preadolescence. How does emotion socialization in the whole family context contribute to individual differences in children's emotion regulation as they ...
Flexibility and Attractors in Context: Patterns of Family Emotion Socialization and Preadolescent Emotion Regulation Erika Lunkenheimer, Colorado State University Tom Hollenstein, Queens University Jun Wang, Colorado State University Ann Shields, University of Michigan
Rationale Maladaptive emotion regulation skills in late childhood may increase risk for negative outcomes during adolescence (Trentacosta & Shaw, 2009). We have more to learn about the role of family socialization in children’s emotion regulation skills in preadolescence. How does emotion socialization in the whole family context contribute to individual differences in children’s emotion regulation as they approach adolescence?
Background Generally, more adaptive familial behaviors relate to better emotion regulation in preadolescence Parental warmth (Jaffe et al., 2010) Maternal secure base support (Kerns et al., 2007) Inductive reasoning, problem solving, positive affect (McDowell et al., 2002)
Emotion coaching (Lunkenheimer et al., 2007)
Question becomes not what is important, but how, why, and when?
Background Dynamic systems methods allow for the measurement of process and content (Granic & Hollenstein, 2003) Flexibility Number of transitions among dyadic behavioral states Range of dyadic behavioral states utilized Dispersion of behavior across the possible behavioral repertoire
Attractors Average duration per occurrence of a certain type of behavior I.e., when a family engaged in a certain type of emotion socialization (e.g., coaching), how long did it last on average?
Attractor Landscape
Operationalization Coaching of Negative Emotions Attractor
Elaboration of Negative Emotions Attractor
Background What do we know about flexibility? Mostly affective flexibility studied (in developmental psychopathology) Generally adaptive, particularly in middle childhood and adolescence, higher-risk families (Hollenstein et al., 2004; Granic et al., 2007)
Higher levels of flexibility when context is positive (Hollenstein & Lewis, 2006)
Interacts with content (Lunkenheimer et al., 2011)
Background What do we know about attractors? Maladaptive attractors relate to child behavior problems (Dumas et al., 2001; Granic & Dishion, 2003) Attractors may shift depending on the goal of an interaction (Granic & Lamey, 2002)
Research Questions ! Gaps
in literature
! Could
these methods help us to understand patterns of emotion socialization? ! Affective
! Could ! E.g.,
expression ! emotion socialization
these patterns differ by context? Is flexibility always adaptive?
! If
adaptive, can flexibility buffer from maladaptive attractors? ! Process
by content interaction
! Implications
for emotion regulation
Research Questions ! In
whole-family emotion discussions with 8-12 year olds… ! Do
emotion socialization flexibility and attractors differ by the context/goal of conversation?
! Do
higher levels of flexibility in family emotion socialization patterns buffer children from the effects of stronger maladaptive attractors or weaker adaptive attractors?
Participants 91 families -- all members living in household, M number of kids = 2.46 Target children 8-12 years (M = 10) Ethnicity 51% White, 23% Black, 19% Biracial, 7% Other
Income M = $56,626, SD = $40,663, Range $2,000 - $180,000
Family structure 37% single parent, 41% dual parent (biological), 13% dual parent (blended), 9% foster home or extended family
Procedure Family Narrative Task -- videotaped discussing three emotional experiences: A good time, a difficult time, and a time when the target child misbehaved
Utterances including an emotion word were coded using the Family Emotion Communication Coding System (Shields, Lunkenheimer, & Reed-Twiss, 2002)
Coding System "
Emotion Type ›
"
16 discrete emotions, ranging from love, like, happy to anger, disgust, hate
Functions › › ›
Coaching – explicit teaching or scaffolding Dismissing – explicit criticism, rejection, or ignoring (included nonverbal) Elaboration – statement or question that continued/ maintained emotion conversation
Dynamic Indicators ! Flexibility
= Degree of dispersion of behaviors across possible repertoire ! Attractors = Duration per visit to specific regions of the emotion X function State Space Grid (Lewis, Lamey, & Douglas, 1999)
Operationalization Coaching of Negative Emotions Attractor
Elaboration of Negative Emotions Attractor
Outcomes Mothers’ and teachers’ ratings of Emotion Regulation (ER) and Emotional Lability/ Negativity (LN) on the Emotion Regulation Checklist (ERC; Shields & Cicchetti, 1998)
Differences by Context ! Good
and Difficult topics were equally flexible, Misbehavior was less so
! Attractors
were shaped by context:
! Coaching
and elaboration attractors equally strong in Good and Difficult topics, but weaker in Misbehavior topic ! Dismissing attractor strongest in Difficult topic ! (Coaching and elaboration of positive emotions stronger in Good topic, coaching and elaboration of negative stronger in Difficult topic) ! Therefore…the
Misbehavior topic was characterized by more rigidity around a non-emotional attractor
!
Good Topic
Difficult Topic
Misbehavior Topic
Primary Analyses Regressions examined main effects of flexibility and attractors, and interaction effect of flexibility X attractor, on emotion regulation Run separately by conversation topic (Good, Difficult, Misbehavior) and attractor (Coaching, Dismissing, Elaboration) Controlled for SES and the total emotion words spoken by the family
Results ! Findings
across topics:
! Main
effect of flexibility: Higher flexibility during the Difficult and Misbehavior topics ! Higher ER
! Findings ! Main
within topic - Difficult:
effect of elaboration attractor: Stronger elaboration attractor during the Difficult topic ! Higher ER
Results ! Findings ! Main
within topic - Good:
effect of dismissing attractor: Stronger dismissing attractor during the Good topic ! Lower ER ! Interaction between flexibility X coaching: Higher flexibility buffered ER from a weaker coaching attractor ! Interaction between flexibility X dismissing: Higher flexibility buffered ER from a stronger dismissing attractor
Flexibility x Coaching Attractor
Flexibility x Dismissing Attractor
Discussion Flexibility is adaptive and positively related to emotion regulation when context is challenging or negative Family interaction is more flexible when focus is not on child (e.g., misbehavior) Elaboration of emotional conversation may be a useful approach with preadolescents (rather than direct coaching)
Discussion Dismissing of emotions when context is supposed to be positive appears to be a particular risk factor for children’s ER In positive contexts, flexibility may act as a buffer from the absence of adaptive attractors or the presence of maladaptive attractors Conclusion: The study of process AND content can be informative in the study of emotion socialization and its effects – but context also matters.
Thank you!
