1 DISCORDANT PATTERNS Discordant Patterns ...

1 DISCORDANT PATTERNS Discordant Patterns among Emotional Experience, Arousal, and Expression in Adolescence: Relations with Emotion Regulation and Internalizing Problems Dianna M. Lanteigne, Jessica J. Flynn, Jennifer M. Eastabrook, and Tom Hollenstein Queen’s University Citation: Lanteigne, D., Flynn, J. J., Eastabrook, J., & Hollenstein, T. (2014). Discordant patterns among emotional experience, arousal, and expression in adolescence: Relations with emotion regulation and internalizing problems. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 46, 29 - 39. doi: 10.1037/a0029968

Author Note Dianna M. Lanteigne, Department of Psychology, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada; Jessica J. Flynn, Department of Psychology, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada; Jennifer M. Eastabrook, Department of Psychology, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada; Tom Hollenstein, Department of Psychology, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada. Jessica J. Flynn is now at the Department of Psychology, Kent State University. This work was supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, the Canadian Foundation for Innovation, Queen’s University, and the Fredrick Banting and Charles Best Canada Graduate Scholarship from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. We would like to acknowledge our observational coders for this project, Kayla McGeorge, Laura Stephanik, and Victoria Chen. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Tom Hollenstein, Department of Psychology, 220 Craine, Department of Psychology, Queen’s University, 62 Arch Street, Kingston, Ontario, K7L 3N6. Phone: 613-533-3288 Email: [email protected]

DISCORDANT PATTERNS

2 Abstract

Recent evidence suggests that discordant patterns across multiple domains of emotion reveal important differences in socioemotional functioning. Due to the social and emotional changes of adolescence, we examined how discordant patterns of self-reported experience, heart rate arousal, and expression of self-conscious affect related to internalizing behaviours and emotion regulation habits. Experience, arousal, and expression of girls (N=49) aged 12-17 were recorded during social stress, a spontaneous speech. Experience referred to internal subjective feelings (self-reported feelings of selfconsciousness), arousal reflected internal bodily changes (heart rate change from baseline to speech), and expression referred to observable self-conscious behaviours (e.g., hiding, nervous smiling). Consistent with previous research, between-subjects concordance was weak or non-existent. Within-subjects tests of discordance revealed two major findings: (1) Greater experience than expression during the speech was related to girls’ trait-like shame, and (2) Girls with high experience and expression, but low arousal had more difficulty regulating their emotions and more internalizing problems. This preliminary study with adolescent girls introduces the possibilities of multi-method emotion research for the purpose of understanding the development of psychopathology in adolescents.

Keywords: Discordance, Adolescence, Social Stress, Self-Conscious Emotion, Emotion Regulation.

DISCORDANT PATTERNS

3

Discordant Patterns among Emotional Experience, Arousal, and Expression in Adolescence: Relations with Emotion Regulation and Internalizing Problems Adolescence is a developmental period fraught with emotional intensity and greater sensitivity to stress (Larson & Ham, 1993). Importantly, there are no new discrete emotional states that emerge in adolescence that were not already present in childhood (Rosenblum & Lewis, 2003), therefore the developmental changes manifest in how these emotional states arise and dissipate (Steinberg, 2008). Emotional dynamics occur in three primary domains: (1) experience is the internal subjective thoughts and appraisals, (2) arousal reflects the internal bodily responses, and (3) emotional expression is an external behavioural response that signifies one’s internal state to others (see Figure 1). In terms of experience in adolescence, the cognitive appraisals, attributions, and evaluations of self and others become more global and negatively biased (Hoffman, Cole, Martin, Tram, & Seroczynski, 2000; Mezulis, Abramson, Hyde, & Hankin, 2004). At the same time, the physiological systems underlying emotional arousability, sensitivity, and down regulation (e.g., sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous systems, HPA axis) are undergoing changes related to puberty (Gunnar, Wewerka, Frenn, Long, & Griggs, 2009; Spear, 2009; Stroud et al., 2009). Furthermore, adolescents become more adept at managing their emotions to achieve social goals through “emotional dissemblance” or masking emotional expressions (Rosenblum & Lewis, 2003; Saarni & Weber, 1999), often through nervous laughter, sarcasm, and other forms of expression that are discrepant from underlying emotional feelings (Flannery, Montemayor, Eberly & Torquati, 1993; Safyer & Hauser, 1994). Thus, the way that adolescents modulate their emotional appraisals, arousal, and expressions can determine the frequency, intensity, and persistence of the

DISCORDANT PATTERNS

4

emotional reactions that are typical for this age. However, emotion regulation in each of these domains can mature at different rates across individuals. As with adults (Gross, 1998b; Mauss, Levenson, McCarter, Wilhelm, & Gross, 2005), the modulation in these three domains may occur relatively independently such that emotional responses are likely to be discrepant or discordant, rather than coherent or concordant, especially in socially significant contexts where expression is important (Mauss & Robinson, 2009; Smith, Hubbard & Laurenceau, 2011; Zalewski, Lengua, Wilson, Trancik & Bazinet, 2011). Thus, the richest information that can be gleaned from studying the emotion system comes not only from considering self-reported experience, physiological arousal and observed expression in isolation, but from examining the way these domains integrate and dynamically affect one another (Mauss & Robinson, 2009). The Emotion System and Concordance Coordination among experience, expression, and arousal has been referred to as concordance, coherence, or convergence (e.g., Mauss et al., 2005; Quas, Hong, Alkon & Boyce, 2000; Rosenberg & Ekman, 1994; Scherer, 2005)1. For example, an intense fear response should be evident as (1) strong self-reported feelings of fear, (2) high physiological arousal, such as increased heart-rate, blood pressure, and sweating (Matsumoto, Keltner, Shiota, O'Sullivan, & Frank, 2008; Stemmler, 2004) and (3) clear emotional expressions of fear, such as eyebrows raised and pulled together, upper eyelids raised, eye lids tensed, and lips stretched horizontally (Ekman & Friesen, 1978; Matsumoto et al., 2008). It is intuitive to think that the domains are concordant in their mutual amplification, however with the moderate emotional intensities that can be ethically elicited in the laboratory, the literature to date reports substantial variation in the

DISCORDANT PATTERNS

5

strength and direction of associations (Hastings, Zahn-Waxler, & Usher, 2007; Hubbard et al., 2004; Mauss et al., 2005; Mauss & Robinson, 2009). In fact, discordance among measures seems to be the norm rather than the exception (Mauss & Robinson, 2009) and the direction and magnitude is meaningful for understanding individual differences in emotional functioning such as internalizing and externalizing problems and coping skills (Hastings et al., 2007; Hubbard et al., 2004; Mauss et al., 2005; Mauss & Robinson, 2009; Smith et al., 2011; Zalewski et al., 2011). Two-Way Discordance There is a wider body of research on 2-way discordance than there is on all three of the domains (for a review see Adelmann & Zajonc, 1989). Two-way discordance has been examined in two general ways. The first approach is between-subjects which includes categorical, group, and correlational designs. Using the categorical approach, it has been found that introducing change in one domain will affect the other domains (e.g., Butler et al., 2003; Childs & de Wit, 2006; Ekman, Levenson, & Friesen, 1983). For example, the induction of anger or fear leads to increases in heart rate whereas disgust leads to decreases in heart rate (Ekman et al., 1983; Kreibig, Wilhelm, Roth, & Gross, 2007; Levenson, 1992; Levenson, Ekman, & Friesen, 1990). Group designs build on this logic by examining how two or more groups respond to an emotional induction. For example, a study examining experience and arousal induced by social stress found that females have greater negative affect experience than males but no differences in arousal (Kelly, Tyrka, Anderson, Price, & Carpenter, 2008). Correlational designs examine the levels of association among the domains from a variable-centred approach and tend to reveal inconsistent associations (Adelmann & Zajonc, 1989; Cacioppo et al., 1992). For

DISCORDANT PATTERNS

6

example, bivariate correlations between experience and arousal, experience and expression, and expression and arousal during a social stressor were either modestly positive or null (Mauss, Wilhelm & Gross, 2004). The between-subjects approach, however, does not really capture discordance within an individual’s emotion system (Mauss et al., 2005). Though less often used, the second approach is to examine within-subject discordance through within-subject correlations (e.g., Mauss et al., 2005) or difference scores (e.g., “discrepancy” scores; Coifman, Bonanno, Ray, & Gross, 2007; Thayer, 1971). With this more person-centered approach, discrepancies are more direct indications of the relative discordance across arousal-experience, experience-expression, or expression-arousal pairings. The withinsubjects approach allows for better understanding of how an individual’s concordance or discordance relates to individual difference factors like emotion regulation tendencies. The current study used several bivariate methods to reveal the meaning of discordance in adolescence (as it is often not feasible or practical to collect all three domains in any given setting). In addition, the present study examined the interrelation among all three domains in order to obtain the most thorough understanding of emotional processes. Three-way Discordance Three-way discordance is not a new idea (e.g., Lang, 1968), but it is beginning to become a more common research focus as the theoretical claims of emotional coherence (e.g., Ekman, 1992; Scherer, 1984; Tomkins, 1962) have not been well supported by data. Real-life emotional responses are more complex than simple mutual amplification of appraisals, expressions, and physiology (Lang, 1988; Mauss & Robinson, 2009). To date, there are few comprehensive studies that have examined 3-way concordance in order to

DISCORDANT PATTERNS

7

better understand the complexity of emotional responses (Gross, 1998b; Hubbard et al., 2004; Mauss et al., 2005). Mauss et al. (2005) took a within-subject approach to studying discordance among experience, expression and arousal. They reported within-individual correlations between experience-expression, experience-arousal and arousal-expression for sadness and amusement induced via films. The experience-expression correlation was high for both sadness and amusement. Experience and expression were moderately related to arousal (cardiac measures and skin conductance) during amusement, whereas they were unrelated to cardiac arousal and negatively related to skin conductance for sadness. This elegant study highlighted theoretical and methodological considerations that inform future research on the meaning of emotional concordance, such as withinsubjects designs and examining intensity of the emotional response on concordance. Gross (1998b) emphasized the importance of regulatory strategies on emotional experience, expression and arousal during a disgusting film. He randomly assigned participants to a cognitive reappraisal (i.e., think about the elicitor differently), expressive suppression (i.e., inhibit outward expression of emotion), or control condition. The reappraisal and suppression groups had lower expression but only the reappraisal group had lower experience of disgust in comparison to controls. The suppression group had higher sympathetic activation than the reappraisal and control groups; however, none of the groups were significantly different on cardiac measures of arousal. This betweensubjects design provokes important questions. Would the same patterns found withinsubjects (e.g., high experience, lower expression) correspond to an individual’s use of certain regulatory strategies (e.g., suppression)? Would this be more evident in situations

DISCORDANT PATTERNS

8

that involve an active social task rather than passive watching of films? What about children and adolescents? Using a more ecologically valid situation, Hubbard et al. (2004) found concordance among experience, expression, and arousal in an anger context (playing a game for a prize where the opponent cheats) predicted children’s tendencies to reactively aggress. As a follow-up with the same sample, Smith et al. (2011) found discordant patterns among experience, expression and arousal related to peer-rated overt aggression and social preference. Zalewski et al. (2011) found that unique 3-way profiles of preadolescent frustration regulation differentially predicted both internalizing and externalizing outcomes. Although studies on 3-way concordance are limited, they suggest that the emotional concordance of infancy and early childhood may give way to the discordance of adulthood through changes that happen across the adolescent transition. The present research was designed to explore this possibility through an ecologically valid, within-subjects design. The Current Study The present research was conducted as an initial 3-way test of the general emotional discordance hypothesis in female adolescents, which is that in the social context, discordance may be the norm rather than the exception. Specifically, because of the importance of social evaluations at this age (Westenberg, Drewes, Goedhart, Siebelink & Treffers, 2004), we examined adolescent girls’ emotional responses to a naturalistic social stressor (a spontaneous speech). We chose to focus on girls because they have higher rates of psychological problems related to emotion regulation such as depression and anxiety in comparison to boys (Aldao, Nolen-Hoeksema & Schweizer, 2010; Wade,

DISCORDANT PATTERNS

9

Cairney, & Pevalin, 2002). Differences in emotional responding are driven by a range of individual and contextual factors including acceptable display rules (e.g., Ekman & Friesen, 1975; Malatesta & Haviland, 1982; Matsumoto, 1990; Saarni & Weber, 1999), emotion regulation strategies (e.g., suppression, reappraisal; Gross, 1998a, Gross & John, 2003), social goals (e.g., maintaining positive relationships, impression management; Saarni & Harris, 1991), cognitive distortions (e.g., catastrophizing, negative selfappraisals; Hoffman et al., 2000; Vervoort et al., 2009), and/or the demand characteristics of the social context (e.g., performance versus casual interaction; Kleck et al., 1976). When emotions are elicited in typical social contexts, these factors selectively amplify or dampen arousal, experience, and/or expression to diminish concordance. Therefore, we hypothesized that the pattern of responses across experience, arousal, and expression (e.g., discordance) would reveal important individual differences in socioemotional functioning. Specifically, the magnitude and direction of discrepancies within the emotion system were expected to correlate with the use of emotion regulation strategies and with problems in the internalizing domain. To test this hypothesis, the current study examined the patterns among self-reported experience of self-conscious distress, arousal (heart rate) and observed expressions of self-conscious affect in adolescent girls during a socially stressful task: delivering a spontaneous speech in front of a stranger. This task is a reliable elicitor of self-conscious emotion in adolescence (Westenberg et al., 2009). We used two sets of individual difference measures to assess the relationships between discordance and emotion regulation (suppression, reappraisal, and difficulties with emotion regulation) and internalizing problems (social anxiety, shame, and depression). We tested our predictions

DISCORDANT PATTERNS

10

in three ways. First, we examined the pattern of between-subjects correlations among the three measures. We expected an inconsistent pattern such that associations would be null to modest. Second, we examined discordance as the 2-way discrepancies between each pair of emotion system measures. By using difference scores, we retained information about the direction of the discordance with a technique used in other studies (Coifman et al., 2007; Thayer, 1971). Previous research has found that the direction of the discrepancy is important – those who report less emotional experience relative to their physiological arousal have fewer symptoms of psychopathology and are rated as more well-adjusted by friends (Coifman et al., 2007). Thus, certain types of discordance may be more adaptive than others and it is not yet clear whether these types differ according to age or gender. Third, the patterns of discordance among the three domains were identified using cluster analysis. Each adolescent was classified into one cluster group. A cluster with all three measures at high values, for example, would consist of girls with concordant responses (e.g., high arousal, clear and continuous expressions of self-conscious affect, and high self-reported experience), whereas girls’ responses in a cluster with divergent values across measures (e.g., low arousal, moderate expression, and high self-report) would be considered discordant. These cluster groups were then used to test for individual differences in emotion regulation and internalizing problems. While certain types of discordance have been related to psychological problems, we are not arguing that concordance is the goal of perfect psychological health. Rather, we argue that certain types of discordance may be typical and adaptive while others may be less common and related to problems in socioemotional functioning. Method

DISCORDANT PATTERNS

11

Participants This study was conducted at a medium-sized University in Southern Ontario. The sample (N=49) includes females aged 12 to 17 years (M = 14.4, SD = 1.2). Participants were recruited through the local school board, community events, and sports teams. Participants identified as European-Canadian (77.6%), European Canadian and Other (4.1%), European-Canadian and African (2.0%), First Nations Canadian (2.0%), and Other (3%). Some participants opted not to answer the ethnicity question (8.2%). Participants were compensated with a $10 gift certificate upon completion of the study. Procedure The participant sat in a comfortable tub chair in a room with obscured video cameras monitored from an adjacent room. Participants and their parents were given a brief overview of the study. They were aware that physiological and video data would be recorded while doing different tasks like sitting quietly and talking and that they were free to withdraw at any point. They first filled out questionnaires on their current feelings, demographics, emotion regulation, depression, shame, and social anxiety. Next, physiological sensors were applied to the participant by a female experimenter. Two sticker electrodes for the electrocardiogram (ECG) recording were placed just below the right collarbone and below the left rib. The sensors were connected to a battery pack and BioPac systems MP150 amplifier which sent signals to a computer that recorded the data using the AcqKnowledge software program. After a brief period for the participant to relax, the sequence of tasks were: (1) Baseline Arousal (3 Minutes) – sat quietly with no stimulation; (2) Speech (3 Minutes) – participant was instructed to make a speech as if to class on any topic she chooses; (3) Self-Report (1 minute) – participant reported feelings

DISCORDANT PATTERNS

12

during the speech on Likert scales; (4) Recovery (3 Minutes) – sat quietly with no stimulation while sensors collect arousal measures; (5) Post-consent – participant completed a final consent form and was debriefed with a focus on normalizing reactions to the speech and reducing any negative feelings that arose. Emotion System Measures Experience. After the completion of the speech, the participant rated how she felt during the speech using 8 descriptive words (e.g., nervous, embarrassed, ashamed, happy, annoyed) on a Likert scale (0= not very, 3= extremely). The primary index of Experience was the average of three items: nervous, embarrassed, and ashamed. The possible range of scores was 0 (not very self-conscious) to 3 (extremely self-conscious). Experience was operationalized as self-conscious emotions because the speech task was designed to elicit these social emotions and not others (e.g., happiness). Scale score reliability was acceptable, Cronbach’s α =.67, 95% CI= [.45, .80]. The same questionnaire was given prior to the speech to account for baseline levels (Baseline Experience). Arousal. Heart rate (HR) was used as the measure of physiological arousal because it occurs simultaneously with emotional experience and expression and because it reflects both sympathetic arousal and parasympathetic control (Beauchaine, 2001). Raw electrocardiogram data were cleaned using Acknowledge 4.1 software. HR was calculated as number of beats per minute from the raw ECG signal for each of the tasks: baseline, speech, and recovery period. The primary index of Arousal was HR percent change from baseline to speech: Average HR during the speech minus the average HR during baseline divided by baseline HR and multiplied by 100 ([Speech-

DISCORDANT PATTERNS

13

Baseline]/Baseline]*100). This calculation controls for individual differences in HR at baseline (Swan et al., 2007). Expression. Three undergraduate coders rated each participants’ verbal and nonverbal cues of self-conscious affect (e.g., body tension, hiding, wavering voice, selfdeprecating statements, nervous smiling) using the Global Ratings of Self-Conscious Affect Scale (GROSCA; Lanteigne, Glozman, & Hollenstein, 2010). The GROSCA was developed from research on prototypical displays of self-conscious affect (Keltner & Harker, 1998; Tracey, Robins, & Schriber, 2009) and is the only available tool to measure these emotional displays. The GROSCA consists of eight items in which coders rate each behaviour on a 0-4 scale. Higher values indicate greater expression of selfconscious emotion. Any disagreements (>1 Likert point) were solved by consensus in a group coding meeting with the first author. Reliability analyses were run and one item (self-deprecating statements) was deleted to improve scale score reliability to an acceptable level, Cronbach’s α =.69, 95% CI= [.54, .81]. The 7 remaining items were averaged to create an overall score, Expression. The possible range of scores was from 0 (no expression of self-consciousness) to 4 (extreme expression of self-consciousness). Emotion Regulation Measures Suppression and Reappraisal: Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (ERQ; Gross & John, 2003). The ERQ is a 10-item questionnaire in which respondents indicate how much they agree or disagree with each statement on a seven-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly disagree, 4 = Neither agree nor disagree, 7 = Strongly agree). Two subscales of emotion regulation habits can be derived: Expressive Suppression (4 items) and Cognitive Reappraisal (6 items). Expressive Suppression, as defined in the ERQ, involves

DISCORDANT PATTERNS

14

inhibiting the behavioural aspect of emotions such as facial expressions (Gross & John, 2003). Cognitive Reappraisal, as defined in the ERQ, involves changing one’s emotions by thinking differently (Gross & John, 2003). There was good scale score reliability for both subscales in the current sample (Expressive Suppression, α = .70, 95% CI= [.53, .82]; Cognitive Reappraisal, α = .72, 95% CI= [.56, .83]). The mean of the items for Expressive Suppression and Cognitive Reappraisal were calculated – both had a range of possible scores from 1-7. Difficulty Regulating Emotion: Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale (Gratz & Roemer, 2004). The DERS is a 36-item questionnaire measuring difficulties with emotion regulation including acceptance, awareness and clarity of emotions as well as impulse control, availability of regulation strategies and ability to engage in goaldirected behaviour. Respondents indicate how often each item applies to them on a fivepoint Likert scale (1 = Almost Never, 2 = Sometimes, 3 = About Half of the Time, 4 = Most of the Time, 5 = Almost Always). Positive items were reversed and then a mean was taken for all items. The possible range of scores was 1-5; higher scores indicated greater difficulty with emotion regulation. Difficulty Regulating Emotion had high scale score reliability in the current sample (α = .95, 95% CI= [.92, .97]). Internalizing Measures Depression: Children’s Depression Inventory (Kovacs, 1985). The CDI is a 27-item self-report scale for assessing cognitive, affective, and behavioural signs of depression in children and adolescents from ages 7-17. Respondents select one of three responses that match how they have been feeling over the previous two weeks. Responses range in severity (0 to 2), with higher scores indicating greater depressive

DISCORDANT PATTERNS

15

symptomatology. The items were averaged to create an overall score which could range between 0 and 2. Scale score reliability for Depression was high in the current sample (α = .94, 95% CI= [.91, .96]). Shame: Experience of Shame Scale (Andrews, Qian, & Valentine, 2002). This 25-item scale measures how much respondents have experienced shame on a four-point scale (1 = not at all, 4 = very much). The scale was designed to measure the intense negative feeling of inferiority and self-consciousness that defines shame and also the desire to conceal one’s deficiencies in character, behaviour and body. In addition, the items tap into the experiential, cognitive and behavioural aspects of shame. Shame had a high scale score reliability (α = .94, 95% CI= [.91, .96]) in the current sample. The mean of all items was calculated to create an overall score. The possible range of scores was from 1 to 4; higher scores indicated greater experience of shame. Social Anxiety: Social Anxiety Scale for Adolescents Revised Short Form (Myers, Stein, & Aarons, 2002). This 13-item scale measures social anxiety in adolescents. Adolescents rate how true each statement is for them on a five-point Likert scale (1 = Not at all true, 2 = Mostly not true, 3 = Sometimes true, 4 = Mostly true, 5 = True all the time). It measures the fear of negative evaluation, social avoidance, and distress brought on by social situations. Social Anxiety had high scale score reliability in the present sample (α = .93, 95% CI= [.90, .96]). A mean of all items was calculated to create the overall score. The possible range of scores was from 1-5; higher scores indicated greater social anxiety. Results Descriptive Statistics and Testing of the Social Stress Elicitation

DISCORDANT PATTERNS

16

The means and standard deviations of Experience, Arousal, and Expression during the speech, Baseline Arousal, Recovery Arousal, and the emotional regulation and internalizing measures are listed in Table 1. All univariate distributions were checked for univariate outliers. T-tests for each of the three emotion system measures ensured that the social stressor was effective at eliciting an emotional response. We concluded that participants felt self-conscious because Experience was significantly higher than Baseline Experience, t (48) = 2.80, p = .01, d = .51. Participants showed evidence of being aroused during the speech because Arousal during the speech task was significantly higher than Baseline Arousal, t (48) = 7.55, p < .001, d = 1.07. Also, they displayed self-conscious affect during the speech because Expression was significantly higher than the minimum score of zero, t (48) = 27.67, p < .001, d = 3.95. Correlations among Measures Associations among the emotion system measures. Table 1 shows the correlations among the three subsystem responses as well as the correlations between all of the emotion regulation and internalizing measures (Reappraisal, Suppression, Difficulty Regulating Emotion, Depression, Shame, and Social Anxiety). As for the three emotion system measures, Experience and Expression were positively correlated and Arousal was not correlated with either Experience or Expression. However, Baseline Arousal was positively correlated with Experience and Expression, and Recovery Arousal was positively correlated with Expression. Thus, (1) there was a relation between how self-conscious a participant looked (Expression) and reports of their emotional Experience, (2) while physiological Arousal did not seem to change relative to levels of emotional Experience or Expression, this may have been because physiological Arousal

DISCORDANT PATTERNS

17

was already elevated prior to onset of the speech stressor, and (3) the Expression of selfconsciousness was related to higher physiological arousal in the recovery period. Associations between the emotion system measures and emotion regulation and internalizing measures. Greater Experience of self-consciousness was associated with lower Reappraisal and higher Difficulty Regulating Emotion, Depression, Shame, and Social Anxiety. Arousal was not correlated with any of the emotional functioning measures, although Baseline Arousal was positively correlated with Difficulty Regulating Emotion and Depression. Expression was negatively correlated with Reappraisal. Thus, greater Expression of self-consciousness during the speech was related to less use of Reappraisal in daily life. All of the emotional functioning measures were positively correlated with one another ranging from moderate to high except Reappraisal, which was negatively correlated as expected. Age was only (negatively) correlated with Suppression, which indicated that girls may use Suppression less as they progress through adolescence. Two-way Discordance: Discrepancies between Subsystem Measures Directional discrepancies represent the direction and degree to which two of the three emotion system measures are discordant. Directional discrepancies between the subsystem measures were calculated by standardizing the scores on the three measures within sample and then subtracting one standardized score from another (e.g., Discrepancy between Experience and Expression = zExperience – zExpression). Thus in total there are three discrepancy measurements: (1) Experience minus Expression, (2) Experience minus Arousal, and (3) Arousal minus Expression. The direction of the score is conceptually important, for example, a positive score for Experience minus Expression,

DISCORDANT PATTERNS

18

means that the participant reported feeling more self-conscious than they expressed, a score of zero means they reported feeling the same level of self-consciousness as they expressed, and a negative score means that they reported less self-consciousness than they expressed. As shown in Table 2, correlational analyses revealed that Shame was positively related to both Experience minus Expression and Experience minus Arousal. This means that adolescents who experienced more self-conscious emotion relative to their level of Arousal and level of Expression also experienced more shame in everyday life. Similarly, both Depression and Difficulty Regulating Emotion were positively related to experiencing more emotion relative to level of Arousal (Experience minus Arousal). On the other hand, Reappraisal was negatively related to Experience minus Arousal and positively related to Arousal minus Expression. Thus, those that reappraised less: (1) experienced more emotion relative to their level of arousal and (2) expressed more emotion relative to their level of arousal. Finally, Age was positively related to Experience minus Expression. Older girls expressed less emotion relative to how they felt during the speech. Three-way Patterns of Discordance K-means cluster analysis was used to separate participants into groups based on their pattern of scores on the emotional response measures (Experience, Arousal, and Expression). The cluster membership allows for the identification of particular relationships among the three measures (e.g., high Experience, high Arousal and low Expression). Similar to more traditional methods such as median splits, cluster analysis is

DISCORDANT PATTERNS

19

a very useful person-oriented heuristic for understanding patterns in multivariate data (Aldenderfer & Blashfield, 1984; Hollenstein, Granic, Stoolmiller, & Synder, 2004). All emotional system measures were separately converted into standardized Zscores so that differences in scale units would not influence cluster membership (Biddle & Wang, 2003; Everitt, 1993). Given the sample size of 49, a minimum number of participants per cluster was selected (n=15) to facilitate subsequent ANOVA analyses. The two-cluster solution with Experience, Arousal, and Expression revealed two groups: (1) the Experience-Expressive Cluster: Higher Experience, Lower Arousal, Higher Expression and (2) the Aroused Cluster: Lower Experience, Higher Arousal and Lower Expression (see Table 3). One-way ANOVAs were used to show that the cluster groups were significantly different from one another for Experience, F (1,47) = 13.44, p =.001, η2p =.22, Arousal, F(1,47) = 5.01, p =.03, η2p = .10, and Expression, F (1,47) = 42.76, p