is sufficient power to
detect higher level interactions among the variables such as age, gender,
strategy, and emotion type. Future research should also expand on the
findings of this study by using self-report and observational methodology in combination to determine whether children’s expectancies for
the interpersonal outcomes of their emotional displays predict their
expressive behavior (e.g., types of strategies they actually use) in reallife situations. This would avoid the potential difficulties (e.g., social
desirability) associated with relying on self-report to assess the use of
different expressive strategies. In addition, the processes through which
children learn that certain strategies yield adaptive responses should be
studied further so that we can better understand those children whose
MPQ_49_1_05_ShipmanIIIII 12/4/02 1:39 PM Page 119
Emotional Display
119
choice of maladaptive expressive strategies places them at risk for developing social and emotional difficulties. Finally, findings of this study
are based on a Caucasian sample from a lower- to middle-class small
urban area. Future research should include a more diverse sample to
consider potential implications of race, ethnicity, and neighborhood
context (e.g., inner city versus small town neighborhood).
References
Barrett, K., & Campos, J. (1987). Perspectives on emotional development: II.
A functionalist approach to emotions. In J. Osofsky (Ed.), Handbook of
infant development (2nd ed., pp. 555–578). New York: Wiley.
Brody, L., & Hall, J. (2000). Gender, emotion, and expression. In M. Lewis &
J. Haviland (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (pp. 338–349). New York: Guilford Press.
Brooks-Gunn, J., & Lewis, M. (1982). Affective exchanges between normal
and handicapped infants and their mothers. In T. Field & A. Fogel (Eds.),
Emotion and early interaction (pp. 161–188). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Campos, J., Mumme, D., Kermoian, R., & Campos, R. (1994). A functionalist
perspective on the nature of emotion. Monographs of the Society for
Research in Child Development, 59 (2–3), 284–304.
Carson, J. L., & Parke, R. D. (1996). Reciprocal negative affect in parent-child
interactions and children’s peer competency. Child Development, 67,
2217–2226.
Coie, J. D., Belding, M., & Underwood, M. (1988). Aggression and peer rejection in childhood. In B. Lashley (Ed.), Advances in clinical child psychology (Vol. II, pp. 125–158). New York: Plenum Press.
Coie, J. D., Christopoulos, C., Terry, R., Dodge, K. A., & Lochman, J. E.
(1989). Types of aggressive relationships, peer rejection, and developmental consequences. In B. H. Schneider & G. Attili (Eds.), Social competence
in developmental perspective (pp. 223–237). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic
Publishers.
Coie, J. D., Cillessen, A. H., Dodge, K. A., Hubbard, J. A., Schwartz, D.,
Lemerise, E., & Bateman, H. (1999). It takes two to fight: A test of relational factors and a method for assessing aggressive dyads. Developmental
Psychology, 35, 1179–1188.
Coie, J. D., Dodge, K. A., & Kupersmidt, J. (1990). Peer group behavior and
social status. In S. R. Asher & J. D. Coie (Eds.), Peer rejection in childhood
(pp. 17–59). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Denham, S. A. (1998). Emotional development in young children. New York:
Guilford Press.
Denham, S. A., Mason, T., Caverly, S., Schmidt, M., Hackney, R., Caswell, C.,
& DeMulder, E. (2001). Preschoolers at play: Co-socialisers of emotional
MPQ_49_1_05_ShipmanIIIII 12/4/02 1:39 PM Page 120
120
Merrill-Palmer Quarterly
and social competence. International Journal of Behavioral Development,
25, 290–301.
DePaulo, B. (1991). Nonverbal behavior and self-presentation: A developmental perspective. In R. S. Feldman & B. Rimé (Eds.), Fundamentals of nonverbal behavior (pp. 351–397). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Eisenberg, N., Losoya, S., Fabes, R. A., Guthrie, I. K., Reiser, M., Murphy, B.,
Shepard, S. A., Poulin, R., & Padgett, S. J. (2001). Parental socialization
of children’s dysregulated expression of emotion and externalizing problems. Journal of Family Psychology, 15, 183–205.
Fabes, R. A., Leonard, S. A., Kupanoff, K., & Martin, C. L. (2001). Parental
coping with children’s negative emotions: Relations with children’s emotional and social responding. Child Development, 27, 907–920.
Fuchs, D., & Thelen, M. (1988). Children’s expected interpersonal consequences of communicating their affective state and reported likelihood of
expression. Child Development, 59, 1314–1322.
Gnepp, J., & Hess, D. (1986). Children’s understanding of verbal and facial
display rules. Developmental Psychology, 22, 103–108.
Hertzog, C., & Rovine, M. (1985). Repeated-measures analysis of variance in
developmental research: Selected issues. Child Development, 56, 787–809.
Izard, C., & Malatesta, C. (1987). Perspectives on emotional development: I.
Differential emotions theory of early emotional development. In J. Osofsky (Ed.), Handbook of infant development (2nd ed., pp. 494–554). New
York: Wiley.
Lewis, M., & Michalson, L. (1983). Children’s emotions and moods: Developmental theory and measurement. New York: Plenum Press.
Malatesta, C. Z., Grigoryev, P., Lamb, C., Albin, M., & Culver, C. (1986).
Emotion socialization and expressive development in preterm and full
term infants. Child Development, 57, 316–330.
Malatesta, C., & Haviland, J. (1982). Learning display rules: The socialization
of emotion expression in infancy. Child Development, 53, 991–1003.
Parke, R. D., Cassidy, J., Burks, V. M., Carson, J. L., & Boyum, L. (1992).
Familial contributions to peer competence among young children: The
role of interactive and affective processes. In R. D. Parke & G. W. Ladd
(Eds.), Family-peer relationships: Modes of linkage (pp. 107–134). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Parker, J., & Gottman, J. (1989). Social and emotional development in a relational context: Friendship interaction from early childhood to adolescence. In T. J. Berndt & G. W. Ladd (Eds.), Peer relationships in child development (pp. 95–131). New York: Wiley & Sons.
Patterson, G. R., Capaldi, D., & Bank, L. (1991). An early starter model for
predicting delinquency. In D. J. Pepler & K. H. Rubin (Eds.), The development and treatment of childhood aggression (pp. 139–168). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Pepler, D. J., & Rubin, K. H. (1991). The development and treatment of childhood aggression. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
MPQ_49_1_05_ShipmanIIIII 12/4/02 1:39 PM Page 121
Emotional Display
121
Saarni, C. (1979). Children’s understanding of display rules for expressive
behavior. Developmental Psychology, 15, 424–429.
Saarni, C. (1988). Children’s understanding of the interpersonal consequences
of dissemblance of nonverbal emotional-expressive behavior. Journal of
Nonverbal Behavior, 12, 275–294.
Saarni, C. (1989). Children’s understanding of strategic control of emotional
expression in social transactions. In C. Saarni & P. L. Harris (Eds.), Children’s understanding of emotion (pp. 181–208). New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Saarni, C. (1991, April). Social context and management of emotional-expressive behavior: Children’s expectancies for when to dissemble what they feel.
Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in
Child Development, Seattle, WA.
Saarni, C. (1999). The development of emotional competence. New York: Guilford Press.
Saarni, C., Mumme, D. L., & Campos, J. (1998). Emotional development:
Action, communication, and understanding. In W. Damon (Series Ed.) &
N. Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3. Social,
emotional, and personality development (5th ed., pp. 237–309). New York:
Wiley.
Shipman, K. L. (1998). The socialization of affect management skills: A developmental psychopathology perspective (Doctoral dissertation, University
of Maine). Dissertation Abstracts International, 59, 6B.
Shipman, K. L., & Zeman, J. (1999). Emotional understanding: A comparison
of physically maltreating and nonmaltreating mother-child dyads. Journal
of Clinical Child Psychology, 28, 407–417.
Shipman, K. L., Zeman, J., Penza-Clyve, S., & Champion, K. (2000). Emotion
management skills in sexually maltreated and nonmaltreated girls: A
developmental psychopathology perspective. Development and Psychopathology, 12, 47–62.
Shipman, K. L., & Zeman, J. (2001). Socialization of children’s emotion regulation in mother-child dyads: A developmental psychopathology perspective. Development and Psychopathology, 13, 317–336.
Stocker, C., & Dunn, J. (1990). Sibling relationships in childhood: Links with
friendships and peer relationships. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 8, 227–244.
Terwogt, M. M., & Olthof, T. (1989). Awareness and self-regulation of emotion
in young children. In C. Saarni & P. Harris (Eds.), Children’s understanding
of emotion (pp. 209–237). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Underwood, M., Coie, J., & Herbsman, C. R. (1992). Display rules for anger
and aggression in school-aged children. Child Development, 63, 366–380.
Underwood, M., Hurley, J. C., Johanson, C. A., & Mosley, J. E. (1999). An
experimental, observational investigation of children’s responses to peer
provocation: Developmental and gender differences in middle childhood.
Child Development, 70, 1428–1446.
MPQ_49_1_05_ShipmanIIIII 12/4/02 1:39 PM Page 122
122
Merrill-Palmer Quarterly
Zeman, J., & Garber, J. (1996). Display rules for anger, sadness, and pain: It
depends on who is watching. Child Development, 67, 957–973.
Zeman, J., Penza, S., Shipman, K. L., & Young, G. (1997). Preschoolers as
functionalists: The impact of social context on emotion regulation. Child
Study Journal, 27, 41–67.
Zeman, J., & Shipman, K. L. (1996). Children’s expression of negative affect:
Reasons and methods. Developmental Psychology, 32, 842–849.
Zeman, J., & Shipman, K. L. (1998). The socialization of children’s negative
affect: A functionalist perspective. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 22,
141–166.