ارتباط سبک های مقابله ای و ارزیابی با تنظیم احساسات در طول دوره قبل از بلوغ
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|38834||2011||18 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||8755 کلمه|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, Volume 110, Issue 2, October 2011, Pages 141–158
Abstract We investigated the associations of appraisal and coping styles with emotion regulation in a community sample of preadolescents (N = 196, 9–12 years of age), with appraisal, coping styles, and emotion regulation measured at a single time point. In a previous study, we identified five frustration and four anxiety emotion regulation profiles based on children’s physiological, behavioral, and self-reported reactions to emotion-eliciting tasks. In this study, preadolescents’ self-reported appraisal and coping styles were associated with those emotion regulation profiles. Overall, findings revealed that children who were more effective at regulating their emotions during the emotion-eliciting tasks had higher levels of positive appraisal and active coping when dealing with their own problems. Conversely, children who regulated their emotions less effectively had higher levels of threat appraisal and avoidant coping.
Introduction A critical task for child researchers is to identify factors that predict the development of emotion regulation during preadolescence (Zeman, Cassano, Perry-Parrish, & Stegall, 2006) in part because emotion regulation is an important basis for the emergence of affective and behavioral disorders during adolescence (Cole & Hall, 2008). Two factors that may shape how children regulate their emotions are the manners in which children generally appraise and cope with their problems. Children who are able to view stressful situations or life problems as something they can learn from or overcome and who are able to actively deal with these situations should be able to apply these approaches during an emotionally provoking situation and, therefore, be better able to regulate their emotions effectively. Despite the theoretical soundness of this statement, there is a surprising lack of research testing the relations among appraisal, coping, and emotion regulation. Furthermore, there is essentially no research examining these associations during the preadolescent period. Therefore, our research sought to uncover associations of appraisal and coping strategies with children’s regulation of emotions in frustrating and anxiety-evoking contexts. Stressful events are determined in part by the individual’s appraisal of the event as “taxing or exceeding his or her resources and endangering his or her well-being” (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984, p. 19). Lazarus and Folkman (1984) proposed two appraisal processes. Primary appraisal involves the evaluation of consequences of the event, that is, either the harm or benefit of the event. It includes evaluations of risk to one’s self-esteem, values, or goals or to the well-being of a loved one (Folkman, Lazarus, Gruen, & DeLongis, 1986b). A determining factor of response to a stressor is the appraisal of the situation as a threat or a challenge (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Threat refers to the anticipation of harm in the future. In contrast, challenge is the appraisal that, although stressful, the event can result in some positive outcome, that is, the potential for gain or growth. In secondary appraisal, the individual evaluates whether anything can be done to overcome or prevent harm or to improve the prospects for benefit. Secondary appraisal involves the appraisal of coping options, the potential effectiveness of coping options, and the individual’s sense of efficacy in coping with the stressor (Folkman et al., 1986a and Lazarus and Folkman, 1984). Thus, when an individual believes that he or she lacks the resources or skills to cope with an event, the event may be perceived as stressful. Coping is another important aspect of an individual’s stress response and has been defined as the “cognitive and behavioral efforts to manage demands that are appraised as taxing or exceeding the resources of the person” (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984, p. 141). Appraisal and coping overlap in that both contain cognitive processes, yet coping is distinct from the appraisal process in other ways. Although coping efforts have been categorized in a variety of ways, within the current study we categorize coping strategies to include those efforts that are active attempts to deal with the stressor, such as positive reappraisal and problem solving, or avoidance of the stressor, including escape and cognitive repression (e.g., Ayers et al., 1996, Compas, 1998, Ebata and Moos, 1991 and Rudolph et al., 1995). Before moving onto discuss emotion regulation, we first must acknowledge that the conceptual distinction between coping and emotion regulation is not always clear (Watson & Sinha, 2008). The challenge with distinguishing these constructs arises when examining emotion regulation strategies as opposed to the question of whether an emotion response was regulated or not. In the latter case, physiological responses, emotional behaviors, or reports of having an emotional response can be assessed independently of the efforts employed to manage these responses. However, overlap between emotion regulation and coping is greatest when emotion regulation strategies are being measured. For instance, there are a host of studies that assess emotion regulation strategies that are nearly identical to coping strategies such as positive reappraisal ( Garber et al., 1995, Shipman and Zeman, 2001 and Zeman et al., 2002). In fact, some studies measuring emotion regulation strategies have made use of questionnaires originally devised for measuring coping, with modifications to the timing of children’s reporting and to what children were asked to report about (i.e., how they respond to a particular emotion after it occurs rather than reporting what they do when they have problems) ( Silk, Steinberg, & Morris, 2003). Although by altering the timing and target (problem vs. negative emotion) about which participants responded, these authors shifted the measurement from coping to emotion regulation strategies. Use of the same questionnaire to assess coping and emotion regulation hints at how similar the constructs are. Perhaps the greatest conceptual overlap lies in the constructs of emotion-focused coping and strategies of emotion regulation because each is defined as efforts to manage or modulate negative emotions ( Losoya, Eisenberg, & Fabes, 1998). In fact, both often include efforts to appraise a situation in a manner that reduces negative emotional arousal. In John and Gross’s (2007) attempt to articulate the differences between coping and emotion regulation, they suggested that coping differs from emotion regulation in that coping involves more than regulating emotions. Coping also includes further analysis or reappraisal of the problem and problem solving aimed at changing a situation or a behavioral response rather than just the emotional response. Another dimension along which coping is thought to differ from emotion regulation is that it specifically refers to an individual’s response to stressful situations as opposed to emotion-eliciting situations more generally ( John & Gross, 2007). Related to this, coping is thought to involve the management of negative emotions aroused in stressful situations, whereas emotion regulation can involve regulation of both positive and negative emotions ( Gross, 1998). Therefore, to more clearly distinguish appraisal, coping, and emotion regulation in this study, appraisal and coping were assessed as children’s reportedly typical responses to problems or stressful situations they had recently encountered, whereas emotion regulation was assessed as children’s physiological, behavioral, and self-reported reactions to emotion-eliciting situations, thereby distinguishing the constructs along two key dimensions: (a) strategies versus patterns of emotional response and (b) response to self-identified stressors versus response to emotion-eliciting situations. Given the conceptual overlap, it is not surprising that studies of coping and emotion regulation strategies produce similar results regarding strategies that emerge as being adaptive or effective. Typically, avoidance and denial of either an emotion or a problem are associated with poorer psychological outcomes, whereas active approach orientation and acceptance of emotions or problems are associated with better psychological outcomes (Compas et al., 2001 and Wadsworth and Compas, 2002). Clarifying the relation of appraisal and coping styles to emotion regulation might enhance our understanding of the conceptual and functional relations among these constructs. Toward our aim of examining the associations of appraisal and coping with emotion regulation, we assessed appraisal and coping styles and emotion regulation using distinct methods. Measuring emotion and emotion regulation during preadolescence Studying emotion and emotion regulation during the preadolescent period poses several unique challenges while also permitting new facets of emotion to be assessed. One challenge inherent to studying emotions and emotion regulation during the preadolescent period is that at this time children have increasingly sophisticated means of hiding or masking emotions in accordance with social norms. As such, observational assessment of emotion becomes difficult (Zeman, Klimes-Dougan, Cassano, & Adrian, 2007). Therefore, measuring different emotion indicators during this developmental period becomes imperative. Measuring emotion regulation We used guidelines set forth by Cole, Martin, and Dennis (2004) in a special issue of Child Development (March/April 2004) to conceptualize emotion regulation. A core concern raised about the measurement of emotion regulation was that there must be evidence of regulation, and not just emotion responses occurring, to infer whether the individual was regulating or not. To address this, Cole and colleagues suggested implementing procedures intended to elicit a particular emotion. Accordingly, we used anxiety- and frustration-eliciting tasks, each of which had a specific goal, so that individual differences in regulation could be assessed. During these paradigms, children’s physiological, behavioral, and subjective emotional responses were collected (see Method section and Appendix for detailed information). The use of multiple indicators allowed a comprehensive assessment of emotion regulation (e.g., a person reported feeling frustrated but did not display frustrated behaviors, a person demonstrated a physiological response but did not report feeling frustrated). Discrepancies in responses across systems, where one or two emotion indicators were elevated and others were not, would be taken as indication of a regulated emotional response. Low responses on all three modalities would indicate that there was little responsiveness or that the child was well regulated. In most instances, minimal observable expression of emotional responding was conceptualized as regulation when either self-report or the physiological responding demonstrated that the child had above average endorsement or responding. Person-oriented methods were used, specifically latent profile analysis (LPA) (Muthén, 2001), which captured profiles of emotion responses and regulation. For the frustration-eliciting task, five frustration regulation profiles emerged (see Fig. 1), and we briefly describe the profiles here (for more details, see Zalewski, Lengua, Wilson, Trancik, & Bazinet, 2011). Profile 1 was characterized by being lower than the sample mean on observed frustration, having a slight increase in heart rate, and having lower levels of child-reported frustration as compared with other children. This profile might be considered as a low responsive or well regulated group. Profile 2 was characterized by lower observed frustration, a moderate increase in heart rate, and higher levels of child-reported frustration. This profile might reflect children who were responsive but regulated. Profile 3 was characterized by children observed as being more frustrated, having a moderately increased heart rate, and having higher child-reported frustration. This profile might be considered as a moderately responsive group. Profile 4 was characterized as having the highest levels compared with the sample mean on all three variables and was considered as an unregulated response group. Profile 5 was characterized by more observed frustration, average increased heart rate, and less self-reported frustration. This profile might reflect a moderately responsive–expressive group. Standard deviations from the overall sample mean of each class for observed ... Fig. 1. Standard deviations from the overall sample mean of each class for observed emotion, physiological response and child report of emotion for the (A) five-mixture model solution identified for frustration regulation and (B) four-mixture model solution identified for anxiety regulation. Figure options For the anxiety-eliciting task, four profiles emerged. Profile 1 was characterized by lower observed anxiety, large decreases in electrodermal responding, and moderate levels of child-reported anxiety as compared with other children. This profile might reflect children who were response regulated. Profile 2 was characterized by lower observed anxiety, minimal change in electrodermal response, and lower reported anxiety and might reflect children who were low responsive or well regulated. Profile 3 was characterized by greater observed anxiety, a small decrease in electrodermal response, and slightly higher than average levels of subjective anxiety, possibly reflecting children who were responsive but regulated. Profile 4 was characterized by higher levels of observed anxiety, increases in electrodermal response, and slightly higher levels of subjective anxiety. This profile might reflect children who had an unregulated response. Labels are provided in Fig. 1. With LPA, each individual receives an estimate of the probability of being a member of each profile. These probabilities can be linked to other variables that might predict or result from the particular styles of regulation. Further information on how to evaluate the LPAs is provided in the Method section. Using probabilities, we were able to examine how appraisal and coping styles were related to emotion regulation profiles. Specifically, in this study we examined the relation of appraisal and coping styles to frustration- and anxiety-eliciting task responses. The two hypotheses were as follows: (1) Appraisal and emotion regulation profiles: We expected that positive appraisal styles would be associated with a greater likelihood of a low responsive or response regulated profile in response to the emotion-eliciting tasks. In contrast, we expected that threat appraisal styles would be associated with a greater likelihood of demonstrating an unregulated profile. (2) Coping and emotion regulation profiles: We expected that active coping styles would be associated with a greater likelihood of demonstrating a low responsive or response regulated profile. In contrast, we expected that avoidant coping styles would be associated with a greater likelihood of demonstrating an unregulated profile. This study advances the measurements of emotion and emotion regulation by demonstrating the utility of examining emotion regulation profiles in relation to preadolescents’ reported typical responses to stressful events. Profiles of physiological, behavioral, and self-reported responses to emotion-eliciting tasks uncover patterns of emotion regulation responses that might reflect children’s deployment of appraisal and coping strategies. By using distinct definitions and methods of assessment of appraisal, coping, and emotion regulation, we were able to draw more robust conclusions about the relations among these constructs.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
Conclusions and applications Few studies have examined the relation of appraisal and coping to emotion regulation despite the potential for conceptual links between them. The findings of this study suggest that children’s appraisal and coping styles might play a role in their responses to emotion-evoking situations as well as stressful events. These findings provide empirical support in a preadolescent sample for how a functional perspective on emotions relates to coping. A functionalist perspective on emotions posits that emotions serve an adaptive purpose and that adaptive coping is facilitated by individuals being able to accurately access their emotions (Cole et al., 2004). Overall, greater use of positive appraisals and active coping predicted children who were able to regulate more effectively during emotionally evoking situations. Conversely, greater use of threat appraisals and avoidant coping predicted children who were more likely to be unregulated. It appears that the strategies that children employ to get through stressful events are also relevant when they are faced with emotionally charged situations, and understanding the links among appraisals, coping, and emotion regulation will advance our understanding of how children develop emotional and behavioral problems. With increasing attention given to understanding behavioral and cognitive strategies to facilitate emotion regulation in clinical and intervention settings, children can be taught to appraise difficult events and to cope with them using empirically supported coping strategies that may help them to regulate their emotions more successfully. With adults, cognitive behavioral approaches that emphasize the regulation of emotions, such as dialectical behavior therapy (Linehan, 1993), have been clinically examining how emotion regulation is facilitated by or inhibits effective appraisal and coping processes. More empirical tests will serve to inform therapeutic approaches that combine emotion, cognition, and behavior.