Emotional Display Rules and EmotionSelf-Regulation Associat.docx

Emotional Display Rules and Emotion
Self-Regulation: Associations with Bullying and
Victimization in Community-Based After School
Programs
PAMELA W. GARNER
1* and TIFFANY STOWE HINTON
2
1
George Mason University, USA
2
Virginia Commonwealth University, USA
ABSTRACT
We explored linkages among different components of emotional
competence and bullying and
victimization in children enrolled in community after school
programs. Seventy-seven children were
recruited from after school programs and their display rule
knowledge for sadness and anger was
evaluated. Their emotion self-regulation skills and bullying
experiences were also assessed. Knowl-
edge of display rules for sadness was a negative predictor of
physical victimization whereas

emotional lability/negativity was positively related to bullying.
Boys bullied more than girls and
family income was negatively related to bullying and emotional
lability/negativity and positively
associated with emotion self-regulation. Emotion self-regulation
mediated the relation between
family income and bullying. Analyses also suggested that
bullies and bully-victims had poorer
emotion self-regulation skills than non-bullies/victims or
victims. Copyright # 2010 John Wiley &
Sons, Ltd.
Key words: emotions; bullying; victimization; after school
programs
INTRODUCTION
In the US, between 10 and 29% of school children have been
involved in bullying,
either as a bully, a victim, or both (National Center for
Education Statistics, 1995;
Olweus, 1978). These experiences come in the form of physical
violence or as relational
behaviours such as gossip, teasing, or social exclusion (Crick &
Grotpeter, 1996). Bullying
declines across the elementary school years, but the bullying
that occurs during this time

may be especially damaging (Eslea & Rees, 2001). Moreover,
stable identification as a
bully or victim may be already established by the later school
years (Kochenderfer-Ladd,
Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology
J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol., 20: 480–496 (2010)
Published online 29 July 2010 in Wiley InterScience
(www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/casp.1057
* Correspondence to: Pamela W. Garner, New Century College,
George Mason University, 4400 University Drive,
MSN 5D3, Fairfax, VA 22030. E-mail: [email protected]
Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Accepted 1 July
2010
2003). Consequently, identifying the early correlates of bullying
and victimization may
provide important insights into the mechanisms underlying the
development of
problematic peer behaviour. Current formulations of bullying,
and increasingly of
victimization, have focused on the view that problematic peer
relationships may result
from maladaptive processing of social and emotional cues
(Lemerise & Arsenio, 2000).

For example, despite the fact that bullies and victims are at risk
for long-term behavioural
problems (Prinstein, Boergers, & Vernberg, 2001; Sourander,
Helstela, Helenius, & Piha,
2000), children’s status as one or the other may contribute to or
result from differences in
how they interpret and respond to emotions. However, the role
of emotion in the bullying
that occurs during the school years is not well understood
because previous studies on the
topic have often been limited to young children (Garner &
Lemerise, 2007; Eisenberg,
Fabes, Spinrad, Ryan, & Schmidt, 2004) and the facets of
emotional competence in the
early years may differ from those that are important during the
school years (Garner,
in press). Moreover, older children understand better than
younger children the negative
consequences associated with expressing the ‘wrong’ emotions
in the peer context (Parker
& Gottman, 1989).
In this article, we investigated linkages among emotional
competence, bullying and

victimization for school-age children. In doing so, we focused
on two interrelated
components of emotional competence: a) knowledge of
emotional display rules and b)
emotion self-regulation. These constructs were chosen because
school age children possess
a complex understanding of emotions that includes emotional
display rule knowledge and
they have a greater capacity for emotion self-regulation than
younger children (Eisenberg
& Spinrad, 2004; Gnepp & Hess, 1986; Jones, Abbey, &
Cumberland, 1998).
Display rule knowledge
Emotional display rule knowledge is the understanding of the
guidelines that govern the
expression and management of emotions in social situations and
their associated motives.
It develops during the elementary school period when children
come to understand they
can or should conceal their internal feelings by using one of
several possible strategies that
include maintaining a neutral facial expression, varying the
intensity of their emotional
expression, or masking their ‘true’ emotion (Matsumoto, Yoo,

Hirayama, & Petrova, 2005;
Saarni, 1979). There are a multitude of reasons for why
knowledge of emotional display
rules is important. Being emotionally competent requires an
understanding that it is
sometimes necessary to be concerned about another’s feelings
and trying to prevent that
person from experiencing hurt or harm. Not understanding that
it is sometimes necessary to
protect oneself from negative consequences of embarrassment,
shame, or punishment
associated with expressing a particular emotion can also
compromise social interactions
and relationships. Finally, expressing an emotion that is
different from the standard or norm
for the situation can have extreme negative consequences for
individuals (Saarni, 1979).
The different types of emotional display rule knowledge are
sometimes composited into
one overall score and overall display rule knowledge has been
positively related to social
competence. At the same time, when distinct types of display
rules have been considered,
knowledge of prosocial display rules (i.e. understanding that

expressing the true emotion
would cause harm or hurt to another) are correlated with
children’s prosocial behaviour and
peer-related social competence and negatively related to their
propensity to generate
aggressive solutions to conflict (Garner, 1996; Jones et al.,
1998).
Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Community Appl.
Soc. Psychol., 20: 480–496 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/casp
Emotional Display Rules and Emotion Self-Regulation 481
Emotion self-regulation
Emotional display rule knowledge focuses on the understanding
of how emotional displays
are perceived by others and knowledge of the cultural and
contextual reasons for the
expression and management of emotion and can therefore
promote emotion self-regulation
(Matsumoto et al., 2005). However, emotional display rule
knowledge and emotion self-
regulation are distinct competencies. Unlike display rule
knowledge, emotion self-

regulation centres on the maintenance and modulation of
emotion-related actions and
reactions through specific goal pursuit behaviours that can
include behaviours such as
approach or avoidance, inhibition, or attentional mechanisms
(Rothbart, Ziaie, & O’Boyle,
1992). Emotion self-regulation is concerned with the strategies
individuals use to manage
and regulate their own internal emotional arousal (Cole, Martin,
& Dennis, 2004;
Matsumoto et al., 2005). It can involve two processes: those
that have to do with how fast
emotions are expressed after exposure to the emotion-eliciting
event, how long they last
and how slowly they dissipate (i.e. emotional lability) and those
that are concerned with the
intensity with which emotions are expressed behaviourally
(Cole et al., 2004; Eisenberg &
Spinrad, 2004). Regardless of which regulatory process is
considered, difficulty managing
and regulating emotional expression remains an important
predictor of children’s
participation in problematic peer relationships (Pakaslahti,
2000).

The present research and hypotheses
The first aim of the current study was to examine the unique
contribution of emotional
display rule knowledge to bullying and victimization. We
focused on children who were
involved in bullying as bullies and/or victims because it is not
clear whether earlier findings
on aggression and emotional competence can be generalized to
these children. Aggressive
children are less likely to use display rules for anger than non-
aggressive children
(Underwood, Coie, & Herbsman, 1992) and decreased
aggression has also been linked to
emotional display rule usage (Bohnert, Crnic, & Lim, 2003).
Although bullying is
considered an aggressive act (Olweus, 1978), it involves
repetition and an imbalance of
power.
With regard to display rules, we were specifically interested in
whether children’s
knowledge of display rules for distinct negative emotions (i.e.
anger and sadness) was
differentially associated with bullying and victimization.

Children who bully or are high in
aggression have difficulty accurately perceiving the emotional
signals of others, attribute
anger to the actions and statements of others when it is not
present and show indifference to
others’ displays of negative emotion (Gini, 2006; Sanchez,
Fonzi, Ortega, Costabile, Lo
Feudo, 2003). Thus, we predicted that bullying would be
negatively related to knowledge
of display rules for anger. On the other hand, victims often
display high levels of sadness in
response to provocation by a bully (Camodeca & Goossens,
2005; Shaw & Wainryb, 2006)
despite the fact that victims’ expressions of neutrality rather
than positive or negative
emotion may reduce their chances of being victimized again
(Lagerspetz, Bjorkquist,
Osterman, & Kaukiainen, 1996). In addition, research on adults
has suggested that it
may be harder to conform to emotional display rules when one
is being treated unfairly
or disrespected (Rupp & Spencer, 2006). Accordingly, we
reasoned that physically as well
as relationally victimized children would be less likely than

other children to understand
that inhibiting or masking their displays of sadness might deter
the bully’s choice of them
as victims.
Soc. Psychol., 20: 480–496 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/casp
482 P. W. Garner and T. S. Hinton
The second study aim was to investigate the association
between two emotion self-
regulatory processes (i.e. emotional lability and behavioural
emotion self-regulation) and
bullying and victimization. A few recent studies have related
emotion self-regulation to
children’s bullying and victimization. Children rated as being
frequently angry at both
home and school or as frequently expressing intense anger in
the classroom environment
are more likely than other children to be chosen as victims
(Hanish et al., 2004). Positive
correlations between victimization and the inability to modulate
and manage the

expression of anger have also been demonstrated (Champion &
Clay, 2007). Overall,
emotion self-regulation has also been predictive of children’s
status as victims (Johnson,
Thompson, Wilkinson, & Walsh, 2002) and victimized children
are higher than other
children in negative arousal and emotional reactivity
(Kochenderfer-Ladd, 2004).
Interestingly, children who respond to bullying with
nonchalance (perhaps, a form of
emotional control) may be victimized less frequently than those
who respond with counter-
aggression or helplessness (Salmivalli et al., 1996).
Though both bullies and victims have difficulty regulating the
expression of negative
emotions (Camodeca, and Goossens, 2005; Champion & Clay,
2007; Kochenderfer-Ladd,
2004; Shields & Cicchetti, 2001), bullies may also have
difficulty controlling the
expression of positive emotion (Miller & Olson, 2000). For
example, children who
display characteristics of bullies, such as aggression, show low
levels of anger regulation

(Sullivan, Helms, Kliewer, & Goodman, 2010). In addition,
many victimized children
become overwhelmed with feelings of anger, anxiety and
sadness, which could
overwhelm their capacity for emotion regulation (Schwartz &
Proctor, 2000). Therefore,
we expected that bullying and victimization would be negatively
related to components
of emotion self-regulation. Based on the literature reviewed
earlier, however, we
hypothesized that bullying would be negatively associated with
emotion self-regulation
(e.g., appropriately displaying emotion, awareness of emotion,
empathy) and emotional
lability/negativity. In contrast, we expected that victimization
would be more strongly
and negatively related to emotion self-regulation and unrelated
to emotional lability/
negativity.
At the same time, we expected that children classified as both
bullies and victims would
have lower emotion regulation and display rule scores (Juvonen,
Graham, & Schuster,
2003). Lastly, we predicted that the combination of insufficient

display rule knowledge and
emotional dysregulation may place children at particular risk
for bullying and
victimization. Thus, we further hypothesized that proficiency in
both emotional display
rule knowledge and emotion self-regulation (i.e. the additive
versus unique contribution of
each) would increase the likelihood that children would have
lower bullying as well as
lower victimization scores.
Demographic characteristics
In exploring these linkages, we were also interested in the role
of important demographic
variables that may explain significant variation in bullying and
victimization, such as age,
gender, and family income. With regard to gender differences,
evidence suggests that boys
are more likely than girls to be involved as both bullies and
victims (Whitney & Smith,
1993; Seals & Young, 2003) although girls may be more likely
to experience relational
victimization than boys (Wolke, Woods, Bloomfield, &
Karstadt, 2000). Nevertheless, the

incidence of bullying declines as children get older (Seals &
Young, 2003) and some
Soc. Psychol., 20: 480–496 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/casp
research suggests that gender differences in children’s
conceptualization of bullying may
be less detectable than age differences (Smith, Cowie, Olafsson,
& Liefooghe, 2002).
Concerning family income, there is evidence that lower income
children (especially girls)
may experience more psychological distress as a result of being
victimized than higher
income children (Peskin, Tortolero, Markham, Addy, &
Baumler, 2007). Interestingly,
lower income bullies may not experience the same degree of
adjustment problems as
frequently reported for bullies that are reared in more affluent
families (Juvonen et al.,
2003). Along these lines, we reasoned that boys would have
higher bullying and

victimization scores than girls and that age and family income
would be negatively related
to the peer relationship variables.
We also expected that the demographic variables would be
correlated with the predictor
variables. For example, numerous studies have shown that girls
and women are better at
understanding and using display rules and regulation emotions
than boys and men (Brody
& Hall, 1993; Jones et al., 1998; Safdar et al., 2009). In
addition, anger and other forms of
emotional dysregulation are disproportionately prevalent among
lower income children
(Hertzberger & Hall, 1993). Accordingly, we also examined the
moderating and mediating
roles of the demographic variables in evaluating the hypotheses.
This research also provided an opportunity to learn more about
bullying and
victimization that occurs outside of the school context.
Specifically, children who were
participating in community sponsored after school programs
were the focus of this
research. This is important because, as children get older, the
places where they are bullied

multiply (Whitney & Smith, 1993). Our interest in the after
school hours was also
motivated by the fact that, although high quality after school
programs can provide
opportunities to promote children’s academic and social
competence (Larson, 2000),
bullying may go unchecked in these settings because they are
less structured and staffed
than schools (Espelage & Swearer, 2003; Olewus, 1993). At the
same time, after school
programs may offer fewer sites for bullying because children
are not burdened by
harassment that often occurs in cafeterias, locker rooms and
other contexts that are
unsupervised and more specific to an actual day in school.
Thus, a more thorough
examination of the emotion-related factors that contribute to
bullying and victimization in
these settings is needed.
METHOD
Participants
Seventy-seven children (41 girls) enrolled in third to fifth grade
and ranging in age from 7

to 11 years (mean age ¼ 8.14) were recruited from after-school
programs in a mid-sized
city in the southern US. The hours for the programs were from
2:45 or 3:00 until 6:00 pm
and all centres required a fee for enrollment. Each program was
accredited or met the
standards for accreditation by the National After School
Association and thus, homework
time and assistance, arts and crafts, sports and recreation and
snack time were important
components. The sample was economically (see below) and
ethnically diverse (69%
Caucasian, 29% African American and 3% multiethnic).
Mothers provided information about the total earned income for
the past year of all
adults living in the home. Family size ranged from 2 to 7 and
averaged three children and
two adults. The mean annual income for the families was $50
687 (SD ¼ $24 178). The
Soc. Psychol., 20: 480–496 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/casp

federal poverty threshold for the period in which the data were
collected was $23 307 for a
family of five, with two adults and three children. Thus, none of
the families were living
below the poverty line. Children provided information about
their grade, age, gender and
ethnicity.
Procedures and measures
Parents were asked to complete a short questionnaire about their
family’s socioeconomic
status and children were asked to complete two questionnaires
gathering information about
their age, gender, grade, ethnicity/race and their victimization
experiences. The adapted
affect regulation interview (ARI) was individually administered
to the children during a
visit to the after-school centre. Questionnaires were read to the
children who were then
asked to verify that they understood each question before they
responded. The research
team consisted of a diverse group of examiners (4 Caucasian
females, 2 African American
females, and 1 Latino female) and every effort was made to pair

up the children with a
research team member of the same ethnicity.
After-school staff also reported on the children’s emotion self-
regulation ability and the
degree to which the children were bullied. After-school
caregivers and their assistants
(mean age ¼ 36.8 years) completed the questionnaires. Among
them, there was 114 years
of childcare experience and they had been employed at the
centres from 8 months to 12
years, with an average employment time of 4.94 years.
Education levels ranged from ninth
grade to college graduate, with the majority having completed
high school.
Outcome measures
Social Experiences Questionnaire (SEQ; Crick & Grotpeter,
1996). The 8-item SEQ
evaluates children’s perspectives of their victimization
experiences. Five items assessed
experience with relational victimization and three items
assessed physical victimization
(‘how often do you get hit by another kid?’). Items were rated
on a 5-point Likert scale
ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (all the time). Positive associations

between relational and
physical victimization and social-psychological difficulties have
been documented (Crick
& Grotpeter, 1996). Alphas were 0.56 for relational and 0.74 for
physical victimization.
For short scales, alphas of this magnitude are considered
appropriate as levels are highly
influenced by the number of items on a scale (Nunally, 1976).
Mount Hope Family Centre Bully-Victim Questionnaire.
Because some children may not
be as candid or attuned to their involvement in bullying as other
children, it is important to
obtain information from their teachers or other caregivers about
their involvement.
Accordingly, after school caregivers were also asked to provide
another perspective on
children’s involvement in bullying. After school caregivers
were asked to complete the
Mount Hope Family Centre Bully-Victim Questionnaire
developed by Shields and
Cicchetti (2001). This 8-item questionnaire assesses the
frequency with which children
display behaviours that are associated with bullying and
victimization. Items are rated on a

4-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (never) to 4 (frequently) and
assess a broad range of
behaviours, including manipulation, physical aggression and
teasing (e.g. ‘physically
aggressive toward peers who are weaker or more vulnerable’).
Sample items on the
bullying subscale include ‘Physically aggressive toward peers
who are weaker or more
vulnerable’ and ‘Responds to the distress of other children with
indifference or hostility’.
Soc. Psychol., 20: 480–496 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/casp
The remaining items measured the occurrence of victimization
and provided information
about victim characteristics, such as vulnerability and
exploitation. Sample items include
‘Tends to be gullible or vulnerable; is easily exploited’ and
‘Willingly and repeatedly
engages in interactions with peers who tend to exploit,
manipulate, or distress this child’’.

This questionnaire has been shown to yield valid measures of
bullying and victimization
(Shields & Cicchetti, 2001) and items are sensitive to the type
of bullying that occurs in
unstructured settings, such as after school community programs
(Leff, Power, Costigan, &
Manz, 2003). In the present study, Cronbach’s alpha was 0.93
for the bullying subscale and
0.69 for the victimization subscale.
Independent variables
Display rules knowledge task. Display rule knowledge was
evaluated using an adapted
version of the ARI developed by Zeman and Garber (1996).
Children were read the
following statement: ‘A medium type of friend is a person who
you like and who you like to
play with, but this type of friend is not your best friend. Can
you think of a person who is
one of your medium type friends? Ok, I want you to think about
that person while I read
you a pretend story. Then, I’m going to ask you some
questions’. Afterwards, four
hypothetical scenarios were read aloud. Two stories portrayed

the child as sad (e.g., child
tries out for a sports team and all of his/her friends make the
team, but child does not) and
two stories described the child as angry (e.g. child lets another
child borrow a toy and that
child breaks it and returns the toy without acknowledging that it
is broken). A full list of the
vignettes is provided in Zeman and Garber (1996). Children
were asked to imagine
themselves as the same-sex protagonist in the vignette and then
asked whether he/she
would express sadness in response to the sad scenarios and
anger in response to the angry
scenarios using a 4-point Likert scale, ranging from 1
(definitely would not show), 2
(probably would not show), 3 (probably would show) and 4
(definitely would show):
‘Would you show how angry/sad you feel’? Scores were then
summed across the two
vignettes for each emotion type, with higher scores indicating
higher understanding of
emotional display rules. Responses across vignettes (4 items)
were used in calculating
alpha, which was 0.80. These scales have been used extensively

(Zeman, Klimes-Dougan,
Cassano, & Adrian, 2007) and responses meaningfully
discriminate among children
experiencing different types of maltreatment (Shipman, Zeman,
& Penza, 2000) and
associations between scores on these items and children’s
reluctance to express emotions
have also been found (Penza-Clyve & Zeman, 2002).
Emotion regulation checklist (ERC). Emotion self-regulation
ability was assessed using
the 24-item ERC developed by Shields and Cicchetti (1997). It
measures adult perceptions
of processes associated with emotionality and regulation, such
as emotional lability/
negativity, emotional intensity and appropriateness of emotional
expression. Items are
rated on a 4-point scale ranging from 1 (almost always) to 4
(never). The ERC is comprised
of two subscales: emotion self-regulation and emotional
lability/negativity. The emotion
self-regulation subscale describes appropriate emotional
displays and emotional self-
awareness. A sample item is ‘Can say when he/she is feeling
sad, angry, mad, fearful, or

afraid’. The emotional lability/negativity subscale assesses
mood swings, anger reactivity
and intensity of positive and negative emotional expression. A
sample item is ‘Is easily
frustrated’. Scores are strongly and meaningfully associated
with Q-sort ratings of
children’s emotion self-regulation behaviour and classroom
competence and reactive
Soc. Psychol., 20: 480–496 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/casp
aggression (Shields & Cicchetti, 1997, 1998; Shields, Dickstein,
Seifer, Giusti, Magee, &
Spritz, 2001). Alphas were 0.73 for emotion self-regulation and
0.92 for emotional lability/
negativity.
RESULTS
First, descriptive information about the study variables is
presented. Second, correlations
between the outcome variables and predictor variables are

displayed. Next, regression
models that allowed for the examination of unique and joint
effects of the emotion-related
predictors on bullying and victimization are described.
Descriptive information
Means, standard deviations, and ranges are presented in Table
1. All of the variables were
screened for normality. None of the variables had high skewness
or kurtosis as the absolute
values for these measures were � 1 for each variable included
in the analyses (West, Finch,
& Curran, 1995). Children reported experiencing moderate
levels of peer victimization
and more relational than physical victimization, t (76) ¼ 3.06, p
< .05. Similarly, after
school caregivers reported moderate amounts of bullying, but
scores were higher for boys,
t (75) ¼ 2.65, p < .01.
Zero-order correlations
As shown in Table 2, age was positively associated with
knowledge of display
rules for sadness. Annual family income was negatively related
to bullying and to
emotional lability/negativity and positively associated with

emotion self-regulation
ability. Display rule knowledge scores for anger and sadness
were negatively associated
with physical victimization. Bullying was negatively related to
emotion self-regulation and
positively related to emotional lability/negativity. Children’s
reports of their relational and
physical victimization experiences were positively associated.
The two emotional display
rule variables were positively, but only moderately associated.
Emotion self-regulation
and emotional lability/negativity were negatively related.
Intercorrelations among
the measures were also considered separately for boys and girls
and we computed Fisher
Table 1. Means and standard deviations for the study variables
(N ¼ 77)
Variables M SD Possible range
Physical victimization (Child Reports) 2.08 0.98 1–5
Relational victimization (Child Reports) 2.47 0.85 1–5
Caregiver-reported victimization 2.10 0.73 1–4
Caregiver-reported bullying 1.97 0.91 1–4
Predictor variables
Display rule knowledge (anger) 5.64 1.40 2–8
Display rule knowledge (sadness) 4.74 1.86 2–8
Emotion regulation 25.67 4.08 8–32
Lability/Negativity 26.69 9.48 15–60

Soc. Psychol., 20: 480–496 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/casp
r to z for each set of correlations in which the association was
significant for one gender and
not the other. These statistical tests were not significant. Still,
we computed multiplicative
terms of predictors by gender (after first centring the
predictors) and no significant
interactions were obtained. Therefore, regressions are reported
for the entire sample.
Regression analyses
Hierarchical regression equations were constructed to evaluate
the unique and joint
contributions of emotion self-regulation ability and display rule
knowledge in the
prediction of bullying and victimization. Age, gender, and
income were included on the
first step as control variables. Gender was entered on the first
step because of

the associations reported above, the two emotion self-regulation
variables were entered on
the second step and the emotional display rule variables were
entered on the third step. The
two sets of emotion variables were entered separately to allow
for the evaluation of the
contributions of emotion display rule knowledge separately
from the contributions of
the emotion self-regulation. Regressions were run once with the
emotion display rule
knowledge variables entered first and again with the emotion
self-regulation variables
entered first. Findings were essentially unchanged across the
two sets of analyses. Thus, we
report only the findings for the first set of analyses. We also ran
analyses to examine if
multicollinearity was an issue. Results revealed that there were
no problems with
multicollinearity in any of the regressions as indicated by the
fact that the variance inflation
factors were within acceptable levels.
Peer victimization. The first equation examined the emotion
variables as predictors of
child-reported physical victimization. On the first step that

included age, gender, and
annual family income as predictors, the model was not
significant. However, when the
emotional display rule knowledge variables were entered on the
second step, the model was
significant, F(5, 71) ¼ 2.98, p < .02 and accounted for an
additional 12% of the variance,
~F(2, 71) ¼ 5.33, p < .01. Betas revealed that knowledge of
display rules for sadness was
a negative predictor of physical victimization. When included
on the third step, the emotion
self-regulation variables did not contribute additional variance.
None of the independent
variables emerged as significant predictors of child reported
relational victimization or to
caregiver-reported victimization (see Table 3).
Table 2. Intercorrelations among the study variables (N ¼ 77)
Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1. Age
2. Family income �.13
3. Child-reported
physical victimization
�.16 �.06
4. Child-reported
relational victimization

�.15 .13 .27�
5. Caregiver-reported
victimization
.16 �.11 .04 .05
6. Bullying �.08 �.26� .19 .15 .40��
7. Display rules (anger) .18 .07 �.30�� .11 �.05 �.02
8. Display rules (sadness) .43
��
.06 �.34�� .15 .04 �.03 .37��
9. Emotion regulation �.02 .36�� .15 �.14 �.06 �.54��
�.12 �.07
10. Lability/Negativity .02 �.17 .08 .11 .27�� .73�� .03 �.01
�.63��
Soc. Psychol., 20: 480–496 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/casp
Bullying. When bullying was included as the outcome measure
and age, gender
and annual family income were included as predictors, the
overall model was significant,
F(3, 73) ¼ 5.27, p < .01. Boys were higher than girls on
bullying and annual family income

was a negative predictor. Including the emotional display rule
knowledge variables on the
second step did not produce a significant change in the amount
of variance explained.
However, when the emotion self-regulation variables were
entered on the third step, an
additional 39% of the variance was explained, DF(2,69) ¼
31.94, p < .001. The betas
revealed that emotional lability/negativity was a positive
predictor of bullying. These
results are summarized in Table 4. Findings were essentially
unchanged when physical and
relational bullying were included as separate dependent
measures in the regressions.
Therefore, for the sake of space, these analyses will not be
discussed further.
Given the correlational findings reported above, there was
reason to hypothesize that
emotion self-regulation mediated the association between
annual family income and
Table 3. Hierarchical regression analysis predicting
victimization (n ¼ 77)
Variable
Physical
victimization

Relational
victimization
Caregiver-reported
victimization
b SE B b SE B b SE B
Step 1:
Age �.15 .12 �.14 .10 .15 .08
Gender �.14 .23 .12 .19 �.11 .17
Family income �.09 .00 .12 .00 .10 .00
Step 2: Display rules (anger) �.18 .08 �.08 .08 �.06 .07
Display rules (sadness) �.29� .07 �.08 .06 �.02 .06
Step 3: Emotion regulation �.25 .03 �.26 .03 .22 .03
Lability/Negativity �.10 .02 .06 .01 .38�� .01
Final R
2
.21 .13 .13
F for change in R
2
F(7, 69) ¼ 2.57� F(7, 69) ¼ 1.52 F(7, 69) ¼ 1.50
�
p < .05.
��
p < .01.
��
p < .01.
Table 4. Hierarchical regression analysis predicting bullying (n

¼ 77)
Variable
Bullying
ß SE B
Step 1:
Age �.08 .10
Gender �.32�� .19
Family income �.30�� .00
Step 2: Display rules (anger) .06 .08
Display rules (sadness) �.02 .06
Step 3: Emotion regulation �.06 .03
Lability/Negativity .64
��
.01
Final R
2
.58
F for change in R
2
F(7, 69) ¼ 13.34��
�
p < .05.
��
p < .01.
��

p < .001.
Soc. Psychol., 20: 480–496 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/casp
bullying. To investigate this possibility, path analyses were
conducted. Annual family
income was positively associated with emotion self-regulation
(b ¼ .36, p < .001) and that
the criterion of the mediator (i.e. emotion self-regulation)
predicting bullying was also met
(b ¼ �.53, p < .001). A final regression equation indicated that
the effect of emotion self-
regulation remained significant when considered along with
annual family income
(b ¼ �.51, p < .001) and that annual family income was no
longer a significant predictor of
bullying (b ¼ �.07, p < .48). A test of this indirect effect was
significant (z ¼�25.5,
p < .001) as determined by Sobel’s z test, indicating that
emotion self-regulation was
operating as a mediator of the relation between annual family
income and bullying.
Identification of bully and victim groups
Finally, bully and victim groups were also identified. Children

whose bullying or
victimization scores was at least one standard deviation above
the mean were classified as a
bully or a victim, respectively. Children who were identified as
both a bully and a victim
were included in the bully-victim group. Overall, 12 out of the
77 children were classified
as bullies (16% of the sample). The victim group was formed
using the child-report
measure of victimization, which allowed for the examination of
physical and relational
victims. Overall, 15 children were identified as victims, which
is 20% of the sample. More
specifically, six children (8%) were victims of relational
aggression, six children (8%) were
victims of physical aggression and three children (4%) were
victims of both relational and
physical aggression. However, due to the relatively small
sample size, there was not
adequate power to analyse relational and physical victims
separately. Therefore, the
combined victim group, which included victims of both forms of
victimization, was
used for subsequent analyses. An additional six (8%) of the

children were classified as
bully-victims. Differences among the groups on the emotion
variables were explored by
conducting a MANOVA. Results indicated that there were
significant differences in
emotion self-regulation ability among the groups, F (3, 73) ¼
8.06, p <.001. ATukey post
hoc analysis revealed that bully-victims (M ¼ 20.72, SD ¼
3.80) and bullies (M ¼ 22.63,
SD ¼ 3.93) had poorer emotion self-regulation skills than non-
bullies/victims (M ¼ 26.69,
SD ¼ 3.74) or victims (M ¼ 26.85, SD ¼ 2.61).
DISCUSSION
This study explored the linkages between different components
of emotional competence
and bullying and victimization among a diverse sample of
middle school children. Results
showed that victimized children have difficulty understanding
the cultural rules that govern
emotional expression whereas both bullies and victims
demonstrated difficulties regulating
and managing emotion. Lack of competency in these areas may
present different
challenges for children who bully and those that they victimize.
With regard to the first study aim, display rule knowledge for

sadness emerged as a
negative predictor of physical, but not relational victimization
after first controlling for the
demographic variables. Interestingly, other research has shown
that victimized children
tend to implement display rules incorrectly. Being able to
correctly appraise the emotions
of others (even when they are working hard to mask their true
feelings) may help children
to avoid certain forms of peer-related aggression. For example,
bullies are equally likely to
Soc. Psychol., 20: 480–496 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/casp
display positive and negative emotions (Arsenio, Cooperman, &
Lover, 2000) and the
victims’ inability to interpret the ‘true’ meaning behind these
displays may signal to the
bully that these children can be easily intimidated. In addition,
victims often mistakenly
attribute positive intent and emotions to children who bully

(Garner & Lemerise, 2007).
Finally, victimized children have less understanding of others’
mental states (i.e., thoughts,
beliefs, intentions) than other children and this may contribute
to their lack of assertiveness
and social problem-solving ability during challenging peer
situations (Gini, 2006).
Together, these findings seem to suggest that, because of their
lack of emotion-related
knowledge, victimized children may approach peer interactions
in ways that engender
negative behaviour, thereby creating a cycle of victimization
and poor emotion
understanding and associated control (Hanish et al., 2004).
Given the correlational nature
of the data, an alternative account may be that victimized
children understand the
emotional displays of bullies, but because they have been
repeatedly chosen as targets of
others’ aggression they may have learned to be wary of their
emotions even when they
think they know what they mean (Camodeca and Goossens,
2005).
Surprisingly, emotional display rule knowledge was unrelated to

bullying. Studies that
have examined aggression and not bullying have found that
aggressive children are less
likely to use display rules for anger than non-aggressive
children (Underwood et al., 1992).
Others have found rejected and aggressive second grade
children are no different than their
peers when using and understanding display rules in live or
hypothetical situations (Parker
et al., 2001). Our findings mirror those by suggesting that
children who repeatedly aggress
against the same children perform as well as their peers on
measures of emotional display
rule knowledge. Interestingly, researchers have found that
children who display high levels
of happiness when harassing their peers are more likely to
initiate aggression and show
more of it than other children (Arsenio et al., 2000). As already
noted, this may mean that
the understanding of the rules for emotional display is
especially important for children
wishing to protect themselves from further harassment.
Our second research question had to do with the role of the
emotion regulatory construct

in the prediction of bullying and victimization. The results
demonstrated that emotional
lability/negativity was a positive predictor of bullying. In fact,
children classified as bullies
and as bully-victims had poorer emotion self-regulation skills
than non-bullies/victims or
victims. Children who victimize their peers may have difficulty
managing the expression of
negative emotions because they experience these emotions
themselves at such an intense
level. Children with externalizing behaviour problems, such as
aggression, are likely to
exhibit high levels of emotional intensity in relation to anger,
impulsivity and low levels of
emotion self-regulation (Eisenberg et al., 2001). Children high
in emotional lability/
negativity also experience large mood swings, are easily
frustrated and generate ineffective
strategies for emotion self-regulation, which may render them
more likely to respond to
ambiguous peer situations with hostility and anger (Burks,
Laird, Dodge, Pettit, & Bates,
1999). That is, normal peer disagreements may be viewed as
highly salient by bullies and

become exacerbated. As a result, these children may then feel
justified in responding
angrily or with malice (Drabick, Beauchaine, Gadow, Carlson,
& Bromet, 2006). On the
other hand, children who have hostile goals may keep their
emotions unregulated
intentionally to produce a desired and compliant response from
their peers (Eisenberg &
Spinrad, 2004; Green, Williams, & Davidson, 2003). This
hypothesis is further supported
by our findings that children high on bullying tended to perform
as well as other children on
measures of emotional display rule knowledge. An important
next step is to interview
children about their goals for responding the way that they do.
A combination of emotion
Soc. Psychol., 20: 480–496 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/casp
self-regulation skill and well-constructed goals for expression
management may provide

the best opportunity for understanding children’s emotion-
related behaviour as both bullies
and victims.
Recall that we also hypothesized that the joint contribution of
emotional display rule
knowledge and emotion regulation skills would increase the
prediction of bullying and
victimization. Surprisingly, significant additive effects were not
found. Instead, the
regression analyses suggest that display rule knowledge is the
unique predictor of physical
victimization and that emotion regulation is the unique
predictor of bullying.
Another key finding from the present study is that family
income was negatively related
to bullying in the regression analyses, a result consistent with
Parcel and Menaghan (1993)
who also reported that bullies tend to live in lower income and
less educated households.
SES may be one of the dimensions of power that contributes to
the bully’s sense of
entitlement (Nation, Vieno, Perkins, & Santinello, 2008). At the
same time, the effects of

family income on bullying appear to be due to fact that the
higher income children may
have been more competent than less affluent children at
regulating their emotions, which
may promote positive peer relations. Among poor children, the
capacity for emotion
regulation may be one of the few factors that can distinguish
resilient and non-resilient
children (Buckner, Mezzacappa, & Beardslee, 2003).
No evidence of mediation or moderation was found for the other
demographic variables.
However, there were several additional findings that should be
mentioned. Children
reported experiencing more relational than physical
victimization. Relational victimiza-
tion seems to become more prevalent and sophisticated as
children enter middle childhood
due to their increasing cognitive capabilities and a fair amount
of exposure to relational
victimization is considered normative for most children
(Tremblay, 2000). Accordingly,
children as well as adults may ignore all but the more serious of
these instances so
relational victimization may not have gotten the same level of

scrutiny as physical
victimization, and it may even be less likely and/or more
difficult to detect, especially from
minimally trained staff (Carney & Nottis, 2008).
Boys were also reported as displaying more bullying than girls.
Because of societal
expectations that males are more aggressive than girls, adults
may be more attuned to the
manifestation of aggression in boys’ peer groups and therefore
more likely to interpret and
report it as problematic (see Underwood, 2003). Interestingly,
gender differences were not
found for victimization. Others have found that boys tend to be
victimized through physical
aggression and that girls are more likely to experience relational
aggression (Crick &
Grotpeter, 1996). This previous research, however, has been
based primarily on middle-
income and mostly Caucasian children. Research shows that
when ethnically and
economically diverse children are investigated, boys show a
higher level of victimization
than girls (Hanish & Guerra, 2000) or that differences do not
exist in the prevalence of

victimization for boys and girls (Hoglund & Leadbeater, 2004).
It may be that among these
children, boys and girls are equally likely to experience
relational as well as physical
victimization as they move into the middle and high school
years and increase their contact
with children of the opposite gender. This is an issue that
warrants additional research
attention.
Age was unrelated to bullying and victimization. Children in the
developmental period
in which we sampled have a more difficult time than older
children distinguishing between
aggressive behaviour that involves bullying and other forms of
aggressive behaviour such
as fighting (Smith et al., 2002). If older children had been
sampled, we may have seen a
different pattern of results. The duration of the bullying may be
more damaging than the
Soc. Psychol., 20: 480–496 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/casp

age at which it occurred, which suggests the need for a
longitudinal study that addresses
these same questions.
Study strengths and limitations
Strengths of this work include a focus on an understudied group
of children in a peer
environment that has also not received much research attention.
Participating children were
primarily minority and being reared in both working class and
higher income families. In
addition, this study is one of the first to examine the joint
contributions of display rule
knowledge and emotion-self-regulation to the prediction of
children’s compromised peer
relationships. Still, this work is correlational and, therefore,
cause and effect models cannot
be derived. With regard to the emotion measure, only display
rule knowledge of anger and
sadness were explored. Knowledge of display rules for positive
emotions and negative
emotions other than anger and sadness were not assessed.
Vignettes that are specific to

bullying and victimization could also be developed in order to
assess whether victims are
actually lacking an understanding of when to control their
emotional expressions during
particular bullying episodes and not during other peer
situations. Finally, the findings for
caregiver-reported versus child-reported victimization were
different. It is important to
point out that the caregiver-reported measure did not distinguish
between physical and
relational victimization and that findings were noted only for
child-reported physical
victimization. We thought it was important to include both
caregiver and child reports
because children do not always report their involvement in
bullying accurately and teachers
and other adults can provide important information that can
supplement their reports
(Juvonen et al., 2003). Despite these limitations, this study
moved beyond investigating
bullying that occurs in the context of school to that of
community-based neighbourhood
programs and showed the importance of focusing on emotion
when attempting to

understand negative peer relationships.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to express our gratitude to the many students
who helped with this project
and to the children and caregivers who participated in this
research.
REFERENCES
Arsenio, W. F., Cooperman, S., & Lover, A. (2000). Affective
predictors of preschoolers’ aggression
and peer acceptance: Direct and indirect effects. Developmental
Psychology, 36, 438–448.
Bohnert, A. M., Crnic, K. A., & Lim, K. G. (2003). Emotional
competence and aggressive behavior in
school-age children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 31,
79–91.
Brody, L. R., & Hall, J. A. (1993). Gender and emotion. In M.
Lewis & J. M. Haviland, (Eds.),
Handbook of emotions. New York: Guilford.
Buckner, J. C., Mezzacappa, E., & Beardslee, W. R. (2003).
Characteristics of resilient youths living
in poverty: The role of self-regulatory processes. Development
and Psychopathology, 15, 139–162.
Burks, V., Laird, R., Dodge, K., Pettit, G., & Bates, J. (1999).
Knowledge structures, social
information processing, and children’s aggressive behavior.
Social Development, 8, 220–236.

Camodeca, M., & Goossens, F. A. (2005). Aggression, social
cognitions, anger and sadness in bullies
and victims. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 46,
186–197.
Soc. Psychol., 20: 480–496 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/casp
Carney, A., & Nottis, K. (2008). No vacation from bullying: A
summer camp intervention pilot study.
Education, 129, 163–184.
Champion, K. M., & Clay, D. L. (2007). Individual differences
in responses to provocation and
frequent victimization by peers. Child Psychiatry and Human
Development, 37, 205–220.
Cole, P. M., Martin, S. E., & Dennis, T. (2004). Emotion self-
regulation as a scientific construct:
Methodological challenges and directions for child development
research. Child Development, 75,
317–222.
Crick, N., & Grotpeter, J. (1996). Children’s treatment by peers:
Victims of relational and overt
aggression. Development and Psychopathology, 8, 367–380.
Drabick, D., Beauchaine, T., Gadow, K., Carlson, G., & Bromet,
E. (2006). Risk factors for conduct

problems and depressive symptoms in a cohort of Ukranian
children. Journal of Clinical Child and
Adolescent Psychology, 35, 244–252.
Eisenberg, N., Cumberland, A., Spinrad, T., Fabes, R., Shepard,
S., 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., & Spinrad, T. (2004). Emotion–related
regulation: Sharpening the definition. Child
Eslea, M. J., & Rees, J. (2001). At what age are children most
likely to be bullied at school.
Aggressive Behavior, 27, 419–429.
Espelage, D., & Swearer, S. (2003). Research on school
bullying and victimization: What have we
learned and where do we go from here? School Psychology
Review, 32, 365–383.
Garner, P. W. (in press) Emotional competence and its
influences on teaching and learning.
Educational Psychology Review.
Garner, P. W. (1996). The relations of emotional role taking,
affective/moral attributions, and
emotional display rule knowledge to low-income school-age
children’s social competence.
Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 17, 19–36.
Garner, P. W., & Lermerise, E. A. (2007). The roles of
behavioral adjustment and conceptions of
peers and emotions in preschool children’s peer victimization.

Development and Psychopathology,
19, 57–71.
Gini, G. (2006). Social cognition and moral cognition in
bullying: What’s wrong? Aggressive
Behavior, 32, 528–539.
Gnepp, J., & Hess, D. L. R. (1986). Children’s understanding of
verbal and facial display rules.
Developmental Psychology, 22, 103–108.
Green, M., Williams, L., & Davidson, D. (2003). In the face of
danger: Specific viewing strategies for
facial expression of threat? Cognition & Emotion, 17, 779–786.
Hanish, L., & Guerra, N. (2000). Predictors of peer
victimization among urban youth. Social
Hanish, L., Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R., Spinrad, T. L., Ryan, P., &
Schmidt, S. (2004). The expression
and regulation of negative emotions: Risk factors for young
children’s peer victimization.
Development and Psychopathology, 16, 335–353.
Hertzberger, S. D., & Hall, J. A. (1993). Consequences of
retaliatory aggression against siblings and
peers: Urban minority children’s expectations. Child
Hoglund, W. L., & Leadbeater, B. J. (2004). The effects of
family, school, and classroom ecologies on
changes in children’s social competence and emotional and
behavioral problems in first grade.
Developmental Psychology, 40, 533–544.

Johnson, H. R., Thompson, M. J. J., Wilkinson, S., & Walsh, L.
(2002). Vulnerability to bullying:
Teacher-reported conduct and emotional problems,
hyperactivity, peer relationship difficulties,
and prosocial behaviour in primary school children. Educational
Jones, D. C., Abbey, B. B., & Cumberland, A. (1998). The
development of display rule knowledge:
Linkages with family expressiveness and social competence.
Child Development, 69, 3209–3222.
Juvonen, J., Graham, S., & Schuster, M. A. (2003). Bullying
among young adolescents: The strong,
the weak, and the troubled. Pediatrics, 112, 1231–1237.
Kochenderfer-Ladd, B. (2003). Identification of aggressive and
social victims and the stability of
their peer victimization. Merrill Palmer Quarterly, 49, 401–425.
Kochenderfer-Ladd, B. (2004). Peer victimization: The role of
emotions in adaptive and maladaptive
coping. Social Development, 13, 329–349.
Soc. Psychol., 20: 480–496 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/casp
Larson, R. W. (2000). Toward a psychology of positive youth
development. American Psychologist,
55, 170–183.

Leff, S. S., Power, T. J., Costigan, T. E., & Manz, P. H. (2003).
Assessing the climate of the
playground and lunchroom: Implications for bullying prevention
programming. School Psychol-
ogy Review, 32, 418–430.
Lemerise, E., & Arsenio, W. F. (2000). An integrated model of
emotion processes and cognition in
social information processing. Child Development, 71, 107–118.
Matsumoto, D., Yoo, S. H., Hirayama, S., & Petrova, G. (2005).
Development and validation of a
measure of display rule knowledge: The display rule assessment
inventory. Emotion, 5, 23–40.
Menesini, E., Sanchez, V., Fonzi, A., Ortega, R., Costabile, A.,
& Lo, Feudo G. (2003). Moral
emotions and bullying: A cross-national comparison of
differences between bullies, victims and
outsiders. Aggressive Behavior, 29, 515–530.
Miller, A. L., & Olson, S. (2000). Emotional expressiveness
during peer conflicts: A predictor of
social maladjustment among high-risk preschoolers. Journal of
Abnormal Child Psychology, 28,
339–352.
Nation, M., Vieno, A., Perkins Douglas D., & Santinello, M.
(2008). Bullying in school and
adolescent sense of empowerment: An analysis of relationships
with parents, friends, and teachers.
Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 18, 211–
232.
National Center for Education Statistics. (1995). Student

victimization at school. Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Education.
Nunally, J. C. (1976). Psychometric theory. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Olweus, D. (1978). Aggression in the schools: Bullies and
whipping boys. Washington D.C.:
Hemisphere Publishing Corporation.
Olewus, D. (1993) Bullying at school: What we know and what
we can do. New York: Blackwell.
Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school. Cambridge: Blackwell.
Pakaslahti, L. (2000). Children’s and adolescents’ aggressive
behavior in context: The development
and application of aggressive problem-solving strategies.
Aggression and Violent Behavior, 5,
467–490.
Parcel, T. L., & Menaghan, E. G. (1993). Family social capital
and children’s behavioral problems.
Social Psychology Quarterly, 56, 120–135.
Parker, J., & Gottman, J. (1989). Social and emotional
development in a relational context:
Friendship interaction from early childhood to adolescence In T.
Berndt & G. Ladd, (Eds.), Peer
Relationships in Child Development. (pp. 95–132). New York:
John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Parker, E., Hubbard, J., Ramsden, S., Relyea, N., Dearing, K.,
Smithmyer, C. M., et al. (2001).
Children’s use of knowledge of display rules for anger
following hypothetical vignettes versus
following live peer interaction. Social Development, 10, 528–
557.

Penza-Clyve, S., & Zeman, J. (2002). Initial validation of the
Emotion Expression Scale for Children
(EESC). Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology,
Vol 31, 540–547.
Peskin, M., Tortolero, S. R., Markham, C., Addy, R. C., &
Baumler, E. R. (2007). Bullying and
victimization and internalizing symptoms among low-income
Black and Hispanic Students.
Journal of Adolescent Health, 40, 372–375.
Prinstein, M. J., Boergers, J., & Vernberg, E. M. (2001). Overt
and relational aggression in
adolescents: Social–psychological adjustment of aggressors and
victims. Journal of Clinical
Child Psychology, 30, 479–491.
Rothbart, M. K., Ziaie, H., & O’Boyle, C. G. (1992). Self-
regulation and emotion in infancy. New
Directions in Child and Adolescent Development, 55, 7–23.
Rupp, D. E., & Spencer, S. (2006). When customers lash out:
The effects of customer interactional
injustice on emotional labor and the mediating role of discrete
emotions. Journal of Applied
Saarni, C. (1979). Children’s understanding of display rules for
expressive behavior. Developmental
Safdar, S., Friedlmeier, W., Matsumoto, D., Yoo, S. H.,
Kwantes, C. T., Kakai, H., et al. (2009).
Variations of emotional display rules within and across
cultures: A comparison between Canada,
USA, and Japan. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 41,

1–10.
Salmivalli, C., Lagerspetz, K., Bjorkquist, K., Osterman, K., &
Kaukiainen, A. (1996). Bullying as a
group process: Participant roles and their relations to social
status within the group. Aggressive
Behavior, 22, 1–15.
Soc. Psychol., 20: 480–496 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/casp
Schwartz, D., & Proctor, L. J. (2000). Community violence
exposure and children’s social adjustment
in the school peer group: The mediating roles of emotion
regulation and social cognition. Journal
of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68, 670–683.
Seals, D., & Young, J. (2003). Bullying and victimization:
prevalence and relationship to gender,
Grade level, ethnicity, self-esteem, and depression.
Adolescence, 38, 735–747.
Shaw, L. A., & Wainryb, C. (2006). When victims don’t cry:
Children’s understanding of
victimization, compliance, and subversion. Child Development,
77, 1050–1062.
Shields, A., & Cicchetti, D. (1997). Emotion self-regulation in
school-age children: The development
of a new criterion Q-sort scale. Developmental Psychology, 33,

906–916.
Shields, A., & Cicchetti, D. (1998). Reactive aggression among
maltreated children: The contribution
of attention and emotion dysregulation. Journal of Clinical
Child Psychology, 27, 381–395.
Shields, A., & Cicchetti, D. (2001). Parental maltreatment and
emotion dysregulation as risk factors
for bullying and victimization in middle childhood. Journal of
Clinical Child Psychology, 30, 349–
363.
Shields, A., Dickstein, S., Seifer, R., Giusti, L., Magee, K. D.,
& Spritz, B. (2001). Emotional
competence and school adjustment: A study of preschoolers at
risk. Early Education and
Development 12, 73–96.
Shipman, K., Zeman, J., & Penza, S. (2000). Emotion
management skills in sexually maltreated and
nonmaltreared girls: A developmental psychopathology
perspective. Development and Psycho-
pathology, 12, 47–62.
Smith, P., Cowie, H., Olafsson, R. F., & Liefooghe, A. P. D.
(2002). Definitions of bullying: A
Comparison of terms used, and age and gender differences in a
fourteen country international
comparison. Child Development, 73, 1119–1133.
Sourander, A., Helstela, L., Helenius, H., & Piha, J. (2000).
Persistence of bullying from childhood to
adolescence–A longitudinal 8-year follow-up study. Child
Abuse and Neglect, 24, 873–881.

Sullivan, T., Helms, S. W., Kliewer, W., & Goodman, K. L.
(2010). Associations between sadness and
anger regulation coping, emotional expression, and physical and
relational aggression among
urban adolescents. Social Development, 19, 30–51.
Tremblay, R. (2000). The development of aggressive behavior
during childhood: What have we
learned in the past century? International Journal of Behavioral
Underwood, M. (2003). Social aggression among girls. New
York, NY: Guilford Press.
Underwood, M., Coie, J., & Herbsman, C. (1992). Display rules
for anger and aggression in school-
age children. Child Development, 63, 366–380.
West, S. G., Finch, J. F., & Curran, P. J. (1995). Structural
equation models with nonnormal variables:
Problems and remedies In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural
equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and
applications. (pp. 56–75). Newbury Oaks, CA: Sage.
Whitney, I., & Smith, P. (1993). A survey of the nature and
extent of bullying in junior/middle and
secondary schools. Educational Research, 35, 3–25.
Wolke, D., Woods, S., Bloomfield, L., & Karstadt, L. (2000).
The association between direct and
relational bullying and behaviour problems among primary
school children. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 41, 989–1002.
Zeman, J., & Garber, J. (1996). Display rules for anger,
sadness, and pain: It depends on who I
watching. Child Development, 67, 957–973.

Zeman, J., Klimes-Dougan, B., & Cassano, M. (2007).
Measurement issues in emotion research with
children and adolescents. Clinical Psychology: Science and
Practice, 14, 377–401.
Soc. Psychol., 20: 480–496 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/casp
Copyright of Journal of Community & Applied Social
Psychology is the property of John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or
posted to a listserv without the copyright
holder's express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.
SLIDE 1: Introduction •
General Topic
– Background
– Purpose
– Significance (Gap in the Literature)
– Research Question
– Hypothesis
SLIDE 2: Literature Review •
Concept/Topic /Excerpt A
– Reference of cited article in APA format

Concept /Topic/Excerpt B
SLIDE3: Methods: Conceptual Framework
1. In the chart below, list two of the main variables in the study.
2. In the chart below, list the indicators for each variable.
Variable 1: List here
Variable 2: List here
Indicators
Indicators
List indicators here
List indicators here
4. State the Null Hypothesis.
5. What other variables are they measuring? (List)
SLIDE4:Methods: Sampling
Term

Description in Article
Population (N)
Sample (n)
Probability or Non-Probability Sampling
Specific Type of Sampling Method(s) Used
Description of sampling methods (excerpt from article)
1. Was a Sampling Frame used to select the sample?
2. Is the sample representative of the population?
SLIDE5:Qualitative Data Collection
1. Imagine you plan to collect qualitative data for your study,
then complete the chart below.
2. List the one or two variables you plan to measure
qualitatively?__________
Methods
State...
Answer
Field
Oberservation
Who/Where/What would you observe?
Interview
Who would you interview? List three 3 questions you would ask
(only 1 can be closed).
Who:
1.
2.
3.

Unobtrusive
What kind of archival data would you collect?
SLIDE 6: Quantitative Data Collection
1. Imagine you plan to collect quantitative data for your study,
then complete the chart below
Variable
Question
Level of
Measurement
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
SLIDE7:Methodology: Data Analysis
Data Analysis: Descriptive Statistics
– Quantitative Analysis Techniques Used

Name of Variable
Categorical or Continuous
Type of Descriptive Statistic
Example (page #)
1.
2.
3.
4.
SLIDE 8
Methodology: Data Analysis
Type of Statistic
Name of Variables
Categorical and/or Continuous
Example (page #)
1. Correlation
2. Chi-Square

3. T-test
Slide 9
Findings
List three main findings from your study (include page
numbers)
– Main result 1
– Main result 2
– Main result 3
SLIDE 10
Discussion and Conclusion
Discussion
– Does research support previous studies in the literature
review?
• Include excerpt to confirm.
• Conclusion
– Recommendation for Policy, Program, and/or Future
Research
Slide 11
Limitations
• Describe the weaknesses of the study AND recommend
improvements (alternatives) by answering the following
questions:
– Conceptualization & Operationalization
• What could have been improved in regard to the:
– Introduction
– Literature Review
– Methodology

• What could have been improved regarding the:
– Conceptual Framework
– Sampling design
– Data Collection
– Data Analysis
– What other recommendations do you have?

Emotional Display Rules and EmotionSelf-Regulation Associat.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Emotional Display Rules and EmotionSelf-Regulation Associat.docx

Similar to Emotional Display Rules and EmotionSelf-Regulation Associat.docx (19)

More from jack60216

More from jack60216 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Emotional Display Rules and EmotionSelf-Regulation Associat.docx