Child Development, November/December 2003, Volume 74, Number 6, Pages 1869 – 1880

Adolescents’ Emotion Regulation in Daily Life: Links to Depressive

Symptoms and Problem Behavior
Jennifer S. Silk, Laurence Steinberg, and Amanda Sheffield Morris

This study examined links between emotion regulation and adjustment in a sample of 152 adolescents in
Grades 7 (M age 5 12) and 10 (M age 5 15). Emotion regulation was assessed using the experience sampling
method, in which adolescents provided multiple reports about the intensity, lability, and strategies used to
regulate negative emotions across 1 week. Adolescents also completed self-report measures of adjustment.
Adolescents who reported more intense and labile emotions and less effective regulation of these emotions also
reported more depressive symptoms and problem behavior. Responding to negative emotions with
disengagement (e.g., denial) or involuntary engagement (e.g., rumination) was less effective in regulating
negative affect, and greater use of these strategies was related to higher levels of depressive symptoms and
problem behavior.

The concept of emotion regulation is popular among
researchers and clinicians seeking to elucidate indi-
vidual differences in the development of psycho-
pathology. According to Thompson’s (1994, pp. 27 – 28)
widely cited definition, ‘‘emotion regulation consists
of the extrinsic and intrinsic processes responsible
for monitoring, evaluating, and modifying emotional
reactions, especially their intensive and temporal
features, to accomplish one’s goals.’’ Emerging the-
ories of both child and adult psychopathology frame
maladjustment in terms of difficulties regulating affect
(Bradley, 2000; Steinberg & Avenevoli, 2000).
Adolescence is an opportune time to explore
processes and correlates of emotion regulation for
several reasons. First, the transition through adoles-
cence is accompanied by physical, psychological,
and social transformations that elicit novel experi-
ences of emotional arousal. Consistent with the notion
that emotional experience is especially intense in
Jennifer S. Silk, Western Psychiatric Institute and Clinic;
Laurence Steinberg, Department of Psychology, Temple Univer-
sity; Amanda S. Morris, Department of Psychology, University of
New Orleans.
This research was supported by the John D. and Catherine
T. MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Psychopathology
and Development. An earlier version of this manuscript served as
a part of the first author’s doctoral dissertation. Appreciation is
expressed to the students, teachers, administrative assistants, and
administrators of the two participating schools. We also wish to
acknowledge the thoughtful and instructive review of an earlier
version of this manuscript by Philip C. Kendall, Jerome Resnick,
Brian Marx, Denise Sloan, and Julie Hubbard, and the generous
assistance of Ronald Dahl and his staff in data coding and data
management.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to
Jennifer S. Silk, 4423 Sennott Square, 210 South Bouquet Street,
Pittsburgh, PA 15260. Electronic mail may be sent to jss4@pitt.edu.
adolescence, studies indicate that adolescents ex-
perience more frequent and intense emotions than
younger or older individuals (Larson, Csikszentmi-
halyi, & Graef, 1980; Larson & Lampman-Petraitis,
1989). Second, many of the hormonal, neural, and
cognitive systems thought to underlie the regulation
of emotion appear to mature throughout the
adolescent period (Spear, 2000). Third, the preva-
lence of various forms of psychopathology, includ-
ing affective and behavioral disorders, increases
dramatically during the adolescent period. A better
understanding of emotion regulation during adoles-
cence may help us understand individual differ-
ences in mental health and adjustment during this
period of increased risk.
Emotion regulation may be implicated in diverse
forms of adolescent psychopathology, including
both internalizing disorders and externalizing dis-
orders. Internalizing disorders, such as depression,
likely involve deficits in the ability to down-regulate
negative emotions such as sadness or difficulty up-
regulating and maintaining positive emotions (Cole,
Michel, & Teti, 1994). Depressed children and
adolescents may also lack facility with strategies
used by other children and adolescents to ameliorate
negative affect, such as problem solving or cognitive
restructuring (Dodge & Garber, 1991). Externalizing
disorders are characterized by behavioral dysregula-
tion; however, dysregulated affect, particularly
anger, is also theorized to be a feature of these
disorders (Bradley, 2000; Dearing et al., 2002).
In exploring the link between emotion regulation
and adolescent psychosocial adjustment, we focused
r 2003 by the Society for Research in Child Development, Inc.
All rights reserved. 0009-3920/2003/7406-0019
1870 Silk, Steinberg, and Morris
on two interrelated components of emotion regula-
tion: (a) emotional dynamics, including the intensity,
lability, and down-regulation of emotional states;
and (b) emotion-regulation strategies, the behavioral
and cognitive processes adolescents use to modulate
or change affective states. With respect to emotional
dynamics, Larson and colleagues presented relevant
findings from an experience sampling study in
which adolescents recorded their mood states seven
times a day in response to signals from an electronic
pager. Findings suggested that adolescents who are
more emotionally labile (e.g., who have a greater
degree of fluctuation in mood state), or who report
more intense negative affect, tend to score higher on
measures of depressive symptomatology (Larson,
Raffaelli, Richards, Ham, & Jewell, 1990). Little is
known about the relation between emotional dy-
namics and externalizing problems among adoles-
cents; however, research conducted with younger
children demonstrates that children high in negative
affective intensity exhibit higher rates of externaliz-
ing behavior over time (Eisenberg et al., 1995;
Eisenberg et al., 1997). Interestingly, Eisenberg and
colleagues found that children with internalizing
and externalizing problems exhibit elevated levels of
both anger and sadness (Eisenberg et al., 2001).
Few studies have directly examined the relation
between emotion-regulation strategies and adjust-
ment among adolescents. In a notable exception,
Garber and colleagues conducted a series of studies
in which young adolescents reported on their typical
emotion-regulation strategies. They found that ado-
lescents diagnosed with a depressive disorder
nominated fewer problem-focused and active dis-
traction strategies, but more avoidant, passive, and
aggressive strategies, than adolescents in a control
group (Garber, Braafladt, & Zeman, 1991; Garber,
Braafladt, & Weiss, 1995). Depressed adolescents
also reported lower expectations that strategies
would be effective in altering their negative emo-
tions than adolescents in the control group (Garber
et al., 1995). In these studies, however, adolescents
reported on the expected efficacy and the estimated
frequency of strategies, and it remains unclear how
well these reports reflect actual emotion-regulation
behaviors in affectively charged, real-life contexts.
These findings from studies of adolescents are
consistent with those from research on infants and
young children, which suggest that active and
attention-based strategies such as self-distraction
and attention shifting are linked with decreases in
distress, whereas passive focus on the distressing
stimulus is associated with increases in distress and
the development of externalizing behaviors (Buss &
Goldsmith, 1998; Gilliom, Shaw, Beck, Schonberg, &
Lukon, 2002; Grolnick, Bridges, & Connell, 1996).
Related findings come as well from the literature on
coping among adolescents. Studies of coping in
adolescence suggest that approaching or engaging
with the stressor is associated with better adjustment
(Compas, Connor, Saltzman, Thomsen, & Wads-
worth, 1999). In contrast, depressive symptomatol-
ogy is associated with the use of avoidance and
rumination, as well as limited use of active strategies
such as support seeking, problem solving, and
cognitive restructuring (Herman-Stahl, Stemmler, &
Petersen, 1995; Nolen-Hoeksema & Morrow, 1993;
Sandler, Tein, & West, 1994).
Compas and colleagues (Connor-Smith, Compas,
Wadsworth, Thomsen, & Saltzman, 2000) recently
presented an empirically based classification of
coping dimensions that has been replicated among
diverse samples of adolescents (Langrock, Compas,
Keller, Merchant, & Copeland, 2002; Wadsworth &
Compas, 2002). In this model, responses to stress are
first distinguished on the basis of whether they are
voluntary or involuntary. Voluntary responses, also
called controlled responses, are volitional strategies
enacted by the individual. Involuntary responses,
also called automatic responses, are responses that
may or may not be under conscious awareness and
are not enacted volitionally. Involuntary or auto-
matic responses, such as rumination, are typically
experienced as intrusive and often seem to ‘‘pop
into’’ one’s mind and take on a life of their own
beyond the control of the individual.
Voluntary or controlled responses are next differ-
entiated with respect to whether they involve active
engagement with, or passive disengagement from,
the stressor. Within voluntary engagement, a final
distinction is made between primary and secondary
control (Thurber & Weisz, 1997). Primary control
involves engaging with a stressor in an attempt to
modify negative aspects of the situation, whereas
secondary control is aimed at maximizing one’s fit to
the situation through such mechanisms as distrac-
tion or cognitive restructuring. Compas and collea-
gues reported that primary and secondary control
responses are associated with fewer depressive
symptoms and less aggression, whereas disengaged
and involuntary responses are associated with
higher depressive symptomatology and aggression
(Langrock et al., 2002; Wadsworth & Compas, 2002).
Although this hierarchy is intended to apply to
responses to stress, it can also be used to classify
strategies for regulating emotion. It should be noted
that the use of the term strategies does not imply
that all emotion-regulation strategies are conscious,

volitional, or adaptive. In fact, involuntary engage-
ment strategies are by nature likely to occur outside
of volitional control but are still referred to as
strategies in this study.
A fundamental limitation of most of the studies
reviewed here on both coping and emotion regula-
tion is their acontextual nature. In most studies,
adolescents are either told to imagine that a
particular stressful or emotional experience has just
occurred or are asked to nominate a stressful or
emotional experience that has occurred over the past
week or month. Adolescents then answer a series of
questions about how they would or did respond to
such a situation. It remains unclear whether the
strategies and regulatory processes endorsed by
adolescents on checklists and in response to vign-
ettes adequately reflect their actual behaviors in
affectively charged situations. The ‘‘hot cognition’’
that occurs during affective experience has now
cooled, and responses may reflect what adolescents
know they should do in such situations, rather than
what they actually do when they are influenced by
the heat of the emotion. In fact, research comparing
retrospective reports of coping with real-time reports
of coping during the same period has revealed
several biases in retrospective reporting of coping
(Stone et al., 1998).
In the current study, we used the experience
sampling method (ESM) to circumvent many of
these limitations. The ESM was modified to provide
detailed data not only on the intensity and lability of
adolescents’ emotions but also on the regulation of
emotional states in response to specific emotional
experiences. This method allowed us to gather
information on emotion regulation as it actually
unfolds in adolescents’ daily lives. The goals of the
study were twofold: (a) to address the effectiveness
of specific emotion-regulation strategies in regulat-
ing negative affect in adolescent daily life, and (b) to
explore associations between patterns of emotional
dynamics and strategy use and concurrent adoles-
cent adjustment. Because changes in the neural and
hormonal substrate as well as the social context of
emotion regulation are thought to occur across the
adolescent period, we also explored whether emo-
tion-regulation processes operate in a similar fashion
for both early and middle adolescents.
We hypothesized that adolescents who reported
more intense and labile emotions and more difficulty
regulating negative affect would report greater
symptoms of depression and more problem behav-
ior. With respect to strategies, we expected that
primary and secondary control strategies would be
associated with greater regulation of negative affect,
Adolescent Emotion Regulation 1871
whereas disengagement and involuntary engage-
ment strategies would be associated with less
effective regulation of negative affect. We also
expected that greater usage of primary and second-
ary control strategies would be associated with
lower levels of depressive symptomatology and
problem behavior, whereas greater usage of disen-
gagement and involuntary engagement strategies
would be associated with higher levels of depressive
symptomatology and problem behavior.
Method
Participants
Participants were recruited from two public
schools in a suburban community outside of a major
Northeastern city. During assemblies in each school,
research assistants described the project to all 7th-
and 10th-grade students and provided each student
with a packet containing a description of the study; a
parental consent form; and a stamped, self-ad-
dressed envelope. Students were instructed to share
the materials with their parents and to return a
signed parental consent form if they wished to
participate in the study. Packets were distributed to
approximately 350 students across both schools, and
185 students returned parental consent forms. This
53% participation rate is within the range of 45% to
75% reported in other ESM studies using adolescent
samples (Larson, 1989; Larson et al., 1980; Larson &
Richards, 1994). Based on the order in which consent
forms were received, 170 students were selected for
participation. School personnel requested that 3 be
removed from the study because of pending dis-
ciplinary action, resulting in 167 students enrolled
in the study. Twelve participants were dropped from
the analyses because of incomplete or inaccurate
data, resulting in a final sample of 152 adolescents.
Data were not available for all participants on all
measures.
The final sample was composed of 152 adoles-
cents (73 males, 79 females) ages 12 to 17 (M 5 13.89,
SD 5 1.65). The sample consisted of 80 7th-grade
students (M age 5 12.43) and 72 10th-grade students
(M age 5 15.51). Approximately 89% of the partici-
pants were Caucasian, 5% were African American,
3% were Latino, and 3% were from other ethnic
groups. Approximately 64% of the adolescents
reported that their parents were married and 36%
reported that their parents were divorced, separated,
never married, or widowed. Participants came
primarily from working- and middle-class families,
as indexed by maternal education. Five percent of
the mothers had not completed high school, 35%
1872 Silk, Steinberg, and Morris
held a high school diploma or GED, 15% had com-
pleted some college, and 22% percent of the mothers
held a college degree. Thirty adolescents did not
know their mother’s highest level of education.
Students were compensated with $20, a gift
certificate to a local movie theatre, and entry into a
weekly raffle drawing for a stereo or video game
system. Teachers with at least one participating
student in their class were compensated with $10 at
the conclusion of the study for their help in
distributing materials to students.
Procedure
Data were collected in groups of 15 to 20
participants in weeklong sampling periods. At the
beginning of the designated week, students attended
a group orientation during which the research team
described the procedures of the study and adminis-
tered a battery of questionnaires. After obtaining
voluntary assent from each participant (parental
consent had already been received), the research
team reviewed a sample Experience Sampling Form
(ESF) with participants. At the conclusion of the
meeting, students were given binders containing
ESFs and preprogrammed wristwatches.
Beginning immediately after the orientation, parti-
cipants were instructed to complete an ESF each time
their wristwatch beeped. A systematic sampling
approach was used to determine signaling schedules.
Within the target hours of each day, one signal was
programmed for every 90- to 150-min block, using a
table of random numbers, with the provision that no
signals occur within 60 min of each other. During
school days, signaling began at 8:00 a.m. and ended by
9:30 p.m. On Friday and Saturday nights, the signaling
period was extended to 11:00 p.m., and on Saturday
and Sunday mornings, the signaling period began at
10:00 a.m. Both schools agreed to allow students to
complete ESFs while in school. At the end of the week,
participants met with research staff to receive pay-
ment and participate in a debriefing interview.
Participants recorded data on current thoughts
and feelings in response to a brief electronic signal
from their wristwatch. Thoughts and experiences
were recorded on an ESF, adapted from Larson
(1989) and influenced by the work of Stone et al.
(1998). The ESF was a brief 2- to 5-min survey used
to assess emotional dynamics and strategies in
response to experiences over the previous hour.
The window of 1 hour was chosen to maximize
chances of accessing a naturally occurring emotional
experience while minimizing biases of retrospective
recall over a longer period.
Participants first provided information about
their current affect and activities. To assess emotion
regulation, we solicited information about one
experience over the past hour perceived by the
adolescent as emotionally salient. Adolescents were
prompted to think over the previous hour and
record what they had been doing. They were then
provided with the following prompt: ‘‘Try to
remember your feelings and thoughts over the past
hour. Think about the time when you felt the worst,
or most negative (e.g., mad, upset, disappointed,
sad, worried).’’ Participants were asked to estimate
the time at which this occurred in 15-min intervals
ranging from ‘‘about an hour ago’’ to ‘‘right before I
was beeped.’’ After identifying this experience,
participants responded to a series of questions
designed to obtain information on emotional dy-
namics and the use of strategies in relation to the
identified emotion-eliciting experience. Experiences
included both discrete events (e.g., ‘‘I failed my math
test’’) and emotion-eliciting thoughts (e.g., ‘‘I was
thinking about how much I miss my ex-boyfriend’’).
Although we did not expect that adolescents would
experience a significant negatively valenced emo-
tional experience in every sampling interval, we
requested that they identify their most negative
experience on every form, even if it was something
very minor. Participants also were asked to report on
a positive emotional experience at the end of each
sampling form to avoid inadvertently encouraging
the adolescent to dwell on negative experiences.
The compliance rate in the current study was 88%,
with participants completing ESFs for an average of
42 of 48 signals. Participants who responded to fewer
than 50% of signals were considered noncompleters.
In addition, participants whose responses appeared
invalid because they had filled out all of the responses
at once (indicated by pen color and mismatch
between times and activities) or because responses
were obviously fictitious were also considered non-
completers. Data from 12 participants could not be
analyzed for these reasons.
Measures
Emotional dynamics. Emotional dynamics were
assessed through participants’ ratings of anger,
sadness, and anxiety on each ESF. The words mad,
sad, and nervous were chosen to reflect each of these
emotions in terms that have been shown to be
understandable by children as young as fourth
grade (Laurent et al., 1999). Each ESF elicited ratings
for current affect and peak affect. Current affect was
defined as the participants’ affect at the time at

which they completed the form (e.g., ‘‘How are you
feeling right now?’’). Participants rated the degree to
which they felt mad, sad, or nervous at the current
time. Participants also rated their peak affect,
defined as their affect during the negative emotion-
eliciting experience previously identified. As de-
scribed earlier, participants were prompted to think
over the past hour and record their most negative ex-
perience within the past hour. They were then asked
to rate the degree to which they felt mad, sad, or
nervous at the worst point of this experience. Current
and peak ratings were made on a 5-point scale
ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much) for each
emotion.
Indexes of intensity, lability, and regulation were
constructed from ratings of current and peak affect.
Intensity was calculated separately for anger, sadness,
and anxiety by averaging current affect ratings for
each emotion across ESF reports. Thus, intensity
reflected the mean level of anger, sadness, or anxiety
that the adolescent typically experienced in his or her
daily life. Lability was computed for each emotion
by calculating the standard deviation of current
affect ratings for that emotion across ESF reports
(Larson et al., 1990). Lability therefore reflected the
adolescent’s typical degree of fluctuation within each
emotion across a week. Regulation of negative affect
was assessed by comparing current levels of anger,
sadness, and anxiety with peak levels of anger,
sadness, and anxiety on each ESF report. In other
words, a report of high peak anger and low current
anger would suggest greater regulation, whereas a
report of high peak anger and moderate to high
current anger would suggest lower regulation.
Emotion-regulation strategies. Emotion-regulation
strategies were examined for sampling moments
containing an affect rating of 3 or greater (N 5 3,756),
indicating that the participant experienced a nega-
tive emotion of at least a moderate degree of
intensity (mean sampling moments with affect
ratings of 3 or greater 5 25). On each ESF, adoles-
cents were asked to describe how they reacted to the
identified emotion-eliciting experience by checking
one of the strategies on a checklist provided or by
writing in their own response. The checklist in-
cluded 13 strategies adapted from the Responses to
Stress Questionnaire (RSQ; Connor-Smith et al.,
2000). Responses written in the blank space pro-
vided were also coded into these 13 strategies, with
kappa coefficients ranging from .92 to 1.00.
The 13 emotion-regulation strategies were
grouped into four categories: (a) primary control
(e.g., problem solving, emotional expression), (b)
secondary control (e.g., cognitive restructuring,
Adolescent Emotion Regulation 1873
acceptance, distraction, positive thinking), (c) disen-
gagement (e.g., denial, avoidance, wishful thinking,
escape, inaction), and (d) involuntary engagement
(e.g., rumination, impulsive or involuntary action).
Involuntary disengagement and voluntary disen-
gagement strategies were combined into one cate-
gory to simplify the model for the present analyses.
Dichotomous variables were constructed to indicate
the presence or absence of each of the four categories
of emotion-regulation strategies for each sampling
moment. For some analyses, strategy use was repre-
sented as a proportion of sampling moments in which
the strategy was used out of the entire number of
relevant sampling moments for that participant (e.g.,
containing a peak affect rating of 3 or greater).
Demographics questionnaire. Adolescents com-
pleted a brief questionnaire designed to obtain basic
demographic information, including the partici-
pant’s age, gender, race, maternal education (used
to index socioeconomic status), and family structure.
Youth Self-Report Form. Problem behavior was
assessed using the Externalizing scale of the Youth
Self-Report Form (YSR; Achenbach, 1991). The YSR
is an adolescent self-report checklist of behavior
problems during the past 6 months, each rated on a
3-point scale. The Externalizing scale reflects out-
wardly directed negative behaviors, including lying,
swearing, arguing, stealing, truancy, and destroying
property. The YSR has been extensively normed on a
nationally representative sample of adolescents.
Achenbach (1991) reported acceptable internal con-
sistency, test – retest reliability, and discriminant and
convergent validity for the YSR.
Children’s Depression Inventory. Symptoms of de-
pression were assessed using the Children’s Depres-
sion Inventory (CDI; Kovacs, 1985). The CDI is a
widely used measure of depressive symptomatology
in both clinically referred and nonclinical samples
of children and adolescents. The CDI assesses
depressed mood and a wide range of associated
symptoms, including somatic and interpersonal
symptoms. Respondents choose one of three re-
sponses that best describes them for each of 27 items.
The CDI possesses adequate internal consistency
(a 5 .87) and test – retest reliability (Kovacs, 1985).
Results
Data Analytic Procedures
Special analytic techniques were needed to
accommodate the nested structure of the data, which
included repeated reports for each individual. Data
1874 Silk, Steinberg, and Morris

were collected for 6,560 moments in time (Level 1
data); however, these moments were nested within
152 individuals (Level 2 data), therefore violating
assumptions of independence. Hierarchical linear
modeling (HLM) is a regression procedure devel-
oped for modeling nested or hierarchical data (Bryk
& Raudenbush, 1992). HLM employs an iterative
process to estimate regression equations for Level 2
data (persons) as a step toward arriving at the best
regression equation for the entire set of sampling
moments. HLM has the important advantage of
remaining unbiased in the presence of unequal
numbers of observations across individuals and
unequally spaced sampling moments. Analyses
were conducted using the HLM 5.02 software
package (Bryk & Raudenbush, 1992). Full maximum
likelihood estimation was used for all models. In
some cases, mean scores or proportions aggregated
across sampling moments were used in more
traditional analytic approaches (e.g., correlations,
analysis of covariance [ANCOVA]).
emotion regulation; however, noncompleters were
more likely to be male (w2 5 8.16, po.01) and
reported more problem behavior (M 5 64.9) than
completers (M 5 54.7; t 5
2.58, po.05). No differ-
ences between completers and noncompleters ex-
isted with respect to age, socioeconomic status, race,
or depressive symptomatology.
Gender and age differences. There were several
gender differences in emotional dynamics and
emotion-regulation strategies. As shown in Table 1,
females reported higher intensity of anger, sadness,
and anxiety than males. Female adolescents also
reported greater lability of sadness and anxiety but
not anger. Females used more primary control and
involuntary engagement than males, although there
were no gender differences in secondary control or
disengagement. Contrary to expectations, there were
few age differences in emotional dynamics, except
that 7th graders reported a higher intensity of anx-
iety than did 10th graders. No differences in strategy
use were found between 7th and 10th graders.

Preliminary Analyses Emotional Dynamics

Completers versus noncompleters. Means and stan-
dard deviations for all major variables are presented
in Table 1, and intercorrelations among major
variables are presented in Table 2. Noncompleters
did not differ from completers on any measures of
Correlations between emotional dynamics and adjust-
ment. It was hypothesized that emotional intensity
and lability would be associated with adjustment. As
shown in Table 2, adolescents who reported greater
intensity of anger and sadness reported significantly

Table 1
Means and Standard Deviations of Major Variables for Entire Sample and by Gender

Range M (SD) Male Female t d

Emotional dynamics
Mean anger intensity 1.00 – 2.95 1.41 (0.36) 1.34 1.47
2.34 .36
Mean sadness intensity 1.00 – 3.21 1.34 (0.41) 1.23 1.43
3.12 .49
Mean anxiety intensity 1.00 – 3.31 1.33 (0.41) 1.25 1.40
2.32 .37
Anger lability 0.00 – 1.72 0.77 (0.39) 0.73 0.82
1.56 .23
Sadness lability 0.00 – 1.70 0.64 (0.44) 0.53 0.73
2.80 .45
Anxiety lability 0.00 – 1.95 0.64 (0.43) 0.55 0.73
2.57 .42
Emotion regulation strategies
Primary control 0.00 – 1.00 0.49 (0.23) 0.40 0.59
5.60 .83
Secondary control 0.00 – 1.00 0.47 (0.22) 0.48 0.46 0.43 .09
Disengagement 0.00 – 1.00 0.20 (0.16) 0.19 0.20
0.43 .07
Involuntary engagement 0.00 – .35 0.04 (0.07) 0.02 0.05
2.79 .45
Symptomatology
Depressive symptoms 0.00 – 40.00 8.48 (6.88) 7.41 9.47
1.86 .30
Problem behavior 30.00 – 87.00 54.78 (11.22) 52.77 56.51
1.98 .33
Note. N 5 138 for problem behavior; N 5 152 for all other variables. For males N 5 73 and for females N 5 79. Emotional intensity
represents the mean level of intensity for each emotion across all of the participants’ sampling moments. Strategy use is in proportions of
sampling moments in which the strategy was used out of the entire number of sampling moments for that participant.
po.05. po.01. po.001.
 Adolescent Emotion Regulation 1875

Table 2
Correlation Matrix of Variables

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Emotional dynamics
1. Anger intensity
2. Sadness intensity .78
3. Anxiety intensity .61 .59
4. Anger lability .85 .58 .47
5. Sadness lability .67 .83 .54 .68
6. Anxiety lability .53 .49 .85 .54 .57
Emotion regulation strategies
7. Primary control .17 .19 .15 .25 .30 .20
8. Secondary control
.07
.04
.04
.11
.11
.03
.15
9. Disengagement .05 .08 .09 .08 .09 .09 .00 .03
10. Involuntary engagement .20 .22 .28 .22 .24 .39 .19 .11 .31
Symptomatology
11. Depressive symptoms .20 .40 .15 .20 .41 .23 .08
.08 .35 .29
12. Problem behavior .27 .33 .22 .31 .35 .27 .14
.17 .37 .34 .57
Note. N 5 138 for problem behavior; N 5 152 for all other variables. Strategy use is represented in proportions.
po.05. po.01. po.001.

more depressive symptomatology and problem
behavior. Adolescents who reported greater inten-
sity of anxiety reported significantly more problem
behavior and tended to report more depressive
symptomatology. A similar pattern of relations
emerged with respect to emotional lability. As shown
in Table 2, adolescents who reported greater lability
of anger, sadness, and anxiety reported significantly
more depressive symptomatology and problem
behavior.
Cluster analysis of regulation. We hypothesized
that participants who showed lower regulation of
negative affect would report more depressive symp-
tomatology and problem behavior than participants
who showed greater regulation of negative affect.
To test this hypothesis, a two-step cluster analysis
procedure was used. In the first step, cluster analysis
was performed on the entire set of sampling
moments using current and peak ratings of anger,
sadness, and anxiety. The solution was restricted to
three clusters, with the goal of identifying a cluster
of sampling moments representing high regulation
of negative affect, a cluster of sampling moments
representing low regulation of negative affect, and a
cluster of sampling moments in which participants
did not reach high levels of negative affect. Note that
the unit of analysis in this stage was the sampling
moment, not the individual.
As shown in Table 3, Cluster 3 represents a subset
of sampling moments in which participants main-
tained relatively high ratings of anger, sadness, or
anxiety from peak to current ratings, whereas
Cluster 2 represents sampling moments in which
participants reported high peak levels of anger,
sadness, or anxiety but lower levels of these
emotions in their current ratings. Cluster 1 repre-
sents the larger and less informative set of sampling
moments in which both peak and current affect
ratings were relatively low.
The second step in this analysis was to classify
participants into high- and low-regulation groups
based on the percentage of their sampling moments
falling into each cluster. First, participants who fell
1 SD above the mean in percentage of Cluster 3
sampling moments were classified into a low-
regulation group (n 5 21). Second, participants who
were 1 SD above the mean in percentage of Cluster 2
sampling moments were classified into a high-
regulation group (n 5 23). Table 4 shows the results
of an ANCOVA comparing the high- and low-
regulation groups on self-reports of depressive
symptomatology and problem behavior. Gender
was included as a covariate given gender differences
revealed in preliminary analyses. As hypothesized,
adolescents in the low-regulation group scored
significantly higher on both depressive symptoma-
tology and problem behavior than adolescents in the
high-regulation group.
Emotion-Regulation Strategies
Emotion-regulation strategies were coded for all
sampling moments in which a negative emotion was
given a peak rating of 3 or greater. This included
1876 Silk, Steinberg, and Morris

Table 3 Time elapsed between peak and current ratings and

Final Mean Cluster Centers gender were included in all models as covariates.
Following the approach described earlier, a sig-
Peak Current
nificant and positive regression coefficient would
Cluster N Mad Sad Nervous Mad Sad Nervous indicate that use of the strategy was associated with
higher levels of current negative affect (e.g., lower
1 4,060 1.91 1.30 1.29 1.17 1.10 1.20
regulation of affect) compared with the use of other
2 1,630 4.09 2.79 1.89 1.26 1.22 1.35
strategies. A significant negative regression coeffi-
3 561 4.16 3.62 2.31 3.57 3.33 2.12
cient would indicate that use of the strategy was
associated with lower levels of current negative
affect (e.g., greater regulation of affect) compared
3,756 of 6,560 sampling moments, indicating that with the use of other strategies. Adolescents’ current
participants experienced a subjectively strong nega- affect was lower than their peak affect for virtually
tive emotion within the hour before sampling in all sampling moments; therefore, the regression
more than half of the instances during which they analyses provide information on the relative amount
were sampled (57%). As Table 1 indicates, partici- of regulation rather than on whether regulation
pants reported using primary and secondary control occurred at all.
strategies relatively frequently (49% and 47%, Table 5 summarizes the regression coefficients for
respectively), whereas participants less frequently each of the hierarchical linear models. Contrary to
reported using strategies involving disengagement our hypotheses, the use of primary control strategies
(20%) and involuntary engagement (4%). was not significantly associated with higher or lower
Hierarchical linear models predicting current intensity levels of regulation. The use of secondary control
of affect from strategy use. A central hypothesis of this strategies, such as cognitive restructuring or positive
study was that primary and secondary control thinking, was marginally associated with greater
strategies would be associated with more effective regulation of anger (coefficient 5
.06, t 5
1.76,
regulation of negative affect, whereas disengage- p 5 .08), although not with the regulation of sadness
ment and involuntary engagement strategies would or anxiety. As hypothesized, strategies involving
be associated with less effective regulation of nega- disengagement, such as avoidance, denial, or escape,
tive affect. This hypothesis was evaluated in a series were significantly associated with lower regulation
of hierarchical linear models with strategy used to of anger (coefficient 5 .14, t 5 3.04, po.01) and sad-
predict current intensity of affect, controlling for ness (coefficient 5 .12, t 5 2.92, po.01), although not
peak intensity of affect. Separate models were anxiety. The same pattern emerged for involuntary
estimated predicting current intensity of anger, engagement strategies, such as rumination, with
sadness, and anxiety from each of the four strategy these strategies significantly associated with lower
categories. Categories were dummy coded, with a 1 regulation of anger (coefficient 5 .40, t 5 3.93, po.001)
indicating that a strategy within the category was and sadness (coefficient 5 .24, t 5 2.45, po.05) but not
used during that sampling moment and a 0 indicat- anxiety.
ing that a strategy from that category was not used. Correlations between strategy use and adjustment. In
addition to examining the utility of particular
strategies in regulating negative affect, we also
Table 4 examined whether there were relations between
Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) Comparing Depressive Symptoms strategy use and adolescent depressive symptoma-
and Problem Behavior for High- Versus Low-Regulation Groups, tology and problem behavior. This question was
Controlling for Gender addressed by examining bivariate correlations be-
tween rate of use of each strategy and adolescent
Cluster 2a Cluster 3b reports of adjustment. As shown in Table 2, use of
High Low Cluster
primary control strategies was not correlated with
regulation regulation ANCOVA 2 vs. 3
depressive symptomatology or problem behavior,
M M F Cohen’s d
and secondary control was weakly negatively
Depressive 6.17 14.48
12.35 1.21 correlated with problem behavior only. Use of
symptoms disengagement and involuntary engagement strate-
Problem 52.53 63.20
5.22 .95 gies, was, however, associated with adjustment. As
behavior
shown in Table 2, adolescents who used involuntary
N 5 23. bN 5 21. po.05. po.01.
a
engagement or disengagement strategies at a higher
 Adolescent Emotion Regulation 1877

Table 5
Summary of Fixed Effects for Hierarchical Linear Models Predicting Current Intensity from Strategy Use (Controlling for Peak Intensity, Time Since
Event, and Gender)

Mad Sad Nervous

Coefficient (SE) t d Coefficient (SE) t d Coefficient (SE) t d

Strategies
Primary Control .05 (.04) 1.32 .22 .04 (.03) 1.41 .23 .01 (.03) .29 .05
Secondary Control
.06w (.04)
1.76w .29
.05 (.03)
1.60 .26
.00 (.03)
.13 .02
Disengagement .14 (.05) 3.04 .50 .12 (.04) 2.92 .48 .02 (.04) .48 .08
Involuntary engagement .40 (.10) 3.93 .64 .24 (.10) 2.45 .40
.02 (.09)
.20 .03
p
Note. Level 1 N 5 3,752; Level 2 N 5 150. Cohen’s d is based on (2t/ df)
wpo.10. po.05. po.01. po.001.

rate reported more depressive symptomatology and
problem behavior.
Discussion
This study provides initial support for the proposi-
tion that emotion regulation is a central correlate of
behavioral and emotional problems among adoles-
cents. The similarity of findings across different
aspects of emotion regulation (e.g., intensity, lability,
regulation patterns, strategy use) and across symp-
tom measures supports the notion that adolescents
who have problems regulating their emotions are
more vulnerable to both internalizing and externa-
lizing problems.
An important strength of the current study is its
ecological validity. Emotion regulation was assessed
in a naturalistic context, providing a lens into real-
life, real-time emotions and emotion regulation. This
methodology not only minimizes the problems
associated with retrospective recall; it also facilitates
the recording of hot cognitions and affect-laden
responses and reactions. In addition to the ecological
validity of the data, the weeklong sampling period
provided a depth and quantity of data on emotion
regulation that is more comprehensive and general-
izable than single-point assessments. The repeated
assessment allowed for the discernment of patterns
of emotion regulation for each adolescent. A
qualitative examination of the adolescents’ re-
sponses provides confidence that participants de-
scribed their emotions and reactions with honesty.
For example, the adolescents in this study wrote
about drug use, sexual activity, secret crushes,
embarrassments, and dreams. They did not describe
themselves as cool-headed problem solvers but
reported that they slammed the door on their sisters,
ate junk food until they felt better, or cried them-
selves to sleep.
In this study, adolescents who were less likely or
less able to regulate negative affect during real-life
emotional experiences reported more symptomatol-
ogy compared with those who recovered from
negative emotional experiences more easily. Adoles-
cents who were able to recover from feeling sad,
angry, or anxious were much less likely to report
depressive symptoms and problem behavior than
adolescents who were not able to modulate these
negative emotions.
As hypothesized, greater emotional intensity and
lability were associated with elevated depressive
symptomatology and behavior problems, suggesting
that intensity of emotion and variability in levels of
emotion from moment to moment are also related to
adolescent adjustment. In line with previous reports
and theory (Larson et al., 1990), intensity and lability
of sadness were associated with depressive symp-
toms, and intensity and lability of anger were
associated with behavior problems. Consistent with
Eisenberg et al.’s (2001) findings, however, associa-
tions between emotion regulation and adjustment
also followed along less predictable pathways.
Intense and labile levels of anger and anxiety were
associated with depressive symptoms, and intense
and labile levels of sadness and anxiety were related
to behavior problems. These findings support the
contention that a nonspecific emotion dysregulation
factorFincluding dysregulation of sadness, anger,
and anxietyFis a common correlate of both inter-
nalizing and externalizing among adolescents (see
Steinberg & Avenevoli, 2000).
In addition to exploring the dynamics of emotion
regulation, this study also built on previous research
by examining the effectiveness of the strategies
adolescents use to regulate their emotions. Although
we hypothesized that using primary control strate-
gies would be especially helpful for adolescents in
regulating their negative emotions, this was not the
1878 Silk, Steinberg, and Morris
case. It was surprising that responding to feelings of
anger, sadness, or anxiety by using a primary control
strategy, such as problem solving or emotional
expression, had no systematic effect on the regula-
tion of these emotions. There was also little support
for the hypothesized efficacy of secondary control
strategies, such as cognitive restructuring or distrac-
tion, in regulating affect.
We suspect that these strategies were relatively
effective in regulating negative affect in some
instances and relatively ineffective in other in-
stances, thus averaging out to a negligible overall
effect. It also may be that the effectiveness of such
strategies depends on the specific nature of the
emotional experience. For example, coping research
suggests that primary control strategies are more
helpful in stressful situations that are control-
lable and less effective in uncontrollable situations
(Thurber & Weisz, 1997). Collecting and analyzing
information about the controllability of the situation
in future research may prove important in further
evaluating the effectiveness of primary and second-
ary control strategies. Relatedly, collecting informa-
tion on other external events and individuals that
may have influenced the success or failure of specific
attempts at regulating emotions beyond the influ-
ence of strategy would provide a more stringent test
of the effectiveness of particular strategies and
would help round out our understanding of the
social context of emotion regulation.
The emotion-regulation strategies that proved
most influential were disengagement and invo-
luntary engagement, although their impact on re-
gulation was countereffective. Specifically, when
adolescents dealt with their emotions by disengag-
ing (e.g., by using denial, avoidance, escape, or wish-
ful thinking) or reacted to their anger or sadness
involuntarily (e.g., by ruminating or acting impul-
sively), they maintained higher levels of anger and
sadness. One possible explanation for the detrimen-
tal impact of disengagement and involuntary en-
gagement strategies is that they share a passive and
avoidant stance in which the adolescent does little or
nothing to change or adapt to the negative experi-
ence. Avoidance and disengagement from a negative
experience may also interrupt exposure and extinc-
tion processes that help the individual habituate to
the experience and its associated affect.
As hypothesized, strategy use was also related to
adolescent adjustment. Consistent with work on
adolescent depression and coping, adolescents in
this study who more frequently used disengagement
and involuntary engagement strategies reported
more depressive symptoms and problem behaviors
(Garber et al., 1995; Nolen-Hoeksema & Morrow,
1993; Wadsworth & Compas, 2002). Contrary to
hypotheses and previous research (e.g., Compas et
al., 1999; Garber et al., 1995), however, neither
primary nor secondary control strategies were
highly associated with adolescent symptomatology.
The difference in findings may be attributable to
differences in methodologies, with most previous
studies employing retrospective or hypothetical
reports of coping and emotion regulation as opposed
to the contextual approach employed here.
In the present study links between strategy use
and psychopathology were strongest with respect to
strategies that involved involuntary engagement or
disengagement. To the extent that this finding can be
further replicated it may have implications for
mental health prevention and intervention programs,
which often focus more on enhancing the use of
‘‘effective’’ coping skills than diminishing the use of
‘‘ineffective’’ strategies. Our findings suggest that
a key prevention and intervention aim with adoles-
cents might be discouraging the use of counter-
effective emotion-regulation strategies, such as
rumination, escape, avoidance, denial, and inaction.
An important limitation of the present study
is the cross-sectional and correlational nature of
the data. Problems in emotion regulation may be
antecedents, concomitants, or consequences of psy-
chopathology, and the present study cannot shed
light on the directionality of this link. Nevertheless, a
first step in building theories about the relation
between emotion regulation and psychopathology is
to establish that difficulties modulating emotions are
indeed correlated with various forms of psycho-
pathology. This study provides initial evidence for
this link.
A second limitation is the exclusive use of self-
report measures, which creates the potential for
inflated shared-source variance. It should be noted,
however, that although the adolescent was the
informant in all measures, the method of obtaining
information differed between the dependent and
independent variables, thereby diminishing the
problem of shared-method variance. Despite evi-
dence that adolescents may be better reporters of
inner experience than other adults, such as parents
(Lewinsohn, Hops, Roberts, Seeley, & Andrews,
1993), it would be important to replicate the present
findings using alternative sources of information on
adolescent psychopathology, such as clinician, par-
ent, or teacher reports. Additionally, replication of
these findings among clinically referred samples of
adolescents would also be a crucial step in extending
the validity and generalizability of these findings.

Several limitations with respect to the study
sample should also be noted. First, although the
participation rate in the current sample was consis-
tent with that of other ESM studies, it is relatively
low compared with other types of social research. It
may be that the students who participated in the
study differ in systematic ways from those who
declined to participate. Other ESM studies that have
addressed this issue have revealed small differences
in the socioeconomic status of participants versus
nonparticipants, although they have not found
differences in other demographic or socioemotional
variables (Larson, 1989; Larson, Richards, Sims, &
Dworkin, 2001). We did not have data available to
address this issue in the current study; therefore,
caution should be exercised in generalizing the
findings to the general adolescent population. Cau-
tion is also warranted given the limited ethnic and
socioeconomic diversity represented in this primarily
Caucasian working- to middle-class sample.
Finally, it is important to recognize that in this
study we were only able to assess a narrow slice of
the multifaceted construct of emotion regulation.
This study focused only on the down-regulation of
negative emotions despite emerging evidence of the
importance of regulating states of positive affect
(Mayne & Bonanno, 2001). Similarly, the study’s
focus on the down-regulation of negative emotions
could be misinterpreted to suggest that negative
emotions are always maladaptive. Indeed, negative
emotions serve important communicative and moti-
vational functions and at times can be instrumental
toward an individuals’ goals. In the absence of data
on participants’ goals with respect to each emotional
experience, however, we relied on the admittedly
oversimplified view that individuals typically desire
to decrease their experiences of negative emotions.
To advance further our understanding of relations
between emotion regulation and psychosocial ad-
justment, it will be essential to address the regula-
tion of positive affect as well as individuals’ goals
with respect to regulating their emotions.
Perhaps the most important message to be gleaned
from this study is that emotion regulation plays a
significant role in both internalizing and externalizing
forms of psychopathology among early and middle
adolescents. Emotion-regulation deficits appear non-
specific, involving deficits in regulating multiple
emotions and conferring risk for a range of psycho-
logical disorders. Although this study cannot demon-
strate causality, it shows that emotion regulation is
either a risk factor or concomitant feature of disorder
that should be targeted in mental health prevention
and intervention programs for adolescent populations.
Adolescent Emotion Regulation 1879
References
Achenbach, T. M. (1991). Manual for the Youth Self-Report
and 1991 Profile. Burlington: University of Vermont,
Department of Psychiatry.
Bradley, S. J. (2000). Affect regulation and the development of
psychopathology. New York: Guilford.
Bryk, A. S., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1992). Hierarchical linear
models: Applications and data analysis methods. Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
Buss, K. A., & Goldsmith, H. H. (1998). Fear and anger
regulation in infancy: Effects on the temporal dynamics
of affective expression. Child Development, 69, 359 – 374.
Cole, P. M., Michel, M. K., & Teti, L. O. D. (1994). The
development of emotion regulation and dysregulation:
A clinical perspective. Monographs of the Society for
Research in Child Development, 59(2-3, Serial No. 240),
73 – 100.
Compas, B. E., Connor, J. K., Saltzman, H., Thomsen, A. H.,
& Wadsworth, M. (1999). Getting specific about coping:
Effortful and involuntary engagement responses to
stress in development. In M. Lewis & D. Ramsay
(Eds.), Soothing and stress (pp. 229 – 256). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Connor-Smith, J. K., Compas, B. E., Wadsworth, M. E.,
Thomsen, A. H., & Saltzman, H. (2000). Response to
stress in adolescence: Measurement of coping and
involuntary engagement stress response. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68, 976 – 992.
Dearing, K. F., Hubbard, J. A., Ramsden, S. R., Parker, E.
H., Relyea, N., & Smithmyer, C. M., et al. (2002).
Children’s self-reports about anger regulation: Direct
and indirect links to social preference and aggression.
Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 48, 308 – 336.
Dodge, K. A., & Garber, J. (1991). Emotion and social
information processing. In J. Garber & K. A. Dodge
(Eds.), The development of emotion regulation and dysregu-
lation (pp. 159 – 181). Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press.
Eisenberg, N., Cumberland, A., Spinrad, T. L., Fabes, R. A.,
Shepard, S. A., & Reiser, M., et al. (2001). The relations of
regulation and emotionality to children’s externalizing
and internalizing problem behavior. Child Development,
72, 1112 – 1134.
Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Murphy, B., Maszk, P., Smith,
M., & Karbon, M. (1995). The role of emotionality and
regulation in children’s social functioning: A long-
itudinal study. Child Development, 66, 1360 – 1384.
Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Shepard, S. A., Murphy, B. C.,
Guthrie, I. K., & Jones, S., et al. (1997). Contempora-
neous and longitudinal prediction of children’s social
functioning from regulation and emotionality. Child
Development, 68, 642 – 664.
Garber, J., Braafladt, N., & Weiss, B. (1995). Affect
regulation in depressed and nondepressed children
and young adolescents. Development and Psychopathol-
ogy, 7, 93 – 115.
Garber, J., Braafladt, N., & Zeman, J. (1991). The regulation
of sad affect: An information-processing perspective. In
1880 Silk, Steinberg, and Morris
J. Garber & K. A. Dodge (Eds.), The development of
emotion regulation and dysregulation (pp. 208 – 240). Cam-
bridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Gilliom, M., Shaw, D. S., Beck, J. E., Schonberg, M. A., &
Lukon, J. L. (2002). Anger regulation in disadvantaged
preschool boys: Strategies, antecedents, and the devel-
opment of self-control. Developmental Psychology, 38,
222 – 235.
Grolnick, W. S., Bridges, L. J., & Connell, J. P. (1996).
Emotion regulation in two-year olds: Strategies and
emotional expression in four contexts. Child Develop-
ment, 67, 928 – 941.
Herman-Stahl, M. A., Stemmler, M., & Petersen, A. C.
(1995). Approach and avoidant coping: Implications for
adolescent mental health. Journal of Youth and Adoles-
cence, 24, 649 – 665.
Kovacs, M. (1985). The Children’s Depression Inventory
(CDI). Psychopharmacology Bulletin, 21, 995 – 998.
Langrock, A. D., Compas, B. E., Keller, G., Merchant, M. J.,
& Copeland, M. E. (2002). Coping with the stress of
parental depression: Parents’ reports of children’s
coping, emotional, and behavioral problems. Journal of
Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 31, 312 – 324.
Larson, R. (1989). Beeping children and adolescents: A
method for studying time use and daily experience.
Journal of Youth & Adolescence, 18, 511 – 530.
Larson, R., Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Graef, R. (1980). Mood
variability and the psychosocial adjustment of adoles-
cents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 9, 469 – 490.
Larson, R., & Lampman-Petraitis, C. (1989). Daily emo-
tional states as reported by children and adolescents.
Child Development, 60, 1250 – 1260.
Larson, R., Raffaelli, M., Richards, M. H., Ham, M., &
Jewell, L. (1990). Ecology of depression in late childhood
and early adolescence: A profile of daily states and
activities. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 99, 92 – 102.
Larson, R. W., & Richards, M. H. (1994). Family emotions:
Do young adolescents and their parents experience the
same states? Journal of Research on Adolescence, 4,
567 – 583.
Larson, R. W., Richards, M. H., Sims, B., & Dworkin, J.
(2001). How urban African American young adolescents
spend their time: Time budgets for locations, activities,
and companionship. American Journal of Community
Psychology, 29, 565 – 597.
Laurent, J., Catanzaro, S. J., Joiner, T. E. Jr., Rudolph, K. D.,
Potter, K. I., & Lambert, S., et al. (1999). A measure of
positive and negative affect for children: Scale develop-
ment and preliminary validation. Psychological Assess-
ment, 11, 326 – 338.
Lewinsohn, P. M., Hops, H., Roberts, R. E., Seeley, J. R., &
Andrews, J. A. (1993). Adolescent psychopathology: I.
Prevalence and incidence of depression and other
DSM – III – R disorders in high school students. Journal
of Abnormal Psychology, 102, 133 – 144.
Mayne, T. J., & Bonanno, G. A. (2001). Emotions: Current
issues and future directions. New York: Guilford.
Nolen-Hoeksema, S., & Morrow, J. (1993). Effects of
rumination and distraction on naturally occurring
depressed mood. Cognition and Emotion, 7, 561 – 570.
Sandler, I. N., Tein, J. Y., & West, S. G. (1994). Coping,
stress, and the psychological symptoms of children of
divorce: A cross-sectional and longitudinal study. Child
Development, 65, 1744 – 1763.
Spear, L. P. (2000). The adolescent brain and age-related
behavioral manifestations. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral
Reviews, 24, 417 – 463.
Steinberg, L., & Avenevoli, S. (2000). The role of context in
the development of psychopathology: A conceptual
framework and some speculative propositions. Child-
Development, 71, 66 – 74.
Stone, A. A., Schwartz, J. E., Marco, C. A., Cruise, L. J.,
Shiffman, S., & Hickox, M., et al. (1998). A comparison
of coping assessed by ecological momentary assessment
and retrospective recall. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 74, 1670 – 1680.
Thompson, R. A. (1994). Emotion regulation: A theme in
search of definition. Monographs of the Society for Research
in Child Development, 59(2-3, Serial No. 240), 25 – 52.
Thurber, C. A., & Weisz, J. R. (1997). ‘‘You can try or you
can just give up’’: The impact of perceived control and
coping style on childhood homesickness. Developmental
Psychology, 33, 508 – 517.
Wadsworth, M. E., & Compas, B. E. (2002). Coping with family
conflict and economic strain: The adolescent perspective.
Journal of Research on Adolescence, 12, 243 – 274.