Anger Regulation and Social Acceptance in Early Adolescence

Abstract

Anger regulation among adolescents is important to investigate given theoretical and empirical support for its critical association with peer relationships. This study examined two aspects of anger regulation (i.e., inhibition, dysregulation) using self-report and peer-nominations and their associations with social acceptance among 163 Black and White adolescents ( $\bar{X}$ = 13.87 years). We explored gender and ethnicity differences in anger regulation predicting peer acceptance. Self-reports and peer-nominations of anger regulation were significantly correlated. Within-gender ethnicity differences in anger regulation were found: White girls reported higher levels of anger inhibition than Black girls, and Black girls reported higher levels of anger dysregulation than White girls. For all adolescents, self-reports and nominations of anger inhibition were associated with higher levels of social acceptance, whereas nominations of anger dysregulation predicted lower social acceptance. The results indicate the importance of considering gender and ethnicity in adolescents’ anger management within peer contexts.

Keywords

anger adolescence ER ethnicity social acceptance

The functionalist theory of emotional development (Barrett & Campos, 1987; Campos, Campos, & Barrett, 1989; Campos, Frankel, & Camras, 2004) seeks to understand emotion from within an interpersonal context with an emphasis on the key role of emotion regulation (ER) in children’s and adolescents’ social relationships. That is, as children develop, they learn how to strategically manage their emotions to meet their intra- and interpersonal goals within social relationships that also meet cultural norms regarding emotional expressivity (Saarni, 1999). Through repeated socialization experiences, particularly within parent and peer relationships, youth develop expectancies regarding the anticipated response of others to their emotional displays that then guide future decisions regarding ER (Zeman, Cassano, & Adrian, 2013).

The development of ER skills during early childhood has been a focus of much research, whereas studies examining ER during adolescence are only beginning to emerge (e.g., Klimes-Dougan et al., 2014; Legerski, Biggs, Greenhoot, & Sampilo, 2015; Perry-Parrish & Zeman, 2011). ER has been defined in the developmental literature as “the extrinsic and intrinsic processes responsible for monitoring, evaluating, and modifying emotional reactions . . . to accomplish one’s goals” (Thompson, 1994, pp. 27-28). As such, it is important to note that ER is not synonymous with emotional control, inhibition, restraint, or suppression, as these terms do not appropriately capture the broad, dynamic nature of ER (e.g., Cole, Zahn-Waxler, & Smith, 1994). Nonetheless, the ability to modify one’s emotional responses within a social context constitutes an important component of ER. Furthermore, demographic variables such as age, gender, and ethnicity are parts of the tapestry that comprise important aspects of social context that influence cultural and individual norms for ER (Saarni, 1999).

Adolescence is a particularly important and interesting period of development to investigate ER because of the increasing importance of various social relationships, such as those within the peer group and within close friendships (e.g., Brechwald & Prinstein, 2011). Anger is a frequently experienced emotion, yet little is known about how adolescents manage its expression to meet social goals within the peer group and friendship contexts (von Salisch & Vogelgesang, 2005; von Salisch, Zeman, Luepschen, & Kanevski, 2014). Adolescents’ expected social consequences for expressing anger is likely influenced by changing social demands (Zeman, Cassano, & Adrian, 2013; Zeman & Shipman, 1997) given that this developmental period is characterized by increases in self-consciousness and awareness, and efforts to appear indomitable (e.g., Youniss & Smollar, 1989). The goal of the present study was to investigate the management of anger displays among White and Black adolescent peer groups by examining two aspects of anger regulation: the control or suppression of anger displays (i.e., inhibition) and the unconcealed, undercontrolled expression of anger experience (i.e., dysregulation). The associations among early adolescents’ regulation of anger and peer social acceptance were investigated as a function of gender and ethnicity.

Importance of Anger Regulation in Early Adolescence

According to the functionalist theory, specific emotions are defined by their unique appraisals, goals, action tendencies, and functions within the social context (Campos et al., 1989). The primary appraisals associated with anger are perceived goal blockage, unfairness, blame of others for causing an undesired state, and desire to control a situation (Kuppens, Van Mechelen, Smits, & De Boeck, 2003). Antagonism is the main action tendency of anger, with the goal of changing an unpleasant situation, removing obstacles blocking one’s goals, or assigning blame (to others or oneself) for undesired circumstances (Kuppens et al., 2003). Perhaps due to these antagonistic action tendencies, anger is often viewed as an aversive emotion with the potential to create disharmony within social relationships (von Salisch & Vogelgesang, 2005).

The functionalist theoretical approach to studying emotion may offer an explanation for why particular forms of anger regulation may be adaptive in certain social contexts. For example, being able to dampen or inhibit anger displays may facilitate harmonious relationships. A recent study found that best friends in the seventh grade who reported redirecting their attention to more neutral activities when angry at each other were able to maintain their friendships over time (von Salisch et al., 2014). In contrast, overt, undercontrolled displays of anger may be inconsistent with and violate social partners’ expectations of a social interchange and consequently be interpreted as socially unacceptable. As noted by Fabes and colleagues (1999), “socially competent children display emotions that are responsive to group norms and strike a balance between their own desires and interests and those of other children” (p. 432). Thus, adaptive regulation of anger (e.g., emotional expressivity that is consistent with social norms) is likely associated with optimal social functioning, whereas norm violations may be linked to poorer social functioning. Although it cannot be assumed that adolescent social norms will consistently support healthy behavioral functioning, gender and ethnic violations of emotion norms for anger expressivity may disrupt social interactions and peer acceptance.

Associations of Anger Regulation With Gender and Ethnicity

Gender Differences in Anger Regulation

Across studies on ER during childhood and adolescence, findings suggest gender differences in the expression and management of emotion (e.g., Rose & Rudolph, 2006; Zeman et al., 2013). More specifically, there is evidence in middle childhood among predominantly White youth that boys generally tend to control vulnerable types of emotion (e.g., sadness) more frequently than girls (Zeman & Garber, 1996); boys are also more likely to overtly express feelings of anger compared with girls (Jones, Eisenberg, Fabes, & MacKinnon, 2002). Research using a game context with White families indicates that parents, and especially fathers, are more attentive to males’ displays of disharmonious emotions (e.g., anger, laughing at others) during the early school years compared with vulnerable types of emotions (e.g., sadness, anxiety), suggesting that parental socialization pressures may contribute to these gender differences (Chaplin, Cole, & Zahn-Waxler, 2005). This pattern was not observed during the preschool period (Chaplin et al., 2005), suggesting that gender socialization may change with development. In addition, there is evidence that particular displays of emotion are differentially associated with popularity and peer acceptance for boys and girls. For example, within a largely White sample, elementary school–age girls who were more adept at substitution of one emotion for another (e.g., smiling rather than grimacing) were better accepted by other girls, and boys who were more skilled in neutralization (e.g., masking) of emotion were better accepted overall (Young & Zeman, 2003). These results suggest that boys and girls are cognizant of the different emotional expressivity standards as a function of gender and consequently use different ER skills to gain peer social acceptance. However, this hypothesis has not been well studied among adolescents, when the development of self-identity and peer relationships are in flux. Thus, the first goal of the current study is to examine gender differences in anger regulation in early adolescence, with the focus on anger because of the strong social norms and expectations guiding appropriate management of anger displays (e.g., von Salisch & Vogelgesang, 2005).

Ethnicity and Anger Regulation

Examination of ethnicity and its relations to ER is becoming an important area of research inquiry. A growing body of work has investigated ER among Black youth (e.g., Armstead & Clark, 2002; Garner & Spears, 2000; Hall, Cassidy, & Stevenson, 2008; Hubbard, 2001; Kliewer et al., 2004; Perry-Parrish & Zeman, 2011; Sullivan, Helms, Kliewer, & Goodman, 2010). Patterns of results in this research tend to exhibit convergence with previous research conducted with White youth in regard to anger antecedents and associated responses. For example, there is evidence that low- and middle-income children endorse similar elicitors of anger (e.g., physical provocation, items taken away) as well as similar behavioral responses to such events (e.g., revenge, venting; Garner & Spears, 2000). However, some research suggests the presence of ethnic differences in the regulation strategies used by youth to manage their anger displays. For example, there is some evidence that Black children demonstrate lower levels of anger expressivity and higher levels of anger control compared with White children (e.g., Steele, Elliott, & Phipps, 2003), perhaps due in part to concerns of racial stigmatization. Other researchers theorize that negative societal factors (e.g., high unemployment, discrimination), experienced more frequently by minority groups, may contribute to a higher level of generalized anger experience toward society (Stevenson, 1997). This generalized anger may lead to difficulty adjusting to the social demands of the environment of the dominant culture and, in turn, increase the likelihood of engaging in behaviors that are discrepant from those expected. Clearly, more research is needed to better understand the transactions among ER, ethnicity, and psychosocial adversity. Nevertheless, despite inconsistent evidence in regard to ethnic differences in ER strategies, there is evidence that expressions of negative emotion (including anger) are inversely related to ratings of social competence in African American youth (Perry-Parrish, Waasdorp, & Bradshaw, 2012), suggesting that the interplay between emotional and social competence is similar across ethnic groups. Some researchers have proposed that ER may influence the relation between exposure to risk and healthy developmental outcomes for Black youth (Barbarin, 1993). For these reasons, the second goal of the current study is to explore the association between ethnicity and anger regulation (i.e., inhibition, dysregulation).

As noted above, studies of White youth suggest an increasingly important influence of gender across development. However, few studies have focused on the interaction between gender and ethnicity in ER. In addition, results from these studies have been mixed with some suggesting that Black boys display more overt anger than their female counterparts in middle childhood (Hubbard, 2001), some studies indicating no gender differences during adolescence (Armstead & Clark, 2002; Hall et al., 2008), and other research demonstrating that Black adolescent boys are more likely than girls to report inhibiting anger (Underwood, Coie, & Herbsman, 1992). Finally, a recent study investigated the links between anger regulation and aggressive behavior among urban, predominantly Black adolescents (Sullivan et al., 2010). Anger regulation coping moderated the links between reluctance to express emotions and physical aggression for boys only. This pattern would suggest that ER decisions are important determinants of aggression and may vary in salience by gender (Sullivan et al., 2010). The inconsistencies in findings related to gender by ethnicity interactions in anger expression may reflect differences in methodology (e.g., observation vs. self-report), social contextual sample differences, or changes in development over time. The current study sought to focus on the important intersection of anger regulation, gender, and ethnicity using an early adolescent age sample of Black and White youth. Importantly, we examined the Gender × Ethnicity interaction in anger regulation within the peer social context.

Links Between Anger Regulation and Social Functioning

Several studies have documented the links between social acceptance and emotional expressivity during the elementary school years (e.g., Hubbard, 2001; Jones et al., 2002; Underwood, 1997) with little research examining this linkage during adolescence. In a study of elementary school–age children (52% White, 26% Latino, 17% Black), teacher-rated social competence was inversely associated with expressed anger (Jones et al., 2002). Underwood (1997) recruited a sample of primarily White youth in Grades 2, 4, and 6, and found that they expected negative responses to expressing anger. There was a trend for rejected children to express their anger more openly than children with average social status. Likewise, Hubbard (2001) found that socially rejected children expressed more anger than average status children in a predominantly Black sample of second-grade children (e.g., longer duration facial displays, more intense anger displays). Less is known, however, about the ER of adolescents, particularly regarding the management of anger that is distinct from aggressive behavior.

Understanding how adolescents regulate anger within social relationships is important because this developmental period is characterized by a number of changes that impact functioning within social, cognitive, and psychological domains. Given that adolescence marks a period in which peer relationships become increasingly salient (Hubbard & Dearing, 2004), it is critical to delineate the potential role of anger regulation in peer contexts and how it affects such factors as social acceptance. For example, Zeman and Shipman (1997) used a cross-sectional design with a sample of predominantly White youth and found that eighth-grade adolescents reported controlling expressions of anger more frequently with their mothers than with fathers or best friends compared with fifth-grade peers. Interestingly, regardless of age, youth believed that it is more difficult to successfully control anger than sadness. These findings suggest that the decision to manage the display of emotion depends on several components, including the specific emotion being expressed (e.g., anger vs. sadness), one’s self-efficacy regarding the ability to dampen or inhibit an emotion, the person to whom one is expressing the emotion (e.g., peers, best friend), and the expected interpersonal response from the social partner (e.g., support, ridicule).

Conversely, expressing overt anger to friends has been associated with decreased friendship closeness and satisfaction (Laursen & Hafan, 2010; von Salisch & Vogelgesang, 2005). There is evidence that likability is inversely related to overt anger incidents in young children (Eisenberg & Fabes, 1992) and adolescents (von Salisch et al., 2014). Interestingly, despite demonstrated differences in the expression of anger to friends, little research has examined these relations as a function of ethnicity or the interaction between gender and ethnicity. These interactions are important to examine as cultural differences due to racial or ethnic designation may influence the acceptability of anger displays within peer contexts. Thus, the third goal of the current study is to examine whether associations between adolescents’ anger regulation and peer social acceptance differ for Black and White boys and girls in middle school using both self- and peer-report. Given the importance of preference for same-sex peers during early adolescence, we evaluated acceptance using same-sex nominations only.

As highlighted by the goals above, the overarching aims of the current study are to examine gender and ethnicity differences in anger regulation. We obtained information by self-report and peer nominations and examined each source of data separately given the literature that indicates that each type of reporter provides a valuable and unique perspective that provides a more complete understanding of anger regulation (De Los Reyes & Kazdin, 2005; Kerr, Lunkenheimer, & Olson, 2007). Based on the available theoretical and empirical literature, the following hypotheses were generated. First, we hypothesized that anger regulation would differ between boys and girls such that boys would be more likely express anger in dysregulated ways than girls, and that girls inhibit anger than boys (Underwood et al., 1992; Zeman & Shipman, 1997). Second, we expected Gender × Ethnicity interactions in anger regulation, but based on the mixed findings in the literature, we speculated that Black girls express their anger in more over ways than White girls. Third, we hypothesized that peer social acceptance would be associated with anger regulation such that anger dysregulation would be associated with lower levels of social acceptance, whereas anger inhibition would be associated with higher levels of social acceptance (Jones et al., 2002). Finally, we explored the interaction between gender and ethnicity in anger regulation in relation to associations with social acceptance without generating specific hypotheses due to mixed results in previous studies regarding the interactions between gender and ethnicity (Stevenson, 1997; Underwood et al., 1992).

Method

Participants

Participants were 163 early adolescents (50% female, 55% Black) who were in Grades 7 and 8 ( $\bar{X}$ = 13.87 years, SD = 0.89 years) in 11 classrooms from two neighboring public school districts in a small urban area in the southeast region of the United States. There was a significant ethnicity difference in mean age for boys, with Black boys approximately 8 months older than White boys, t(79) = 3.49, p = .01. The schools differed significantly in ethnicity representation, t(161) = 8.16, p = .01. (See Table 1 for descriptive statistics.) Each school had a predominant representation by one ethnic group, with students typically in ethnically homogeneous classrooms (77% of students were of majority status within their schools). Ethnicity representation of our sample mirrored the general composition of each school. One middle school had predominantly White students (i.e., 78% White, 21% Black), with 31% of the students eligible for free or reduced meals. There were 65 participants from this school (51 White, 14 Black). The other middle school enrolled predominantly Black students (i.e., 76% Black, 23% White), with 65% of the middle school students eligible for free or reduced lunch. There were 98 participants from this school (75 Black, 23 White). Classroom participation rate ranged from 50% to 100% for 11 classrooms ( $\bar{X}$ = 62.3%), which exceeds the 40% participation rate criterion when using unlimited nominations (Terry, 2000).

Table 1.

Sample Characteristics by Gender, Age, and Ethnicity.

Gender	N (%)Overall	N (%)Black	N (%)White	Mean age (SD)in years
Females	82 (50.3)	44 (53.7)	38 (46.3)	13.81 (0.85)
$\bar{X}$ age		13.91 (0.94)	13.71 (0.75)
Males	81 (49.7)	45 (55.6)	36 (44.4)	13.94 (0.92)
$\bar{X}$ age		14.24 (0.82)^a	13.57 (0.91)^a

Note. Mean age and SD are in years. Percentages reflect participation rate of the total adolescent sample for each category.

There was a significant effect of ethnicity by gender for boys in age, t(77) = 3.41, p = .001; there was not a significant difference in age by gender, t(161)=.94, p=.35.

Measures

Adolescents’ self-reported anger regulation

Adolescents completed the Children’s Anger Management Scale (CAMS; Zeman, Shipman, & Penza-Clyve, 2001) that includes 11 items rated on a 3-point Likert-type scale (hardly ever, sometimes, often). Three subscales assess a range of ER behaviors: inhibition, the overcontrol or suppression of emotional expression (i.e., “I hold my anger in”); ER coping, the use of constructive means to manage and control emotional behavior (i.e., “I stay calm and keep my cool when I’m feeling mad”); and dysregulated expression, overt, undercontrolled expressions of emotion (i.e., “I do things like slam doors when I’m mad”). In order to create parallel self-report and peer-report assessments of anger regulation, reverse-scored coping items were combined with dysregulation items to form a scale that reflected dysregulated displays of anger. The new seven-item dysregulation factor had sufficient internal consistency (α = .73) as did the four-item inhibition factor (α = .72).

Peer nominations of anger regulation

Adolescents completed a two-item unlimited peer nomination measure to assess their perceptions of their peers’ anger inhibition and dysregulation. The peer nomination assessment of anger regulation was based on previous research that has used peer evaluations (Crick, 1997). Unlimited, rather than limited, nominations were used because more children could be evaluated by their peers, potentially resulting in a more precise assessment and improving reliability (Terry, 2000). Youth were provided with a class roster of students who had parental permission to participate and were asked to nominate an unlimited number of classmates who exhibit anger inhibition or dysregulation. To assess anger inhibition, youth circled the names of peers in response to the following question: “Who manages their angry feelings the best? For example, who doesn’t get out of control when they’re angry, such as losing their temper?” For anger dysregulation, youth were asked to circle the names of peers in response to the question, “Who manages their angry feelings the worst? For example, who gets out of control when they’re angry, such as losing their temper?” Although adolescents could be nominated for both items, correlational analyses indicated that this was not typical (boys: r = −.68, p = .001; girls: r = −.70, p = .001). A proportional score (i.e., number of same-sex nominations received divided by total possible number of same-sex nominations) was calculated for each participant for each item by rater sex within the classroom, to yield same-sex proportional ratings. Higher scores indicate that an adolescent was nominated more frequently by his or her peers for the item.

Analytic strategy for peer nomination data

Most research using peer nominations has used same-sex nominations given the evidence that same-sex friendships are more common than other-sex friendships during early adolescence (e.g., Bukowski, Gauze, Hoza, & Newcomb, 1993) and because school-age children and adolescents demonstrate a greater liking of their same-sex peers (Card, Hodges, Little, & Hawley, 2005). Moreover, recent evidence suggests that there are important differences in the associations between same-sex and other-sex peer nominations and social-emotional constructs (e.g., Dijkstra, Lindenberg, & Veenstra, 2007). For the current study, we restricted our analyses to same-sex nominations.

Regarding anger management nominations, paired samples t tests were conducted to examine whether girls’ and boys’ ratings varied by gender of the rater. A marginally significant difference was found for girls’ nominations, but not boys’. Girls were rated by other girls as displaying marginally higher levels of anger inhibition ( $\bar{X}$ = 0.40, SD = 0.33) than when rated by boys ( $\bar{X}$ = 0.35, SD = 0.28), t(80) = 1.84, p = .07. There were no differences in anger dysregulation ratings by gender. Thus, we chose to focus on the associations between same-sex peer ratings of anger regulation and social acceptance.

Social acceptance

Youth completed a standard peer sociometric rating measure (Terry, 2000) on participating classmates in which they were asked to rate “How much do you like to participate in activities with each person at school?” (1 = I don’t like to and 5 = I like to a lot). A proportional same-sex social acceptance score was calculated for each participant such that scores were computed by sex within classroom to provide same-sex ratings.

Analytic strategy for social acceptance data

Independent samples t tests were conducted to examine whether girls’ and boys’ ratings of social acceptance varied by gender and ethnicity. A within-gender positive rater bias was found. For social acceptance, girls rated other girls ( $\bar{X}$ = 3.55, SD = 0.71) more positively than they rated boys ( $\bar{X}$ = 2.77, SD = 0.78), t(155) = −6.52, p = .001. Likewise, boys rated other boys ( $\bar{X}$ = 3.48, SD = 0.72) higher than they rated girls ( $\bar{X}$ = 2.94, SD = 0.78), t(155) = 4.63, p = .001. Regarding ethnicity, Black boys received higher same-sex social acceptance scores ( $\bar{X}$ = 3.66, SD = 0.72) than did White boys ( $\bar{X}$ = 3.27, SD = 0.68), t(79) = −2.47, p = .02, whereas there were no ethnicity differences for girls.

Procedure

This study was approved by the university’s institutional review board (IRB). Youth were recruited by sending letters of interest home from the school. Prior to participation, parents provided consent, and adolescents provided verbal assent. As part of a larger study, youth with parental permission to participate completed questionnaires in their classrooms in a 45-minute session administered by trained research assistants. Only youth with consent were included in the peer nomination procedures. Adolescents received a small gift for participating.

Results

Missing Data

Data on age were missing for three participants for which a mean value was used based on their specific ages and ethnicity. Subsequent analyses were run using this imputation. There were no other instances of missing data.

Analytic Plan

First, inferential analyses (i.e., multivariate and univariate analyses of variance) were conducted to identify potential gender, ethnicity, and school differences among anger regulation variables. The following dependent variables were examined: (a) self-reported anger management (i.e., CAMS inhibition and dysregulation) and (b) peer nominations of anger management (i.e., inhibition and dysregulation). Second, a series of correlations and four regressions were calculated to examine associations between anger regulation variables and peer-rated social acceptance separately by informant (i.e., self-report, peer nominations).

Gender, Ethnicity, and School Differences in Anger Regulation

Self-reported anger inhibition and dysregulation

Gender × Ethnicity × School MANOVAs were conducted to examine CAMS inhibition and dysregulation scores (see Table 2). A significant Gender × Ethnicity interaction emerged, F(2, 149) = 3.88, p = .02, η_p² = .049, that was found for anger inhibition, F(1, 158) = 6.93, p = .01, and dysregulation, F(1, 158) = 5.34, p = .02. With respect to anger inhibition, interpreting the Gender × Ethnicity interaction by examining ethnicity differences within gender, White girls ( $\bar{X}$ = 2.03, SD = 0.39) rated themselves as having higher levels of anger inhibition than Black girls ( $\bar{X}$ = 1.79, SD = 0.50), t(80) = 2.37, p = .02, with no significant ethnicity effects for boys. Regarding anger dysregulation, examining ethnicity differences within gender, Black girls ( $\bar{X}$ = 2.01, SD = 0.38) reported higher levels of anger dysregulation than White girls ( $\bar{X}$ = 1.83, SD = 0.44), t(78) = 2.37, p = .05, with no significant effect for boys.

Table 2.

MANOVA of Self-Report Anger Regulation.

Variable or interaction	Hypdf	Errordf	F	p	Boys’ $\bar{X}$ (SDs)				Girls’ $\bar{X}$ (SD)
					Black		White		Black		White
					Sch1	Sch2	Sch1	Sch2	Sch1	Sch2	Sch1	Sch2
CAMS—Inhibition
Gender	2	149	0.04	.85	1.93 (0.58)	2.21 (0.71)	1.97 (0.46)	1.80 (0.42)	1.76 (0.51)	1.91 (0.46)	2.25 (0.23)	1.97 (0.41)
Ethnicity	2	149	0.05	.83
School	2	149	0.10	.76
Gender × Ethnicity	2	149	6.93	.01
Gender × School	2	149	0.15	.70
Ethnicity × School	2	149	6.28	.01
Gender × Ethnicity × School	2	149	0.08	.78
CAMS—Dysregulation
Gender	2	149	2.73	.10	1.78 (0.49)	1.55 (0.61)	1.81 (0.41)	1.99 (0.42)	2.00 (0.39)	2.02 (0.43)	1.86 (0.56)	1.82 (0.41)
Ethnicity	2	149	0.13	.72
School	2	149	0.05	.83
Gender × Ethnicity	2	149	5.34	.02
Gender × School	2	149	0.01	.92
Ethnicity × School	2	149	1.08	.30
Gender × Ethnicity × School	2	149	1.72	.19

Note. CAMS = Children’s Anger Management Scale; Sch = school; Hyp = hypothesized.

Given the goals of the study, the interactions were also interpreted by examining gender differences within ethnicity. Specifically, White girls ( $\bar{X}$ = 2.03, SD = 0.39) rated themselves as having higher levels of anger inhibition than White boys ( $\bar{X}$ = 1.81, SD = 0.45), t(72) = −2.17, p = .03, with no significant gender effects for Black youth. Regarding anger dysregulation, Black girls ( $\bar{X}$ = 2.01, SD = 0.38) reported higher levels of dysregulation than Black boys ( $\bar{X}$ = 1.74, SD = 0.50), t(86) = −2.86, p = .005, with no significant gender differences for White youth.

There was a significant Ethnicity × School interaction, F(2, 149) = 3.27, p = .04, η_p² = .042, that emerged for anger inhibition, F(1, 158) = 6.28, p = .013. Examining ethnicity differences within school indicated a marginally significant effect, t(92) = 1.73, p = .09, such that White boys endorsed higher levels of anger inhibition than Black boys in the predominantly Black school, with no ethnicity differences in the predominantly White school. There were no significant ethnicity differences for girls.

Peer nominations of anger management

A Gender × Ethnicity × School MANOVA was conducted with peer nominations of anger inhibition and dysregulation as the dependent variables (see Table 3). There were no significant interactions or main effects for school. A marginally significant Gender × Ethnicity interaction effect emerged, F(2, 157) = 2.95, p = .07, η_p² = .034. Given our theoretical focus on social contextual interactions between gender and ethnicity, the interaction was probed further. With respect to peer nominations of anger inhibition, the Gender × Ethnicity interaction was interpreted by examining ethnicity differences within gender, F(1, 162) = 5.30, p = .02. White girls ( $\bar{X}$ = 0.49, SD = 0.29) were rated by their same sex peers as having higher levels of anger inhibition than Black girls ( $\bar{X}$ = 0.33, SD = 0.35), t(79) = 2.18, p = .03, with no significant ethnicity effects for boys. There were no significant effects for peer nominations of anger dysregulation.

Table 3.

Peer Nominated Anger Regulation MANOVA Findings.

Variable or interaction	Hypdf	Errordf	F	P	Boys’ $\bar{X}$ (SDs)				Girls’ $\bar{X}$ (SDs)
					Black		White		Black		White
					Sch1	Sch2	Sch1	Sch2	Sch1	Sch2	Sch1	Sch2
Peer nomination—Inhibition
Gender	2	153	0.53	.47	0.44 (0.29)	0.56 (0.22)	0.36 (0.24)	0.40 (0.30)	0.34 (0.36)	0.29 (0.32)	0.46 (0.31)	0.49 (0.28)
Ethnicity	2	153	0.12	.73
School	2	153	0.38	.55
Gender × Ethnicity	2	153	5.30	.02
Gender × School	2	153	0.49	.48
Ethnicity × School	2	153	0.001	.98
Gender × Ethnicity × School	2	153	0.41	.53
Peer nomination—Dysregulation
Gender	2	153	2.26	.14	0.22 (0.26)	0.15 (0.23)	0.25 (0.26)	0.19 (0.22)	0.33 (0.34)	0.34 (0.27)	0.32 (0.24)	0.15 (0.17)
Ethnicity	2	153	0.38	.54
School	2	153	1.91	.17
Gender × Ethnicity	2	153	1.74	.19
Gender × School	2	153	0.03	.87
Ethnicity × School	2	153	0.72	.40
Gender × Ethnicity × School	2	153	0.82	.37

Note. Sch = school; Hyp = hypothesized.

The Gender × Ethnicity interaction was interpreted by examining gender differences within ethnicity. Regarding peer nominations of anger inhibition, there was a marginally significant effect for Black boys ( $\bar{X}$ = 0.46, SD = 0.28) to be nominated by their same-sex peers as displaying higher levels of anger inhibition than Black girls ( $\bar{X}$ = 0.33, SD = 0.35), t(87) = 1.88, p = .06, with no significant gender differences observed for White youth. Regarding anger dysregulation, there was a marginally significant effect for Black girls ( $\bar{X}$ = 0.33, SD = 0.33) to be nominated by other girls as displaying higher levels of anger dysregulation than Black boys ( $\bar{X}$ = 0.21, SD = 0.25), t(87) = −1.93, p = .06, with no gender differences for White youth.

Gender, Ethnicity, and Anger Regulation Facets Predict Peer Acceptance

Correlational analyses indicated that self-reported and peer-nominated anger inhibition were positively associated with social acceptance. Furthermore, interrater concordance between self-report and peer nominations was found (see Table 4). Specifically, self-reported anger inhibition was positively associated with peer nominations of anger inhibition and inversely associated with peer nominations of anger dysregulation. Self-rated anger dysregulation was inversely associated with peer-rated anger inhibition and positively associated with peer-rated anger dysregulation. Given the lack of research of peer perceptions of anger regulation and our interest in examining self-reports and peer nominations of youth anger regulation independently, both variables were retained for the regression analyses to allow evaluation of unique contributions of multiple informants (see Kerr et al., 2007).

Table 4.

Correlation Matrix of Self-Reported Anger Management, Peer Nominations of Anger Management, and Peer Acceptance (Overall).

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
1. Gender	—
2. Ethnicity	−.02	—
3. School	.13†	−.54**	—
4. CAMS inhibition	.00	−.04	−.01	—
5. CAMS dysregulation	.12	.00	.01	−.60**	—
6. Peer: Inhibition	−.04	−.07	.09	.32**	−.28**	—
7. Peer: Dysregulation	.09	.13†	−.16*	−.22**	.27**	−.69**	—
8. Social acceptance	.01	.19*	−.08	.16*	−.07	.19*	−.10	—

Note. CAMS = Children’s Anger Management Scale.

†

p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01.

Regressions

Four hierarchical multiple regressions were conducted to examine the contributions of self-reported and peer-nominated anger regulation (inhibition, dysregulation) in predicting same-sex peer acceptance. School was included as a covariate in all analyses. Gender and ethnicity main effects as well as gender and ethnicity interaction effects, on the associations between anger regulation and social acceptance were explored. The first two regressions used self-reported anger regulation variables (i.e., inhibition, dysregulation), and the last two regressions used peer nominations of anger regulation (i.e., inhibition, dysregulation). Steps for all regressions were as follows: Step 1 included gender, ethnicity, school, and anger regulation variable of interest; Step 2 included the two-way interactions between the anger regulation variable and gender or ethnicity (e.g., Dysregulation × Gender; Dysregulation × Ethnicity); and Step 3 included the three-way interactions between the anger regulation variable, gender, and ethnicity (e.g., Dysregulation × Gender × Ethnicity).

Self-reported anger regulation (inhibition, dysregulation)

For the models evaluating self-reported anger inhibition, the first step was significant, F(4, 154) = 2.63, p = .04, and explained 6.4% of the variance. Specifically, self-reported anger inhibition (β = .17, p = .04) and ethnicity (β = .22, p = .02; that is, Black) predicted higher levels of social acceptance. The steps including interaction effects were not significant and did not result in a significant improvement in variance explained (see Table 5). The model evaluating self-reported anger dysregulation was not significant (see Table 6).

Table 5.

Regression Analysis of Self-Reported Anger Inhibition Predicting Same-Sex Social Acceptance.

Predictors	Step 1			Step 2			Step 3
Predictors	B	SE B	β	B	SE B	β	B	SE B	β
Gender	.04	.12	.02	.02	.48	.01	.02	.48	.01
Ethnicity	.33	.14	.22*	−.43	.54	−.28	−.45	.54	−.29
School	.06	.15	.04	.01	.15	.01	.01	.15	.00
CAMS Inhibition	.25	.12	.17*	−.40	.47	−.26	−.46	.50	−.30
CAMS Inhibition × Gender				.03	.25	.04	.10	.31	.13
CAMS Inhibition × Ethnicity				.39	.26	.64	.42	.28	.68
CAMS Inhibition × Gender × Ethnicity							−.04	.13	−.09
Adjusted R²	.04*			.04†			.04†
F for change in Adjusted R²	2.63			1.09			0.12
Overall Model F, p	F = 2.63, p = .04			F = 2.12, p = .06			F = 1.82, p = .09

Note. CAMS = Children’s Anger Management Scale.

†

p < .10. *p ≤ .05. **p < .01.

Table 6.

Regression Analysis of Self-Reported Anger Dysregulation Predicting Same-Sex Social Acceptance.

Predictors	Step 1			Step 2			Step 3
Predictors	B	SE B	β	B	SE B	β	B	SE B	β
Gender	.02	.12	.02	−0.62	.54	−.40	−0.63	.55	−.41
Ethnicity	.32	.14	.21*	1.08	.54	.70*	1.06	.54	.69^†
School	.05	.15	.03	0.03	.15	.02	0.03	.15	.02
CAMS Dysregulation	−.13	.14	−.07	0.38	.49	.22	0.33	.51	.19
CAMS Dysregulation × Gender				0.36	.28	.48	0.46	.35	.61
CAMS Dysregulation × Ethnicity				−0.42	.28	−.66	−0.39	.29	−.60
CAMS Dysregulation × Gender × Ethnicity							−0.06	.13	.14
Adjusted R²	.02			.04^†			.03
F for change in Adjusted R²	1.80			2.37			0.23
Overall Model F, p	F = 1.80, p = .13			F = 2.00, p = .07			F = 1.74, p = .10

Note. CAMS = Children’s Anger Management Scale.

†

p < .10. *p ≤ .05. **p < .01.

Peer nominations of anger regulation (inhibition, dysregulation)

For the regression evaluating peer nominations of anger inhibition, the first step that tested the main effects was significant, F(4, 157) = 3.05, p = .02, and explained 7.2% of the variance. Specifically, inhibition (β = .20, p = .01) predicted higher levels of social acceptance. Although the second step was significant, F(6, 155) = 2.48, p = .03, it did not result in a significant F change; likewise, the third step was significant, F(7, 154) = 2.12, p = .05, but did not result in significant F change (see Table 7).

Table 7.

Regression Analysis of Peer Nominated Anger Inhibition Predicting Same-Sex Social Acceptance.

Predictors	Step 1			Step 2			Step 3
Predictors	B	SE B	β	B	SE B	β	B	SE B	B
Gender	.09	.11	.06	0.07	.19	.05	0.07	.20	.05
Ethnicity	.23	.13	.16^†	0.48	.21	.33*	0.47	.21	.33*
School	−.07	.14	−.05	−0.07	.14	−.05	−0.08	.14	−.05
Peer: Inhibition	.48	.18	.20**	1.48	.66	.63*	1.40	.78	.59^†
Peer: Inhibition × Gender				−0.04	.38	−.02	0.09	.79	.04
Peer: Inhibition × Ethnicity				−0.61	.38	−.46	−0.56	.46	−.42
Peer: Inhibition × Gender × Ethnicity							−0.09	.44	−.06
Adjusted R²	.05*			.05			.05
F for change in Adjusted R²	3.05			1.30			0.04
Overall Model F, p	F = 3.05, p = .02			F = 2.48, p = .03			F = 2.12, p = .05

†

p < .10. *p ≤ .05. **p < .01.

The model evaluating peer nominations of anger dysregulation was not significant (see Table 8); however, there was a marginally significant effect for the third step, F(7, 154) = 2.03, p = .055, explaining 8.4% of the variance, with a significant main effect of anger dysregulation (β = −.85, p = .02) and a marginally significant interaction of anger dysregulation and gender (β = .83, p = .057). The interaction was examined using Utilities for Examining Interactions in Multiple Regression (computer software; Sibley, 2008), which indicated that the slope for boys was nonsignificant, b = −.19, t(80) = −1.30, p = .20. However, for girls, the slope approached significance, b = .29, t(80) = 1.89, p = .06, such that girls who were nominated by their peers as dysregulated had greater same-sex peer acceptance (see Figure 1).

Table 8.

Regression Analysis of Peer Nominated Anger Dysregulation Predicting Same-Sex Social Acceptance.

Predictors	Step 1			Step 2			Step 3
Predictors	B	SE B	β	B	SE B	β	B	SE B	B
Gender	.09	.11	.07	−0.07	.15	−.05	−0.10	0.15	−.07
Ethnicity	.23	.14	.16^†	0.09	.18	.06	0.10	0.18	.07
School	−.07	.14	−.05	−0.09	.14	−.06	−0.09	0.14	−.06
Peer: Dysregulation	−.36	.22	−.13^†	−1.53	.83	−.56^†	−2.32	0.97	−.85*
Peer: Dysregulation × Gender				0.62	.44	.21	2.50	1.30	.83^†
Peer: Dysregulation × Ethnicity				0.49	.48	.33	1.00	0.58	.67^†
Peer: Dysregulation × Gender × Ethnicity							−1.08	0.71	−.67
Adjusted R²	.02			.04			.04
F for change in Adjusted R²	1.97			1.89			2.35
Overall Model F, p	F = 1.97, p = .10			F = 1.96, p = .08			F = 2.03, p = .06

†

p < .10. *p ≤ .05. **p < .01.

Figure 1.

Interaction of gender and peer nominations of anger dysregulation to predict same-sex social acceptance.

Discussion

The overarching goal of this study was to examine gender and ethnicity influences on adolescents’ management of their anger (i.e., inhibition, dysregulation) and their associations with same-sex peer social acceptance. Importantly, these relations were assessed via multiple informants (i.e., self, peer) because each can provide a unique perspective that adds incremental information (De Los Reyes & Kazdin, 2005). The present study replicates and extends previous work examining the relations between anger regulation and peer acceptance but chose to examine these associations by focusing on middle school–age adolescents given the increasing importance of peers to this age group and the relatively understudied status of this development period within the ER literature (Klimes-Dougan & Zeman, 2007).

Gender and Ethnicity Differences in Anger Regulation

Consistent with our hypothesis and with previous research (e.g., Underwood et al., 1992; Zeman & Garber, 1996), analyses indicated ethnicity differences within gender for both self-reported anger inhibition and dysregulation. These findings suggest that White girls report being less likely than Black girls to display anger overtly, with no ethnicity differences found for boys. Specifically, White girls endorsed higher levels of anger inhibition than Black girls, and Black girls reported higher levels of anger dysregulation than White girls. Peer nominations revealed a similar pattern although the findings must be interpreted with caution given the marginally significant finding. As such, White girls received more nominations for anger inhibition than Black girls, with no ethnicity differences emerging for boys. Studies evaluating both gender and ethnicity patterns of anger regulation are rare (see Underwood et al., 1992, for an exception), although in some studies that have used primarily White samples of adolescents, no gender differences in self-reported anger regulation differences have been noted (Zeman & Garber, 1996; Zeman & Shipman, 1997). However, these studies used vignette methods that were context-specific and did not specifically evaluate inhibition and dysregulation.

When interpreting the findings related to gender differences with ethnicity, gender differences were found primarily within the Black sample. That is, Black girls reported and were nominated by their peers as expressing dysregulated anger more than Black boys. The anger regulation patterns demonstrated by Black boys in our sample, characterized by less anger dysregulation than Black girls, may serve as a protective factor to shield them from possible discrimination and negative consequences in a variety of social situations, especially those involving authority figures such as teachers. Research suggests that Black boys may be socialized by their mothers to minimize the display of negative emotions, such as anger, because these emotional displays may be misinterpreted or viewed as unacceptable by members of the dominant culture (Nelson, Leerkes, O’Brien, Calkins, & Marcovitch, 2012). Although Black boys may rate themselves as displaying adequate emotional control through use of coping strategies such as humor, jokes, and self-reliance (Steward et al., 1998), their teachers may interpret these coping strategies as being disruptive and dysfunctional. The possible consequences of misinterpreted anger displays may be more negative for Black boys than for girls. For example, emotional expressions may be interpreted by teachers as dysfunctional and indicative of behavioral maladjustment (Thomas, Bierman, & Powers, 2011).

The validity of the within-gender ethnicity differences found in our study was strengthened by the convergence of findings from two reporters (i.e., self, peer). White girls endorsed and were nominated as displaying higher levels of anger inhibition than Black girls, and Black girls reported and were rated by peers as exhibiting higher levels of anger dysregulation than White girls. This suggests that White and Black girls may be socialized to express their anger in different ways. Cox, Van Velsor, and Hulgus (2004) have proposed an “anger diversion model” as a means for females to reduce the distress associated with the direct expression of anger, which is counter to traditional gender socialization for females. Using this model, it appears that White females may divert their anger through internalization (i.e., suppression of anger). In contrast, Black females may route their anger through externalization (i.e., dysregulated displays of anger, including overt expressions and magnified displays) or they may engage in assertive anger expression (i.e., unmodulated anger displays). Given the lack of research that explores the intersection of gender, race, and emotional socialization, the current study extends our understanding of these transactional contextual considerations. Moreover, our findings indicate the need for further research particularly on the mechanisms operating to produce these differences as a function of ethnicity.

Associations Between Anger Regulation and Peer Acceptance

As expected in light of previous research, the current study found significant associations between specific types of anger regulation and adolescents’ social functioning. Overall, self-reports and peer nominations of adolescents’ inhibition of anger were positively associated with and predictive of better social acceptance by same-sex peers. Previous research has focused on children’s expectations for the social consequences of emotional displays, with boys indicating that such displays would result in teasing and unsupportive responses from peers (Zeman & Shipman, 1997). Based on such findings, there may be a heightened pressure for boys during early adolescence to minimize emotional reactions, including those involving anger. However, it has been proposed that social norms discourage girls from displaying anger to conform to gendered expectations for maintaining politeness (Denham et al., 2003), which may contribute to less frequent displays of anger in peer social contexts such as school. For example, there is evidence that Black girls in elementary school report more frequent masking of anger compared with boys, but the opposite pattern emerges as youth progress into early adolescence (e.g., Underwood et al., 1992) and that girls are more concerned with the social implications of expressing anger compared with boys (Terwogt & Olthof, 1989).

In contrast to expectations, a clear pattern emerged indicating that self-reported and peer-rated anger inhibition predicted better social acceptance. There was a marginal trend suggesting that girls’ but not boys’ anger dysregulation nominations by peers predicted better social acceptance; however, this finding must be interpreted with caution, as it only approached significance. Although there were significant gender and ethnicity interactions in self-reports and peer nominations of anger regulation, these interaction effects were not found when investigating their association with social acceptance ratings. Although one’s ability to dampen displays of anger appears beneficial for early adolescents regardless of gender, the marginally significant findings implying that anger dysregulation is associated with higher social acceptance for girls is intriguing. It may be that expressing anger in overt but nonaggressive ways for girls is a way to demonstrate assertion and dominance, particularly for girls who previously had been socialized to inhibit direct displays of this emotion. Expressing anger through physical aggression by girls has generally been deemed as unacceptable (Crick, 1997), but perhaps expressing intense emotion through words and behaviors (e.g., stomping feet, slamming doors) is accepted and even valued by girls during the transition to early adolescence.

Our study addressed a number of previous gaps in the literature. Studies on anger regulation, distinct from a focus on aggressive behavior, in this age group remain scarce. An examination of anger may illuminate the processes involved in normative anger management and its associated outcomes in social and psychological domains. Likewise, ER may be an important determinant of optimal mental health among Black youth (Barbarin, 1993), yet focused inquiry on this ethnic group is surprisingly lacking. We were also able to evaluate facets of anger regulation using both self- and peer-report. Having corroborating reports of anger regulation significantly strengthened the validity of the findings of this study.

Despite these strengths, the findings must be interpreted in light of its limitations. The two schools from which we recruited were discrepant in their ethnicity and socioeconomic composition resulting in a confounding of these important social contextual variables. Although our analyses did not reveal differences in association between anger regulation and social acceptance that were influenced by school, we were unable to completely disentangle this confound in the current study. As our schools were relatively homogeneous with respect to race (i.e., same-race students completing peer nominations), we were not able to analyze the effects of peer race on their nominations of anger regulation. However, we used the opportunity to provide a preliminary exploration of how ethnicity interacts with gender to influence adolescents’ regulation of their anger and associations with social acceptance. More research is needed to examine the relative contributions of ethnicity and socioeconomic status (SES) in influencing anger regulation.

Implications and Future Research

The current study investigated anger regulation and its associations with same-sex peer acceptance in an ethnically diverse sample using multiple informants. It is unclear whether social pressures that encourage the inhibition of anger actually alter social acceptance in this early adolescent period. The landscape of anger regulation and peer acceptance may change with middle and later adolescence periods given changing norms for the acceptability of emotional expressivity, particularly with the increasing frequency of romantic relationships. Results also indicate an important intersection among gender and race for anger socialization, and suggest the need for additional studies that focus specifically on peer and parental socialization of anger in early adolescence, with an emphasis on the reciprocal influences of gender and racial socialization. Given that the socialization of emotion is considered to develop within the family and peer context, future work should examine specific social norms that may be considered more adaptive in different cultures, ethnic groups, and even family structures.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Carisa Perry-Parrish is an assistant professor in the Division of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. Her research focus is the development of emotion regulation and psychosocial functioning in children and adolescents.

Lindsey Webb is an MHS student in the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. Her research interests include improvement of emotion regulation through mindfulness-based interventions.

Janice Zeman is a professor in the Department of Psychology at the College of William and Mary. Her research interests focus on socialization of emotion regulation with much of her work examining many aspects of social-contextual influence on emotional development.

Sarah Spencer completed a postdoctoral fellowship at Johns Hopkins Division of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. She is employed at The Wake Kendall Group, PLLC in Washington, D.C. Her research interests include emotion regulation and social functioning.

Celeste Malone is an assistant professor in the School of Education at Howard University. She completed a postdoctoral fellowship at Johns Hopkins Division of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. Her research focuses on culture and diversity in professional psychology training and practice.

Sarah Borowski is a doctoral student in developmental psychology at the University of Missouri. Her research focus is on the relation between emotional processes (e.g., emotion regulation) and social functioning during childhood and adolescence.

Elizabeth Reynolds is an assistant professor in the Division of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. Her experimental research focuses on basic processes (e.g., emotional self-regulation) in the development and maintenance of health risk behavior among children and adolescents.

Jessica Hankinson is an assistant professor in the Division of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. Her clinical and research interests are in pediatric psychology and application of behavioral modification principles with children with comorbid medical and psychological issues.

Matt Specht is an assistant professor in the Division of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, with research interests in developmental psychopathology (e.g., Tourette’s, tic disorders). He is cofounder and codirector of the Pediatric OCD and Tourette’s Disorder Specialty Clinic (POTSC), a comprehensive, multidisciplinary clinical and research program.

Rick Ostrander is an associate professor and director of pediatric medical psychology in the Division of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, with research interests in developmental psychopathology (e.g., attention deficit hyperactivity disorder [ADHD]) and psychosocial functioning.

References

Armstead

Clark

(2002). Assessment of self-reported anger expression in pre- and early-adolescent African Americans: Psychometric considerations. Journal of Adolescence, 25, 365-371.

Barbarin

(1993). Emotional and social development of African-American children. Black Psychology, 19, 381-390.

Barrett

Campos

(1987). Perspectives on emotional development: A functionalist approach to emotions. In Osofsky

(Ed.), Handbook of infant development (2nd ed., pp. 555-578). New York, NY: John Wiley.

Brechwald

W. A.

Prinstein

M. J.

(2011). Beyond homophily: A decade of advances in understanding peer influence processes. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21, 166-179.

Bukowski

Gauze

Hoza

Newcomb

(1993). Differences and consistency between same-sex and other-sex peer relationships during early adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 29, 255-263.

Campos

J. J.

Campos

Barrett

(1989). Emergent themes in the study of emotional development and ER. Developmental Psychology, 25, 394-402.

Campos

J. J.

Frankel

C. B.

Camras

(2004). On the nature of ER. Child Development, 7, 377-394. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00681.x

Card

Hodges

Little

Hawley

(2005). Gender effects in peer nominations for aggression and social status. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 29, 146-155.

Chaplin

Cole

Zahn-Waxler

(2005). Parental socialization of emotion expression: Gender differences and relations to child adjustment. Emotion, 5, 80-88.

10.

Cole

P. M.

Zahn-Waxler

Smith

K. D.

(1994). Expressive control during a disappointment: Variations related to preschoolers’ behavior problems. Developmental Psychology, 30, 835-846.

11.

Cox

Van Velsor

Hulgus

(2004). Who me, angry? Patterns of anger diversion in women. Health Care for Women International, 25, 872-893.

12.

Crick

(1997). Engagement in gender normative versus nonnormative forms of aggression: Links to social-psychological adjustment. Developmental Psychology, 33, 610-617.

13.

De Los Reyes

Kazdin

(2005). Informant discrepancies in the assessment of childhood psychopathology: A critical review, theoretical framework, and recommendations for further study. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 483-509.

14.

Denham

Blair

DeMulder

Levitas

Sawyer

Auerbach-Major

Queenan

(2003). Preschool emotional competence: Pathway to social competence. Child Development, 74, 238-256.

15.

Dijkstra

Lindenberg

Veenstra

(2007). Same-gender and cross-gender peer acceptance and peer rejection and their relation to bullying and helping among preadolescents: Comparing predictions from gender-homophily and goal-framing approaches. Developmental Psychology, 43, 1377-1389.

16.

Eisenberg

Fabes

(1992). Emotion, regulation, and the development of social competence. In Clark

M. S.

(Ed.), Emotion and social behavior (pp. 119-150). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

17.

Fabes

Eisenberg

Jones

Smith

Gutherie

Poulin

. . . Friedman

(1999). Regulation, emotionality, and preschoolers’ socially competent peer interactions. Child Development, 70, 432-442.

18.

Garner

Spears

(2000). ER in low-income preschoolers. Social Development, 9, 246-264.

19.

Hall

Cassidy

Stevenson

(2008). Acting “tough” in a “tough” world: An examination of fear among urban African American adolescents. Journal of Black Psychology, 34, 381-398.

20.

Hubbard

J. A.

(2001). Emotion expression processes in children’s peer interaction: The role of peer rejection, aggression, and gender. Child Development, 72, 1426-1438.

21.

Hubbard

J. A.

Dearing

K. F.

(2004). Children’s understanding and regulation of emotion in the context of their peer relations. In Kupersmidt

J. B.

Dodge

K. A.

(Eds.), Children’s peer relations: From development to intervention (Vol. 5., pp. 81-99). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

22.

Jones

Eisenberg

Fabes

MacKinnon

(2002). Parents’ reactions to elementary school children’s negative emotions: Relations to social and emotional functioning at school. Merrill Palmer Quarterly, 48, 133-159.

23.

Kerr

D. R.

Lunkenheimer

E. S.

Olson

S. L.

(2007). Assessment of child problem behaviors by multiple informants: A longitudinal study from preschool to school entry. Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry, 48, 967-975.

24.

Kliewer

Cunningham

Diehl

Parrish

Walker

Atiyeh

. . . Mejia

(2004). Violence exposure and adjustment in inner-city youth: Child and caregiver ER skill, care-giver child relationship quality, and neighborhood cohesion as protective factors. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 33, 477-487.

25.

Klimes-Dougan

Pearson

T. E.

Jappe

Mathieson

Simard

M. R.

Hastings

Zahn-Waxler

(2014). Adolescent emotion socialization: A longitudinal study of friends’ responses to negative emotions. Social Development, 23, 395-412.

26.

Klimes-Dougan

Zeman

(2007). Introduction to the special issue of social development: Emotion socialization in childhood and adolescence. Social Development, 16, 203-209.

27.

Kuppens

Van Mechelen

Smits

De Boeck

(2003). The appraisal basis of anger: Specificity, necessity and sufficiency of components. Emotion, 3, 254-269.

28.

Laursen

Hafan

(2010). Future directions in the study of close relationships: Conflict is bad (except when it’s not). Social Development, 19, 858-872.

29.

Legerski

J. P.

Biggs

B. K.

Greenhoot

A. F.

Sampilo

M. L.

(2015). Emotion talk and friend responses among early adolescent same-sex friend dyads. Social Development, 24, 20-38.

30.

Nelson

Leerkes

O’Brien

Calkins

Marcovitch

(2012). African American and European American mothers’ beliefs about negative emotions and emotion socialization practices. Parenting: Science and Practice, 12(1), 22-41.

31.

Perry-Parrish

Waasdorp

Bradshaw

(2012). Peer nominations of emotional expressivity among urban children: Social and psychological correlates. Social Development, 21, 88-108.

32.

Perry-Parrish

Zeman

(2011). Relations among sadness regulation, peer acceptance, and social functioning in early adolescence: The role of gender. Social Development, 20, 135-153.

33.

Rose

A. J.

Rudolph

K. D.

(2006). A review of sex differences in peer relationship processes: Potential trade-offs for the emotional and behavioral development of girls and boys. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 98-131.

34.

Saarni

(1999). The development of emotional competence. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

35.

Sibley

C. G.

(2008). Utilities for examining interactions in multiple regression [Computer software]. Auckland, New Zealand: University of Auckland.

36.

Steele

Elliott

Phipps

(2003). Race and health status as determinants of anger expression and adaptive style in children. Journal of Social & Clinical Psychology, 22, 40-58.

37.

Stevenson

(1997). “Missed, dissed, and pissed”: Making meaning of neighborhood risk, fear and anger management in urban Black youth. Cultural Diversity and Mental Health, 3, 37-52.

38.

Steward

Murray

Fitzgerald

Neil

Fear

Hill

(1998). Psychological adjustment and coping styles of urban African American high school students. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 26, 70-82.

39.

Sullivan

Helms

Kliewer

Goodman

(2010). Associations between sadness and anger regulation coping, emotional expression, and physical and relational aggression among urban adolescents. Social Development, 19, 30-51.

40.

Terry

(2000). Recent advances in measurement theory and the use of sociometric techniques. In Cillessen

Bukowski

(Eds.), Recent advances in the measurement of acceptance and rejection in the peer system (pp. 27-53). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

41.

Terwogt

Olthof

(1989). Awareness and self-regulation of emotion in young children. In Saarni

Harris

(Eds.), Children’s understanding of emotion (pp. 209-237). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

42.

Thomas

Bierman

Powers

(2011). The influence of classroom aggression and classroom climate on aggressive–disruptive behavior. Child Development, 82, 751-757.

43.

Thompson

R. A.

(1994). Emotion regulation: A theme in search of definition. Monographs for the Society for Research in Child Development, 59, 25-52.

44.

Underwood

M. K.

(1997). Peer social status and children’s understanding of the expression and control of positive and negative emotions. Merrill Palmer Quarterly, 43, 610-634.

45.

Underwood

M. K.

Coie

Herbsman

(1992). Display rules for anger and aggression in school-age children. Child Development, 63, 366-380.

46.

von Salisch

Vogelgesang

(2005). Anger regulation among friends: Assessment and development from childhood to adolescence. Adolescent Development, 22, 837-855.

47.

von Salisch

Zeman

Luepschen

Kanevski

(2014). Prospective relations between adolescents’ social-emotional competencies and their friendships. Social Development, 23, 684-701.

48.

Young

Zeman

(2003, April). Emotional expression management and social acceptance in childhood. Poster presented at biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Tampa, FL.

49.

Youniss

Smollar

(1989). Adolescents’ interpersonal relationships in social context. In Berndt

T. J.

Ladd

G. W.

(Eds.), Peer relationships in child development (pp. 300-316). Oxford, UK: John Wiley.

50.

Zeman

Cassano

Adrian

(2013). Socialization influences on children’s and adolescents’ emotional self-regulation processes: A developmental psychopathology perspective. In Barrett

Morgan

Fox

(Eds.), Handbook of self-regulatory processes in development: New directions and international perspectives (pp. 79-107). New Your, NY: Routledge.

51.

Zeman

Garber

(1996). Display rules for anger, sadness, and pain: It depends on who is watching. Child Development, 67, 957-973.

52.

Zeman

Shipman

(1997). Social-contextual influences on expectancies for managing anger and sadness: The transition from middle childhood to adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 33, 917-924.

53.

Zeman

Shipman

Penza-Clyve

(2001). Development and initial validation of the Children’s Sadness Management Scale. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 25, 187-205.