antisocial behavior 1 running head: regulation, peers, and

Antisocial Behavior 1

Running head: REGULATION, PEERS, AND ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR

Emotion Dysregulation, Peer Rejection, and the Development of Antisocial Behavior in

Adolescent Boys

Christopher J. Trentacosta

University of Pittsburgh Medical Center

Daniel S. Shaw

University of Pittsburgh

Christopher Trentacosta, Ph. D.

4107 Sennott Square

Pitt Mother-Child Project

210 S Bouquet Street

Pittsburgh, PA 15260

phone: 412-624-4535

email: [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]


Abstract

The present study examined relationships among emotion dysregulation, peer rejection, and

antisocial behavior in a sample of boys from low-income families. Following a developmental

psychopathology perspective, emotion dysregulation was measured in early childhood, peer

rejection was assessed during middle childhood, and self reports of antisocial behavior were

obtained during early adolescence. Structural equation modeling was utilized to examine

longitudinal relations among these constructs, with results suggesting associations between early

childhood emotion dysregulation and middle childhood peer rejection and between peer rejection

and antisocial behavior. Furthermore, indirect effects of early emotion dysregulation on

adolescent antisocial behavior were found through peer rejection. Results are discussed from a

developmental psychopathology perspective with implications for early prevention and

intervention.

Keywords: emotion dysregulation, peer rejection, antisocial behavior, delinquency,

developmental psychopathology

Acknowledgements: The research reported in this article was supported by a grant to the second

author from the National Institute of Mental Health (MH 50907). We thank the staff of the Pitt

Mother & Child Project and the study families for making the research possible.


Emotion Dysregulation, Peer Rejection, and the Development of Antisocial Behavior in

Adolescent Boys

Aggression and other forms of overt externalizing symptoms reach their peak between

ages two to three years. However, some children continue to show disruptive behavior problems

across childhood and, by early adolescence, begin to engage in violent offenses and other forms

of serious antisocial behavior (Coie & Dodge, 1998). Antisocial behavior during early

adolescence sometimes leads to arrest and incarceration later in adolescence and into adulthood.

More generally, early antisocial behavior can place adolescents at risk for mental health

problems, substance dependence, and work problems into adulthood (Moffitt, Caspi, Harrington,

& Milne, 2002). Due in part to the personal, economic, and social toll that antisocial behavior

takes on individuals and society, predictors of externalizing symptoms and more serious forms of

antisocial behavior have received extensive examination. The present study was designed to

examine predictors of early adolescent antisocial behavior from a developmental

psychopathology perspective.

The developmental psychopathology perspective suggests that deviations from normative

processes at earlier stages of development increase the likelihood of psychopathology later in

development (Sroufe, 1997). Furthermore, each developmental stage presents key tasks and

challenges. In early childhood, one key challenge is the attainment of emotional self-regulation

(Kopp, 1989). In middle childhood, developing and maintaining positive peer relationships

becomes a critical element of positive adaptation (Rubin, Bukowski, & Parker, 1998).

Supporting the developmental psychopathology perspective, difficulties with self-regulation and

peer relationships are predictive of a variety of psychosocial outcomes, including externalizing

problems in early and middle childhood (Eisenberg et al. 2001; Laird, Jordan, Dodge, Pettit, &


Bates, 2001) and antisocial behavior during adolescence (Coie & Dodge, 1998). However,

previous research has not simultaneously examined the influences of emotion dysregulation and

peer rejection during developmental periods when deviations may be most meaningful to later

adaptation. In the present study we considered how emotion dysregulation in early childhood and

peer rejection in middle childhood might lead to subsequent antisocial behavior during early

adolescence.

Emotion Dysregulation in Early Childhood

Soon after birth, infants are capable of reflexive forms of self-regulation (e.g., head

turning; Kopp, 1989). Across infancy and the early toddler years, the ability to utilize self-

regulatory techniques such as effortful control increases, but young toddlers sometimes rely on

caregivers in particularly stressful situations (Kochanska, Murray, & Harlan, 2000; Kopp, 1989).

As children move from toddlerhood to the preschool years, their reliance on caregiver assistance

decreases, and their relative proficiency with effortful control promotes adaptive regulation of

emotion (Denham, 1998; Kochanska et al., 2000). For example, when confronted with a

distressing event, young preschoolers are often able to actively distract themselves from the

distressing stimuli or focus on more pleasant aspects of the situation (Denham, 1998). By middle

and late childhood, purely cognitive means of coping predominate, but it is by the end of the

preschool period that children are first expected to gain mastery of basic behavioral self-

regulatory skills.

Supporting the importance of the development of emotional self-regulation during the

preschool period, children who are unable to satisfactorily regulate their emotions demonstrate

numerous problematic outcomes. Preschool children who utilized forms of venting or other poor

means of coping during emotionally challenging circumstances had lower concurrent levels of


social competence as rated by their teachers and peers (Denham et al., 2003). Similarly,

preschool children who either expressed no emotion or expressed exclusively negative emotions

while viewing videotaped vignettes demonstrated higher levels of externalizing behavior

problems than their peers both concurrently and at a first grade follow-up (Cole, Zahn-Waxler,

Fox, Usher, & Welsh, 1996).

There is particularly strong support for associations between assessments of children’s

dysregulation during frustrating and challenging situations and externalizing problems during

early and middle childhood. For example, when engaged in an anger-eliciting game, elementary

school children’s rough nonverbal behaviors predicted concurrent peer nominations of

aggression (Dearing et al., 2002), and their angry nonverbal behaviors and skin conductance

reactivity predicted concurrent teacher ratings of reactive aggression (Hubbard et al., 2002). In

the preschool period, boys, but not girls, who displayed more anger after experiencing a

disappointment had more concurrent externalizing behavior problems (Cole, Zahn-Waxler, &

Smith, 1994). Similarly, in an earlier report using data from the present study, a tendency to

focus on the desired object and less use of self-regulatory distraction during a frustration task at

age 3.5 was associated with teacher reports of externalizing problems three years later (Gilliom

et al., 2002).

Although the relations between emotion dysregulation and externalizing problems are

well-established, few studies have examined individual differences in emotional regulation in

early childhood as a predictor of externalizing psychopathology during early adolescence (but

see Moffitt & Caspi, 2001 for an example). Furthermore, past research has not examined the role

that school-age peer relationships may play in pathways leading from early emotion

dysregulation to antisocial behavior in adolescence. The present study was designed to fill this


gap by examining the role of peer status during middle childhood in relation to associations

between early emotion regulation and antisocial behavior during early adolescence.

Peer Rejection in Middle Childhood

Even in infancy, preferential social behavior can be observed toward peers, and as infants

become toddlers they direct a large amount of their social behavior toward a small number of

peers in a group (Howes, 1987). In preschool, children engage in sociodramatic play with friends

and prefer children with similar characteristics or interests. However, these friendships are

generally not very stable, and preschoolers’ conceptions of friendships tend to be rooted in a

specific activity occurring at a given moment (Rubin et al., 1998). It is not until middle

childhood that peer relationships are seen as relatively reciprocal and stable, and descriptions of

friendships more frequently involve shared feelings, values and loyalty (Rubin et al., 1998).

Thus, the majority of empirical research on peer relations, peer acceptance, and friendship has

been conducted during middle and late childhood. This sizable body of research demonstrates

consistent relations between peer acceptance, popularity, and friendships and positive outcomes

such as academic achievement and psychological adjustment (e.g., Wentzel & Caldwell, 1997).

Just as peer acceptance and friendship are markers of positive adjustment, peer rejection

is often an indicator of maladjustment and risk for later psychopathology. Peer rejection in

middle childhood can be particularly damaging. Although dominance hierarchies exist in early

childhood peer groups, children are generally unable to describe who is at the top or bottom of

the hierarchy (Rubin et al., 1998). In contrast, during middle childhood children are often acutely

aware of their status within the social group. Children who are rejected by peers are often

aggressive, but social withdrawal is also a relatively consistent correlate of peer rejection (Rubin


et al., 1998). Over time, rejected children are at greater risk for problems such as school drop out

and antisocial behavior (Ollendick, Weist, Borden, & Greene, 1992).

Because peer rejection is a consistent risk factor for a wide range of negative outcomes,

there is an extensive literature examining predictors of peer rejection. Previously examined

predictors include caregiver-child attachment, child temperament, parenting behaviors, and

social skills (Rubin et al., 1998). In the present study, we examined emotion dysregulation as a

predictor of peer rejection. Based on the extant literature (e.g., Eisenberg et al., 1995), children

who are better able to manage their emotions in distressing situations would be expected to more

likely master the social behaviors and skills necessary to promote effective social relationships.

Conversely, children who have difficulty managing their negative emotions would be more

likely to express their behavior in destructive ways such as aggression. In addition, the mere

presence of frequent displays of unregulated negative emotion may be upsetting and bothersome

to peers and lead to rejection (Maszk, Eisenberg, & Guthrie, 1999). In support of these

predictions, previous research has demonstrated positive concurrent relations between

constructive forms of regulation and sociometric status and negative concurrent relations

between aggressive forms of regulation and sociometric status during preschool, especially

among boys (Eisenberg et al., 1993). Longitudinal studies have also supported relations between

emotion dysregulation and peer status over short periods of time (e.g., Maszk et al., 1999), but

previous work has not examined these associations across early and middle childhood. Thus, in

the present study, emotion dysregulation in early childhood was expected to predict peer

rejection in middle childhood.

In turn, we expected peer rejection to be associated with antisocial behavior in early

adolescence. Not surprisingly, peer rejection is a consistent predictor of antisocial behavior, even


in longitudinal studies spanning many years (Coie & Dodge, 1998). More strikingly, many

studies show a unique effect of peer rejection on the development of aggression and antisocial

behavior into adolescence beyond the effect of earlier externalizing problems.

As described above, emotion dysregulation is also a consistent predictor of externalizing

problems in early and middle childhood, with fewer studies conducted on more serious forms of

antisocial activities during adolescence. In one such study (Moffitt & Caspi, 2001), difficult

temperament characterized by behavioral undercontrol, emotional lability, and impulsivity at age

3 was associated with higher levels of antisocial behavior in adolescence. However, this relation

was found only for children with “life-course persistent” forms of antisocial behavior (i.e.,

elevated levels of antisocial behavior in childhood as well as adolescence).

Following a developmental psychopathology perspective (Cicchetti, 2006), incompetence

in a developmentally-salient task in early childhood would be expected to lead to incompetence

in a developmentally-salient task of middle childhood, which would then predict incompetence

in early adolescence. We examined whether early emotion dysregulation predicted difficulties in

the social milieu in middle childhood. Because the formation of stable, positive relationships

with peers who share goals and values is a key task of middle childhood, peer rejection was

selected as the indicator of middle childhood incompetence. In turn, we examined whether peer

rejection during middle childhood predicted poor adaptation during early adolescence. Antisocial

behavior was selected as the indicator of poor early adolescent adaptation because young

adolescent males are often faced with peer pressure to commit delinquent acts, and early

involvement in antisocial behavior is a robust predictor of poor outcomes into adulthood (e.g.,

Moffitt et al., 2002). Particularly over a long period of study, early childhood incompetence

would not necessarily directly predict maladjustment in early adolescence but would set the stage


for developmental deviation leading to further maladjustment. Thus, we did not necessarily

expect emotion dysregulation in early childhood to directly predict antisocial behavior in early

adolescence, but we examined whether there were also direct relations between these constructs.

Method

Participants

Participants in the present study were 111 boys originally recruited into the Pittsburgh

Mother & Child Project (PMCP) through Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) programs in the

Pittsburgh metropolitan area (Shaw, Gilliom, Ingoldsby, & Nagin, 2003). Recruitment occurred

at WIC centers across two years, and boys were between 6 and 17 months old when their

families were initially approached to enter the study. The initial PMCP assessment occurred

when boys were 18 months old, and 310 boys completed this initial assessment out of 421

families initially approached to participate in the study. This initial sample was 51% European

American, 39% African American, .3% Hispanic, and 9% from other ethnicities. The mean

Hollingshead (1979) socioeconomic status was 23.32 (SD = 9.29), which represents the working

class nature of the PMCP sample.

PMCP follow-up assessments occurred regularly during childhood and into early

adolescence, with attrition being generally low throughout the 10.5 year duration of the study.

For example, data were available on 302 boys at the 24-month assessment (97%), 282 at the 42-

month assessment (91%), and 89% with assessments at ages 10, 11, or 12. During the 9th year of

the PMCP, participating boys were invited to attend a two-week summer camp. Due to the time

commitment needed to participate in the summer camp, 147 families from the original sample of

310 permitted their boys to attend the summer camp. Additionally, because original recruitment


of the sample took place over two years but the summer camp occurred during a single summer,

boys’ ages ranged from 8.2 to 10.7 years (M = 9.5, SD = .55) during the summer camp.

111 of the boys with self-report antisocial behavior data at age 12 also completed the age

3.5 and summer camp assessments. Boys with complete data were compared with boys who

were initially recruited into the PMCP but did not have complete data for the present study. T-

tests revealed no significant differences on maternal education, family income, and

socioeconomic status collected at 18 months or maternal reports of boys’ externalizing problems

at 24 and 42 months. Furthermore, there were no significant differences on the emotion

dysregulation, peer rejection, and antisocial behavior measures used in the present study.

Procedure and Measures

The PMCP included laboratory and/or home visits at assessments when boys were 1.5, 2,

3.5, 5, 5.5, 6, 8, 10, 11, and 12 years of age, and the summer camp was conducted during the

summer of 2000. For the present study, emotion dysregulation was measured at the age 3.5

assessment, peer rejection was measured on two occasions at the summer camp assessment, and

antisocial behavior was measured at the age 12 assessment.

Emotion dysregulation. Emotion dysregulation was measured during a laboratory visit

using the cookie task (Marvin, 1977). This task is intended to measure negative affect and

regulatory skill by requiring that the child wait for a desirable outcome while in an environment

lacking much stimulation. Boys were in a room that had been cleared of all toys while their

mothers completed a series of assessment measures. After finding out from the mother about the

child’s preference for three different cookies, the mother was asked to keep a clear bag

containing the cookie of choice in clear view of her child but outside of his reach. This procedure


lasted for three minutes at which point a research assistant signaled to the mother that she could

give the cookie to her child.

Emotion regulatory behaviors were coded from videotapes of the cookie task by trained

research assistants. A coding system was adapted from the work of Grolnick, Bridges, and

Connell (1996) where coders determined whether five behaviors were present or absent during a

series of eighteen 10-second intervals. The five codes, active distraction, passive waiting,

information gathering, physical comfort seeking, and focus on the delay object, were intended to

be exhaustive, such that coders were required to select one of the five codes for each interval (see

Gilliom et al., 2002 for more detail about the codes). Coders selected a single code for each

interval except when a boy engaged in another regulatory behavior while maintaining physical

contact with his mother. In this case, the boy received a code for two regulatory behaviors:

comfort seeking and the additional regulatory code.

For purposes of the present study, we focused on two codes, active distraction and focus

on the delay object, because these codes are the most consistent with theoretical

conceptualizations of emotion regulation. Active distraction, including purposeful attempts to

focus attention away from the delay object (e.g., exploring the room, singing, engaging in

fantasy play), indicates adaptive emotion regulation. Alternatively, focusing on the delay object

demonstrates poor coping with the situation and correlates with increased anger and frustration

(Gilliom et al., 2002). Secondly, in support of their predictive validity, these two regulatory

behaviors predicted teacher-rated externalizing problems at age 6 (Gilliom et al., 2002). Boys

who focused on the cookie during the task and utilized less active distraction demonstrated

higher rates of externalizing problems based on teacher reports. Although passive waiting also

was associated with later externalizing problems, this less active approach to coping with


frustration is less theoretically consistent with conceptions of emotion regulation and subsequent

adaptive behavior.

Peer rejection. Evaluations at the summer camp were conducted to examine the boys’

behavioral adjustment and included assessments of their peer relations. Boys attended one of

three sessions of the summer camp. Each session lasted for ten days across a two-week period

and consisted of four to five separate groups of 10-12 boys. Each group was managed by two

counselors who were college undergraduates trained in behavioral management techniques.

Camp groups were assigned so that each group was heterogeneous with respect to child age and

so that no more than two to three boys with elevated externalizing problems were in a single

camp group. In addition, boys were placed in camp groups that did not include boys whom they

had previously met. At the end of each week of camp, counselors completed behavioral rating

forms, and group members completed sociometric ratings and nominations. For the present

study, we used sociometric ratings and nominations from the second week of camp because

ratings and nominations from the first week were likely to be comparatively less reliable and

more unstable.

For the sociometric nomination procedure, boys completed an interview developed by

Coie and his colleagues (Coie, Dodge, & Coppotelli, 1982). In this method, boys were first asked

to name the boys in their camp group that they “like.” Then, they are asked to name the boys in

their camp group that they “don’t like very much.” From the nomination procedure, a social

preference score was calculated for each camp group member. The boy’s liked and disliked

nominations were standardized based on the other scores in the boy’s camp group. Then, the

boy’s standardized disliked score was subtracted from his standardized liked score creating a


social preference score. We calculated the inverse of the social preference score to obtain a

rejection nomination score where higher scores indicated greater rejection by peers.

Sociometric ratings are often used in conjunction with nomination procedures to identify

rejected children (e.g., Asher & Dodge, 1986). For the sociometric rating procedure in the

present study, boys were asked to use a three-point scale (2 = likes a lot, 1 = likes OK, 0 =

doesn’t like) to rate each member of their camp group. A mean sociometric rating was calculated

for each boy. We subtracted the mean sociometric rating from 2 to obtain a mean rejection rating

where higher scores indicated higher levels of peer rejection.

Self-Reported Delinquency (SRD). Youth completed the Self-Reported Delinquency

measure at age 12 (Elliot, Huizinga, & Ageton, 1985). Measures of delinquency relying on self-

report have good psychometric properties, with test-retest reliabilities ranging from .75 to .98

and internal consistency alphas from .65 to .92 (Krueger et al., 1994). The SRD is considered a

highly respected self-report assessment of delinquency with good psychometric properties. The

SRD assesses the context and frequency of offending and examines overt, covert, destructive,

and nondestructive offenses. Thirty three items pertain to the adolescent’s report of his own

involvement in antisocial activities.

For the present study, a composite score was created by summing 32 items pertaining to

the boy’s self-reported delinquent and antisocial acts. The item that assessed frequency of

sniffing glue was omitted from the composite score due to the large number of boys who did not

understand this item and the very low base rate of this behavior among boys who understood the

item. The composite score demonstrated good internal reliability (α = .83).


Results

Table 1 presents descriptive statistics for study variables on the 111 boys included in the

present study. Table 2 presents intercorrelations between the variables. Not surprisingly, the

indicators of emotion dyregulation, distraction and focus on the delay object, were negatively

correlated. Distraction was negatively correlated with the indicators of peer rejection but not with

later antisocial behavior, while focus on the delay object was not related to peer rejection or later

antisocial behavior. There was a significant positive correlation between the nomination and

rating indicators of peer rejection, and both indicators of peer rejection were positively correlated

with the antisocial behavior composite score.

Model Estimation

Structural equation models were examined with maximum likelihood estimation using

AMOS 5.0 (Arbuckle, 2003). The fit statistics for the models are presented in Table 3. Model 1

(see Figure 1) was created to examine developmental predictors of antisocial behavior. This

model included two early childhood measures, distraction and focus on the delay object, to create

an emotion dysregulation latent construct. Also, the model included two measures collected

during the camp, sociometric nominations and sociometric ratings, to create a peer rejection

latent construct. A path was included from the emotion dysregulation construct to the peer

rejection construct to test our hypothesis that a key indicator of maladjustment in early childhood

would predict a key indicator of maladjustment in middle childhood. A path was also included

from the peer rejection construct to the antisocial behavior composite score to test our hypothesis

that a key indicator of maladjustment in middle childhood would predict a key indicator of

maladjustment in early adolescence. Finally, a path was included from the emotion dysregulation


construct to the antisocial behavior composite score to test whether there would also be a

direction relation between these constructs.

Model fit for Model 1 was tested with multiple indices. The chi-square goodness of fit

index tests exact model fit, and a nonsignificant chi-square value supports model fit. There are

also a number of relative fit indices. The Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA)

is one such measure of relative fit, and RMSEA values below .06 support good model fit (Hu &

Bentler, 1999). Two other statistics, the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) and the Tucker-Lewis

Index (TLI) measure the absolute fit of the model in comparison to the absolute fit of an

independence model, and values above .95 for the CFI and TLI indicate good model fit (Hu &

Bentler, 1999). Model 1 demonstrated good model fit, with χ2 = 1.73, RMSEA = .00, CFI = 1.00,

and TLI =1.03.

The standardized coefficients for paths specified in Model 1 are presented in Figure 1.

Based on the path coefficients, Model 1 supported distraction and focus on the delay object as

elements of an emotion dysregulation latent construct and supported sociometric nominations

and ratings as elements of a peer rejection latent construct. The model also supported direct paths

from emotion dysregulation to peer rejection and from peer rejection to antisocial behavior.

However, the direct path from emotion dysregulation to antisocial behavior was nonsignficant.

To more closely examine the developmental prediction of emotion dysregulation on

antisocial behavior in Model 1, we evaluated the indirect effect of the emotion dysregulation

latent construct on antisocial behavior through the peer rejection latent construct. Two

approaches were selected to examine the indirect effect based on their power to detect effects

and appropriateness for relatively small longitudinal samples. The first approach, described by

Shrout and Bolger (2002), uses bootstrap methods. Following the procedures described by


Shrout and Bolger, 95% confidence intervals were estimated for Model 1 using bias-corrected

bootstrap sampling methods over 1,000 iterations. The confidence intervals (lower limit = -.001

and upper limit =.388) for the indirect effect of emotion dysregulation on antisocial behavior

through peer rejection overlapped with zero. The statistical significance of the indirect effect

with the bootstrap method was marginally significant (p =.06). The second approach, described

by MacKinnon and colleagues (see MacKinnon, Lockwood, & Williams, 2004), involves the

construction of asymmetric confidence intervals because the distribution of the indirect effect

rarely conforms to a normal distribution. The Prodclin program (MacKinnon, Fritz, Williams, &

Lockwood, in press) was utilized to estimate asymmetric confidence intervals for Model 1.

Based on this approach, the 95 % confidence intervals did not overlap with zero (lower limit

=.008 and upper limit = .252). Thus, the asymmetric method supported the indirect effect of

emotion dysregulation on antisocial behavior through peer rejection.

Although Model 1 demonstrated good model fit, the nonsignificant path from emotion

dysregulation to antisocial behavior suggested that a more parsimonious model might provide a

comparable or better fit. Thus, the path from emotion dysegulation to antisocial behavior was

deleted. The resulting model, Model 2 (see Figure 2), also demonstrated good model fit, with χ2

= 1.81, RMSEA = .00, CFI = 1.00, and TLI =1.04. Based on the nonsignificant chi-square

difference test (∆χ² = .08, ∆df = 1, p > .05), Model 2 did not significantly improve model fit. All

paths in Model 2 were significant. In sum, Model 2 supports emotion dysregulation as a

predictor of peer rejection and peer rejection as a predictor of antisocial behavior.

Using the same bootstrapping and asymmetric confidence interval procedures described

above, we estimated the indirect effect of the emotion dysregulation latent construct on antisocial

behavior through the peer rejection latent construct for Model 2. The confidence intervals with


the bootstrap method (lower limit =.008 and upper limit = .220) did not overlap with zero,

producing a statistically significant indirect effect (p <.05). Based on the asymmetric confidence

interval approach, the 95 % confidence intervals did not overlap with zero (lower limit =.013 and

upper limit =.256). Thus, for Model 2 both methods supported the indirect effect of the emotion

dysregulation latent construct on antisocial behavior through the peer rejection latent construct.

Discussion

The present findings support a developmental psychopathology approach to

understanding the emergence of antisocial behavior in early adolescence. Specifically, a key

developmental deviation during early childhood, emotion dysregulation, predicted a

developmental deviation in middle childhood. In turn, the middle childhood developmental

deviation, rejection by peers, predicted the emergence of antisocial behavior in early

adolescence. Furthermore, statistical tests of indirect effects were generally supported. The

indirect effects suggest that although emotion dysregulation in early childhood does not directly

predict antisocial behavior in early adolescence, dysregulation has an indirect association with

antisocial behavior through its prediction of peer rejection.

Boys who had difficulty utilizing active distraction and tended to focus on the distressing

situation during early childhood were more likely to be rejected by their peers in middle

childhood. Not only does this finding support a developmental psychopathology perspective, but

it also supports the consistent relations previously found between aspects of emotional

competence and children’s social adjustment (e.g., Denham et al., 2003; Mostow, Izard, Fine, &

Trentacosta, 2002). Effective management of emotions has been associated with positive social

relationships whereas emotion dysregulation has been related to negative, conflictual

relationships with peers. The current finding is also consistent with preventive efforts that focus


on helping at-risk young children learn to manage and utilize emotions effectively, which has

been shown to promote appropriate social adaptation throughout childhood (Izard, 2002).

In addition to being predicted by early childhood emotion dysregulation, peer rejection

during a summer camp was associated with later antisocial behavior in early adolescence. As

found in previous research (see Coie & Dodge, 1998), peer relationships have been associated

with young adolescents’ involvement in delinquent behavior. Of particular note from the present

study, peer rejection was measured while boys attended a summer camp. By design, boys had

very little previous contact with the other boys in their camp groups. As a result, our results

provide particularly strong evidence of the importance of peer rejection during middle childhood

as a predictor of antisocial behavior because the boys did not have a history of negative

relationships with their peers at camp. Also, as boys presumably had little contact with their

fellow campers following the completion of camp, the longitudinal prediction to antisocial

behavior can be more purely attributed to peer rejection rather than a history of negative

relationships with these peers, peer group contagion, or other peer group factors also associated

with antisocial behavior.

Notably, emotion dysregulation during early childhood was not directly related to

antisocial behavior in early adolescence. There are multiple explanations for the non-significant

relation between these constructs. The time span between the emotion dysregulation

measurement and the antisocial behavior outcome measure was 8.5 years. Previous findings from

the Pitt Mother & Child Project (Gilliom et al., 2002) and other research groups (e.g., Cole et al.,

1994) support concurrent and short longitudinal relations between emotion regulation and

externalizing behavior problems. Nonetheless, a longitudinal study of 8.5 years, covering the late

preschool and school-age periods, leaves a tremendous amount of room for other ‘third


variables,’ proximate to children’s environments, to exert a closer influence on antisocial

behavior in early adolescence. In the present study, peer rejection in middle childhood was

selected as one such variable based on its developmental salience in middle childhood; peer

rejection during middle childhood was found to increase the likelihood of antisocial behavior

during early adolescence.

It is also possible that emotion dysregulation at age 3.5 was not directly related to

antisocial behavior during early adolescence because our measure of antisocial behavior tapped

primarily covert forms of delinquency such as lying and stealing in addition to more overt forms

of delinquency such as physical aggression. Previous research supports a consistent relation

between emotion dysregulation and physical aggression in younger children (e.g., Hubbard et al.,

2002), but fewer studies have linked early measures of emotion dysregulation to covert forms of

antisocial behavior during adolescence (but see Moffitt & Caspi, 2001). Future research is

needed that assesses children’s emotion regulation skills more thoroughly and in middle

childhood, as one would not necessarily expect strong associations between a three minute

assessment of emotion regulation and reports of antisocial behavior conducted 8.5 years later.

Alternatively, the measure of emotion dysregulation utilized in the current study, which

tapped boys’ ability to actively distract themselves versus focus on distressing aspects of the

situation may be more predictive of subsequent internalizing problems, such as symptoms of

anxiety and depression. Consistent with this notion, theory and research on the development of

anxiety and depression often focus on a tendency to attend to positive versus negative aspects of

the situation (Kovacs & Devlin, 1998; Silk, Shaw, Forbes, Lane, & Kovacs, 2006). However,

future research is needed to validate such relationships between early difficulties in emotion

regulation and adolescent-age internalizing problems.


Limitations

There are a few notable limitations of the present study. First, the sample was restricted

to boys recruited from lower income families in a single urban area of the United States.

Different results may have been obtained had the sample included females, children from a wider

variety of socioeconomic backgrounds, or different geographic regions of the US (e.g., rural,

suburban). For example, the relations between emotion dysregulation and peer rejection may

have differed in a sample that included girls. Also, because the summer camp only included

study participants, our measure of peer rejection did not include girls’ perspectives. Keeping this

limitation in mind, our sample was selected because children from lower socioeconomic groups

are at greater risk of developing behavior problems, and boys are particularly at risk for the

development of delinquent behavior such as lying, stealing, and early drug use.

Another limitation was the use of a single respondent to measure each construct.

Although the study includes independent structured observations, peer ratings and nominations,

and self reports, a single approach was used to measure each construct. Our study could have

been strengthened with a multi-method, multi-rater approach to measuring study constructs. For

example, parent or teacher perspectives could have been added to measurements of any of the

constructs. Also, our measurement of emotion dysregulation was coded entirely based on the

child’s behavior. The use of observation methods and coding schemes that can simultaneously

account for maternal regulatory behavior may have also been beneficial because previous

research suggests that parental reactions to children’s negative emotions contributes to the

development of their behavior problems (e.g., Snyder, Stoolmiller, Wilson, & Yamamoto, 2003).

Lastly, in keeping with our developmental psychopathology perspective, we measured

each construct at one time point. We selected the measurement timing to coincide with


respective “critical periods” for the development of emotional self-regulation and healthy peer

relationships based on previous theory and research. It would be also be interesting to examine

whether stability or change in these constructs also predicts relevant outcomes. For example, as

noted above, emotion dysregulation may persist into middle childhood, and it may be these

forms of emotion dysregulation that predicts rejection by peers and the subsequent emergence of

antisocial behavior. Similarly, boys with a history of emotion dysregulation may have had

unregulated emotional outbursts during the course of summer camp that contributed to their

social rejection.

Implications

Our results support early intervention to prevent behavior problems. Programs should

include components that address adaptive self-regulation of emotion during early childhood (see

Izard, 2002). Successful programs may not only reduce immediate behavior concerns, but they

may also help to prevent later social difficulties for children who develop adequate emotion

regulation skills. Early childhood prevention programs that address children’s understanding and

management of emotions exist, and some of these programs have specifically evaluated emotion

regulation skills following program implementation with positive results (e.g., Izard, King,

Trentacosta, & Laurenceau, 2006). Future preventive intervention research should examine

outcomes longitudinally to determine whether changes in emotion regulatory abilities prevent the

emergence of difficulties with peers in middle childhood.

Similarly, programs to promote peer relationships and prevent behavior problems in

middle childhood should consider child emotion regulation as one factor that may contribute to

peer rejection. In addition to instruction in social skills and other cognitive-behavioral

techniques, children with social difficulties may also need assistance with adaptively managing


their emotions in social contexts. Furthermore, inclusive social environments that successfully

reduce the negative sequelae of peer rejection may decrease the likelihood that young

adolescents will engage in antisocial behavior.


References

Arbuckle, J. L. (2003). AMOS 5.0 users' guide. Chicago: Smallwaters.

Asher, S. R., & Dodge, K. A. (1986). Identifying children who are rejected by their peers.

Developmental Psychology, 22, 444-449.

Cicchetti, D. (2006). Development and psychopathology. In D. Cicchetti & D. Cohen (Eds.),

Developmental psychopathology, 2nd Ed.: Vol. 1 Theory and Method. Hoboken, NJ: John

Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Coie, J. D., & Dodge, K. A. (1998). Aggression and antisocial behavior. In W. Damon & N.

Eisenberg (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Social, emotional, and personality

development (Vol. 3, pp. 779-862). New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Coie, J. D., Dodge, K. A., & Copottelli, H. (1982). Dimensions and types of social status: A

cross-age perspective. Developmental Psychology, 18, 557-571.

Cole, P. M., Zahn-Waxler, C., Fox, N. A., Usher, B. A., & Welsh, J. D. (1996). Individual

differences in emotion regulation and behavior problems in preschool children. Journal

of Abnormal Psychology, 105, 518-529.

Cole, P. M., Zahn-Waxler, C., & Smith, K. D. (1994). Expressive control during a

disappointment: Variations related to preschoolers' behavior problems. Developmental

Psychology, 30, 835-846.

Dearing, K. F., Hubbard, J. A., Ramsden, S. R., Parker, E. H., Relyea, N., Smithmyer, C. H., 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.

Denham, S. A. (1998). Emotional development in young children. New York: The Guilford

Press.


Denham, S. A., Blair, K. A., DeMulder, E., Levitas, J., Sawyer, K., Auerbach-Major, S., et al.

(2003). Preschool emotional competence: Pathway to social competence? Child

Development, 74, 238-256.

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., Bernzweig, J., Karbon, M., Poulin, R., & Hanish, L. (1993). The

relations of emotionality and regulation to preschoolers' social skills and sociometric

status. Child Development, 64, 1418-1438.

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 longitudinal study.

Child Development, 66, 109-128.

Elliott, D. S., Huizinga, D., & Ageton, S. S. (1985). Explaining delinquency and drug use.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hubbard, J. A., Smithmyer, C. M., Ramsden, S. R., Parker, E. H., Flanagan, K. D., Dearing, K.

F., et al. (2002). Observational, physiological, and self-report measures of children's

anger: Relations to reactive versus proactive aggression. Child Development, 73, 1101-

1118.

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 development

of self-control. Developmental Psychology, 38, 222-235.

Grolnick, W. S., Bridges, L. J., & Connell, J. P. (1996). Emotion regulation in 2-year-olds:

Strategies and emotional expression in four contexts. Child Development, 67, 928-941.


Howes, C. (1987). Social competence with peers in young children: Developmental sequences.

Developmental Review, 7, 252-272.

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:

Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55.

Izard, C. E. (2002). Translating emotion theory and research into preventive interventions.

Psychological Bulletin, 128, 796-824.

Izard, C. E., King, K. A., Trentacosta, C. J., & Laurenceau, J. P. (2006). Increasing emotion

knowledge and emotion regulation and decreasing behavior problems and

psychopathology. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Kochanska, G., Murray, K., & Harlan, E. (2000). Effortful control in early childhood: Continuity

and change, antecedents, and implications for social development. Developmental

Psychology, 36, 220-232.

Kopp, C. B. (1989). Regulation of distress and negative emotions: A developmental view.

Developmental Psychology, 25(3), 343-354.

Kovacs, M. & Devlin, B (1998). Internalizing disorders in childhood. Journal of Child

Psychology and Psychiatry, 39, 47-63.

Krueger, R. F., Schmutte, P. S., Caspi, A., Moffitt, T. E., Campbell, K., & Silva, P. A. (1994).

Personality traits are linked to crime among men and women: Evidence from a birth

cohort. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 103, 328-338.

Laird, R. D., Jordan, K. Y., Dodge, K. A., Pettit, G. S., & Bates, J. E. (2001). Peer rejection in

childhood, involvement with antisocial peers in early adolescence, and the development

of externalizing behavior problems. Development and Psychopathology, 13, 337-354.


MacKinnon, D. P., Fritz, M.S., Williams, J., & Lockwood, C. M. (in press). Distribution of the

product confidence limits for the indirect effect program PRODCLIN. Behavioral

Research Methods.

MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., & Williams, J. (2004). Confidence limits for the indirect

effect: Distribution of the product and resampling methods. Multivariate Behavioral

Research, 39, 99-128.

Marvin, R. S. (1977). An ecological-cognitive model for the attenuation of mother-infant

attachment behavior. In T. M. Alloway, L. Krames & P. Pliner (Eds.), Advances in the

study of communication and affect: Vol. 3 The development of social attachments (pp. 25-

60). New York: Plenum.

Maszk, P., Eisenberg, N., & Guthrie, I. K. (1999). Relations of children's social status to their

emotionality and regulation: A short-term longitudinal study. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly,

45, 468-492.

Moffitt, T. E., & Caspi, A. (2001). Childhood predictors differentiate life-course persistent and

adolescence-limited antisocial pathways among males and females. Development and

Psychopathology, 13, 355-375.

Moffitt, T. E., Caspi, A., Harrington, H., & Milne, B. J. (2002). Males on the life-course-

persistent and adolescence-limited antisocial pathways: Follow-up at age 26 years.

Development and Psychopathology, 14, 179-207.

Mostow, A. J., Izard, C. E., Fine, S. E., & Trentacosta, C. J. (2002). Modeling emotional,

cognitive, and behavioral predictors of peer acceptance. Child Development, 73, 1775-

1787.


Ollendick, T. H., Weist, M. D., Borden, M. C., & Greene, R. W. (1992). Sociometric status and

academic, behavioral, and psychological adjustment: A five-year longitudinal study.

Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 60, 80-87.

Rubin, K. H., Bukowski, W., & Parker, J. G. (1998). Peer interactions, relationships, and groups.

In W. Damon & N. Eisenberg (Eds.), Handbook of Child Psychology, 5th Ed.: Vol 3

Social, emotional, and personality development (pp. 619-700). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley

& Sons.

Shaw, D.S., Gilliom, M., Ingoldsby, E.M., & Nagin, D (2003). Trajectories leading to school-age

conduct problems. Developmental Psychology, 39, 189-200.

Shrout, P. E. & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New

procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7, 422-445.

Silk, J. S., Shaw, D. S., Forbes, E. E., Lane, T. L., & Kovacs, M. (2006). Maternal depression

and child internalizing: The moderating role of child emotion regulation. Journal of

Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 35, 116-126.

Snyder, J., Stoolmiller, M., Wilson, M., & Yamamoto, M. (2003). Child anger regulation,

parental responses to children's anger displays, and early child antisocial behavior. Social

Development, 12, 335-360.

Sroufe, L. A. (1997). Psychopathology as an outcome of development. Development and

Psychopathology, 9, 251-268.

Wentzell, K. R., & Caldwell, K. (1997). Friendships, peer acceptance, and group membership:

Relations to academic achievement in middle school. Child Development, 68, 1198-1209.

http://www.pitt.edu/~momchild/publications/peer-review/dp developmental trajectories final version oct 1 2001 titlep.htm

http://www.pitt.edu/~momchild/publications/peer-review/dp developmental trajectories final version oct 1 2001 titlep.htm


Table 1

Means and Standard Deviations for Study Variables

Variable Mean SD

Dysregulation: Distraction 10.40 5.31

Dysregulation: Focus 4.83 4.75

Rejection: Nominations .11 1.77

Rejection: Ratings .83 .46

Antisocial Composite Score 3.59 3.51

________________________________________________________________________


Table 2

Intercorrelations Among Variables

1 2 3 4

1. Dysregulation: Distraction

2. Dysregulation: Focus -.51**

3. Rejection: Nominations -.26** .18

4. Rejection: Ratings -.24* .12 .74**

5. Antisocial Composite Score -.09 .12 .21* .24*

______________________________________________________________________________

*p < .05. **p < .01


Table 3

Fit Statistics for Structural Equation Models

________________________________________________________________________

Model χ2 RMSEA CFI TLI

________________________________________________________________________

Model 1 1.73 .000 1.00 1.03

Model 2 1.81 .000 1.00 1.04

________________________________________________________________________


Figure Captions Figure 1. Model 1: Initial model of relations between emotion dysregulation, peer rejection, and

antisocial behavior.

Figure 2. Model 2: Final model of relations between emotion dysregulation, peer rejection, and

antisocial behavior.


Figure 1

*p < .05.

.03

.25*

-.89

Sociometric Sociometric Nomination Rating

.87 .86

.32*

Antisocial Behavior

Peer Rejection

Distraction

Emotion Dysregulation

Focus .57


Figure 2

*p < .05.

.26*

-.91

Sociometric Sociometric Nomination Rating

.87 .86

.32*

Antisocial Behavior

Peer Rejection

Distraction

Emotion Dysregulation

Focus .56

antisocial behavior 1 running head: regulation, peers, and

Documents