THE DIFFERENTIAL PREDICTION OF POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE AFFECT

IN PLAY AND IN DAILY LIFE IN CHILDREN

by

JULIE A. FIORELLI

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Dissertation Advisor: Dr. Sandra Russ

Department of Psychological Sciences

CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERITY

January 2015 Table of Contents

List of Tables…………………………………………………………………….. 4

Abstract.………………………………………………………………………….. 6

Introduction………………………………………………………………………. 8

Method……………………………………………………………………….…… 24

Results……………………………………………………………………….……. 33

Discussion ………………………………………………………………………… 42

Tables……………………………………………………………………….…….. 53

Appendix A: Consent Forms……...…..……………………………………..……. 66

Parent Informed Consent.……………………….………………………… 66

Child Informed Assent……………………………………………….…… 69

Teacher Informed Consent ……………………………………………… 70

Appendix B: Measures…………………………………………………………… 72

Affect in Play Scale Administration…...………………………………… 72

Affect in Play Scale Scoring Manual…………………..………………… 73

Positive and Negative Affect Schedule for Children……………………. 77

School Coping Scale…………………………………..………………… 78

Multidimensional Sense of Humor Scale for Children………………….. 79

Somatic Complaints Scale of the CBCL………………………………… 81

Spence Children’s Anxiety Scale – Parent Report………………………… 82

Children’s Depression Inventory – Parent Version………………………… 84

Walker-McConnell Scale of Social Competence and School Adjustment… 85

References………………………………………………………………….……… 86 3

List of Tables

Table 1 Measures and scores 53

Table 2 Sample demographics 54

Table 3 Descriptive statistics for overall sample 55

Table 4 Pearson product moment correlations among APS, PANAS-C, and

other variables 56

Table 5 Pearson product moment correlations among variables of adaptive

functioning 57

Table 6 Intercorrelations among APS variables 58 Table 7 Pearson product moment correlations among APS and PANAS-C

variables 59

Table 8 Descriptive statistics for variables by gender 60

Table 9 Pearson Product Moment Correlations among APS, PANAS-C and

Other Variables for Females 61

Table 10 Pearson Product Moment Correlations among APS, PANAS-C and

Other Variables for Males 62

Table 11 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis Predicting Frequency of

Coping from APS Negative and PANAS-C Positive Affect while

controlling for grade 63

4

List of Tables

Table 12 Multiple regression analysis predicting Teacher-Preferred Prosocial

Behavior 63

Table 13 Principal Component Analysis with Direct Oblimin Rotation for APS

Scores 64

Table 14 Principal Component Analysis Requesting a Two-Factor Solution for

the 27-item PANAS-C Scales 65

5

The Differential Prediction of

Positive and Negative Affect in Play and in Daily Life in Children

Abstract

by

JULIE A. FIORELLI

An important area of research is the role of positive and negative affect in adaptive functioning in children. In addition, while pretend play has been consistently linked to constructs of adaptive functioning, few studies have specifically focused on the positive and negative affective expression in play. Theory and research suggest that positive and negative affect expression in play should have different correlates of adaptive functioning.

Sixty-four children in first through fourth grades were administered measures of affect, pretend play, coping, and humor. Affect in daily life was assessed using an adapted version of the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule for Children (PANAS-C) and play was assessed using the Affect in Play Scale (APS), a standardized 5-minute, individual play task. In addition, anxiety, depression, and somatic complaints were evaluated by parent-report measures and teachers completed a measure of students’ prosocial behaviors.

Results provide some support for the hypothesis that positive and negative affect expression in play are two distinct constructs, differentially correlated with measures of adaptive functioning. Among the total sample, APS Positive Affect positively related to

PANAS-C Positive Affect, whereas APS Negative Affect positively correlated with 6 measures of coping and prosocial behavior. In the present sample, negative affect expression in play appears to be more predictive of adaptive functioning for boys than for girls. Among boys, APS Negative Affect positively related to PANAS-C Positive Affect, coping ability, prosocial behavior, and humor creation and negatively related to somatic complaints. In addition, the factor analysis of the APS for the total sample yielded two separate factors. Positive affect loaded with imagination, organization, and comfort in play and negative affect was a separate factor.

Results do not provide support for the differential prediction of positive and negative affect in daily life in children. While factor analysis of the PANAS-C yielded two distinct factors consistent with previous findings, positive and negative affect were not differentially related to constructs of adaptive functioning. Results indicate several significant relationships consistent with prediction and several that were inconsistent with previous research and hypotheses. Gender differences and limitations are also discussed.

The present study adds to the existing literature on the role of affect in play.

Affect in play is not the same as mood in daily life. Importantly, results indicate that negative affect expression in play is positively correlated with constructs of adaptive functioning, particularly among boys.

. 7

The Differential Prediction of Positive and Negative Affect in Play and in Daily Life in

Children

Literature Review

Introduction

Affect, or the experience of feeling or emotion, is important in understanding an individual’s overall functioning. In adults, positive and negative affect are considered two distinct domains, differentially linked to various constructs of adaptive functioning

(Emmons & Diener, 1985). In children, there exists some support for positive and negative affect as two distinct domains, but little research has examined the relationship between affect and various constructs of adaptive functioning. Further understanding of the role of affect in overall functioning of children is necessary.

There are a number of affective and cognitive processes involved in a child’s pretend play (Russ, 2004). Examination of children’s play over the past few decades has provided support for the theory that these processes are important for a child’s development and overall functioning. Cognitive processes, such as divergent thinking and the use of symbolism, relate to children’s ability to cope and be creative (Christiano

& Russ, 1996; Singer & Singer, 1990). Affective processes, such as enjoyment of the play and expression of emotional themes in play narratives relate to creativity, emotion regulation, and a child’s overall daily mood (Fiorelli & Russ, 2012; Hoffmann & Russ,

2012). Presently, research supports the importance of affect expression in play, but the differential effects of positive and negative affect expressed in play are not yet fully understood. In theory, pretend play offers children a context in which they can practice, regulate, and integrate the expression of emotion, so that expression of both positive and 8 negative affect in the context of play may be adaptive. Understanding the effects of positive and negative affect in play and how each relates to constructs of adaptive functioning is essential to the study of pretend play and its relevant processes. Further, examination of how positive and negative affect expression in play relates to positive and negative mood states aids in this understanding. The present study aimed to provide further understanding by addressing several research questions:

(1) how positive and negative mood states differentially relate to constructs of

adaptive functioning;

(2) how positive and negative affect in play differentially relate to constructs of

adaptive functioning;

(3) how positive and negative affect in play relate to positive and negative mood

states.

Affect

The study of affect and emotion is an important part of research in psychology.

However, to date, the study of emotion has yielded descriptions such as “chaos” (Buck,

1990, p. 330) and “confusion” (Ortony, Clore, & Collins, 1988, p. 2). Much of this chaos or confusion is related to fundamental questions, which begin with definitions and understanding of the related constructs (Russell, 2003). In many contexts, affect and emotion are used interchangeably. In others, affect is used to refer to the experiential

(Buck, 1993) or behavioral components of emotion. In an integrative review of the emotion regulation research, Gross (1998) proposed using affect as a higher category that includes valence states such as anger and sadness, emotion episodes due to events, moods such as depression and euphoria, dispositional states, and traits such as cheerfulness. 9

Within the category, Gross (1998) further proposed that emotions, emotion episodes, and mood differ based on their duration. While emotions tend to fluctuate from moment to moment, moods are generally longer lasting. The present study assesses affect, as representing a longer lasting mood state, beyond a momentary feeling.

Positive and negative affect is commonly assessed using scales that provide an indication of the frequency of positive emotions, such as joy and pride, and the frequency of negative emotions, such as anger and sadness. A widely accepted scale of affect is the

Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS; Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988), which has been adapted for children by Laurent and colleagues (Laurent, Catanzaro,

Joiner, Rudolph, Potter, Lambert, Osborne, & Gathright, 1999). According to this scale, positive affect is defined as “high energy, full concentration, and pleasurable engagement,” while negative affect is defined as “sadness and lethargy and includes emotions, such as anger, contempt, disgust, guilt, fear, and nervousness” (Watson, Clark,

& Tellegen, 1988, p. 1063). Positive affect is associated with energy, enthusiasm, and excitement, whereas negative affect provides an indication of subjective distress and negative mood.

Affect and Adaptive Functioning

While examination of positive and negative affectivity in adults has been considered useful for decades, there remains relatively little empirical investigation of the measurement of positive and negative affect and how it relates to psychopathology and well-being in children. Particularly because research among children is limited, findings in the adult literature are relevant and are reviewed.

Among adults, it is widely accepted that positive and negative affect are two 10 distinct constructs that should be measured separately (Emmons & Diener, 1985).

Bradburn (1969) was among the first to provide empirical support for this finding.

Following the collection of data in several national samples of the presence of positive and negative feelings over a several-week period, Bradburn (1969) found that when measured separately, positive and negative affect varied independently. Bradburn (1969) further proposed that positive and negative affect correlate differently with various variables. For example, worry and anxiety correlated with negative affect, but not with positive affect. Bradburn (1969) also found that social participation and sociability was related to positive affect, but not to negative affect. Bradburn's work and the findings of following researchers (Andrews, Crandall, & Andrews, 1976) suggest that positive and negative affect are not simply two ends of a continuum that vary inversely, but that they are distinct constructs, related differently to distinct variables. Although not as widely researched, theory suggests these findings are also true in children. The present study explored similar relationships in children

Diener and Emmons (1984) proposed that the relationship between positive and negative affect can be more accurately understood as varying with time. In other words, these authors suggested that positive and negative affect do vary inversely, but only over short periods of time and during particularly emotional periods. Theoretically, this makes sense. Positive and negative feelings are not particularly likely to occur in the same moment. At any one point, it seems likely that the amount of positive feelings varies inversely with the amount of negative feelings. An individual does not usually feel happy and angry simultaneously. However, over longer periods of time, which the authors defined as weeks, the research indicates that the two types of affect are relatively 11 independent. How happy a person feels over a two- week period is unrelated to how angry a person feels over that same two-week period.

Many theorists differentiate between positive and negative relative to psychopathology. Clark and Watson (1991) proposed a tripartite model of anxiety and depression that highlights the relationships of positive and negative affect with these disorders. The model posits that individuals with anxiety and depression share the common trait of high negative affect but differ by positive affect and physiological hyperarousal. Further, individuals with depression are characterized by low positive affect, and individuals with anxiety are characterized by high physiological arousal. This generally accepted model of anxiety and depression and the relation to positive and negative affect directly aligns with Bradburn’s (1969) work, in which he noted that worry and anxiety correlated with negative affect, but not with positive affect.

Positive and negative affect have also been differentially linked to health and stress among adults. Watson and Pennebaker (1989) found that health complaints strongly correlated with measures of negative affect but were independent of positive affect. Their findings further indicated that the physical symptoms measures correlated as highly with negative affect as they did with other measures of physical complaints.

Watson and Pennebaker (1989) confirmed these findings across several samples ranging in age, including college students and older adults. However, it is noteworthy that

Watson and Pennebaker (1989) did not find a link between affect and health-relevant behaviors, such as hospitalizations and doctor visits. In other words, negative affect was related to complaints of physical concerns, but not to behaviors associated with these 12 concerns. The present study aimed to better understand if these relationships are also true in children.

Bradburn’s (1969) original work also included a relationship between positive affect and sociability, where social participation and sociability were related to positive affect, but not to negative affect. Clark and Watson (1988) found similar empirical support for this link in a sample of adult undergraduate students. Positive affect was positively related to the average number of social events, which included a variety of types, such as physically active events (biking, mountain climbing), parties, dining, etc.

(Clark & Watson, 1988). Negative affect was not related to social events but was positively related to perceived stress. Perceived stress was defined as: 1) general perceived irritants, such as bad weather; and 2) daily hassles, such as losing an object or missing a bus. Negative affect significantly correlated with both of these types of perceived stress, whereas positive affect was not related to either. These findings further demonstrate that positive and negative affect are two distinct domains differentially related to various constructs of adaptive functioning.

Relevant to the relationship between daily mood and effectively coping with stressors is Fredrickson’s broaden and build theory of emotion (Fredrickson, 2001).

According to Fredrickson, positive emotions broaden an individual's momentary thought- action repertoire, ultimately widening their array of thoughts and actions. For instance,

Fredrickson explained that joy creates the urge to play; interest creates the urge to explore; contentment creates the urge to savor experiences and integrate them into new views of self and other. Finally, Fredrickson included love, which creates recurrence of these cycles of play, explore, savor, and integrate. Fredrickson (2001) explains that 13 positive affectivity leads to thinking of more things to do, which is related to effective, adaptive coping. Theoretically then, greater positive affectivity produces a greater array of responses and more experiences, which contributes to more effective coping and subsequently less stress. Contrarily, negative affectivity leads to a more narrow way of thinking and ultimately fewer coping responses and resources. The broaden-and-build theory expands the benefits of positive affectivity to resilience and psychological well- being. Over time, those with greater positive affect build more personal and psychological resources. Positive affect in daily living has been linked to psychological well-being and resilience (Fredrickson & Joiner, 2002). Resilient individuals tend to be optimistic, zestful, energetic, curious, and open to new experiences (Block and Kremen,

1996), all of which are considered characteristics of positive affectivity.

Additionally, individuals who experienced more positive emotions than others, over time, became more resilient to adversity, indicated by increases in broad-minded coping (Fredrickson, 2001). It is thought that these enhanced coping skills, in turn, predicted increased positive emotions over time. In much the same way, research on depression suggests a downward spiral, so that depressed mood and pessimistic, narrowed thinking influence each other reciprocally and over time lead to worsening moods (Beck, 1979).

Research with Children. There has not been much research on the differentiation between positive and negative affect in children. However, theoretically, relationships evident in adults should also be true in children. Children are able to describe themselves and others as able to perceive, feel emotion, have desires, and have various cognitive states (Bretherton, McNew, & Beeghly-Smith, 1981). Children are able to anticipate 14 emotional responses to stimuli and generate possible events that led to particular emotional reactions (Trabasso, Stein, & Johnson, 1981). They can link events to emotions but are limited in the number of emotions they have experienced or observed in others. Based on this, children are able to accurately identify how they are feeling and how they generally feel, as long as they understand the feeling. Children as young as three and four understand and can correctly anticipate basic emotional reactions (e.g. sad, happy, angry, afraid), and Harris and colleagues found that children as young as seven can describe situations that elicit more sophisticated feelings of pride, jealousy, and guilt

(Harris, Olthof, Terwogt, & Hardman, 1987). Children are also able to distinguish between positive and negative feelings, and even young children identify situations as either positive or negative, not both. Commonly, children (as do adults) are able to assign a mixture of emotions to a particular experience (e.g. happiness and pride; fear and guilt), but rarely is it a mixture of positive and negative feelings (Harris et al., 1987).

Given this, as empirically supported in the adult literature, positive and negative affect should be considered two distinct domains, which are differentially related to various constructs relevant to adaptive functioning.

In addition, several researchers have found support for the tripartite model of anxiety and depression proposed by Clark and Watson (1991) in children (Chorpita,

2002; Joiner, Catanzaro, & Laurent, 1996; Turner & Barrett, 2003). In a sample of 707 students in grades four through eight, Laurent et al. (1999) demonstrated that positive and negative affect are differentially related to anxiety and depression. Specifically, positive affect on the PANAS-C negatively correlated with the Children’s Depression Inventory

(CDI), whereas negative affect positively correlated with self-report measures of 15 depression (CDI) and anxiety (Trait Anxiety Scale of the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory).

In other words, positive affect was not related to measures of anxiety, whereas negative affect was related. Laurent and colleagues concluded that such a measure of positive and negative affect can be used to differentiate between anxiety and depression in children.

In a similar sample of fourth to eleventh graders, Lonigan, Hooe, David, and Kistner

(1999) found the tripartite model pattern of relationships to be evident but weaker for the younger sample (M = 10.3) than for the older sample (M = 14.2).

More recently, Hughes and Kendall (2009) provided support for these relationships among positive affect, negative affect, anxiety, and depression in young children. Hughes and Kendall (2009) further investigated convergent and discriminant validity of the PANAS-C in a sample of 139 children ranging in age from 7 to 14, diagnosed with a principal anxiety disorder. Consistent with work by Laurent and colleagues, negative affect was significantly correlated with measures of trait, social, and separation anxiety and depression, whereas positive affect was negatively associated solely with depression, as measured by the CDI. Hughes and Kendall (2009) provided support for the convergent validity of the PANAS-C but also noted weaknesses in the discriminant validity, particularly with regard to social anxiety. The findings indicate that low levels of positive affect may also characterize social anxiety, in addition to depression.

Although limited, recent research demonstrates that positive and negative affect can be conceptualized as two distinct domains in children, as they are generally differentially linked to various constructs of adaptive functioning, such as coping, life satisfaction, and creativity. Moore and Russ (2008) found significant positive 16 relationships between positive affect on the PANAS-C and total life satisfaction on the children’s version of the Multidimensional Student Life Satisfaction Scale (MSLSS-C).

Positive affect on the PANAS-C was related to the MSLSS-C total score and subscales of family, friends, living environment, and self, whereas negative affect on the PANAS-C was not related to life satisfaction. Additionally, in a study of first through fifth graders at an all-girls school, positive affect on the PANAS-C positively correlated with the frequency (r = .38, p < .05) and quality of self-reported effective coping (r = .36, p < .05;

Fiorelli & Russ, 2012).

Positive and negative affect have been differentially linked to different types of coping strategies in children. Crook, Beaver, and Bell (1998) examined the relationships among affect on the PANAS-C, anxiety, depression, and various coping strategies in an attempt to further validate the PANAS-C as a reliable, valid measure of affect. The authors found that positive and negative affect were related to different types of coping strategies. Specifically, positive affect was associated with approach coping strategies

(e.g. direct problem-solving, positive reframing), while negative affect was associated with avoidance coping strategies (e.g. avoidant actions, repression).

Recently, Oberle, Schonert-Reichl, and Thomson (2010) investigated relationships among positive affect, empathy, optimism, anxiety, and peer-reported acceptance among boys and girls ages nine to eleven. Results revealed significant gender differences. For girls, acceptance by peers was predicted by higher levels of empathy and optimism and lower positive affect. Contrarily, for boys, higher positive affect, lower empathy, and lower anxiety significantly predicted peer acceptance. While these precise 17 relationships were not examined in the present study, these findings imply that relevance of positive affect may vary across genders.

Affective Processes in Pretend Play

Pretend play, also referred to as imaginative play, make-believe play, fantasy play, or dramatic play, is a type of play that involves the use of fantasy, make-believe, and symbolism (Fein, 1981). Pretend play possesses an “as if” component, in which something is treated as if it was something else (Fein, 1987) and is defined by factors such as the ability to engage in play, to transform objects, and to use make-believe action

(Udwin, 1983). For the purposes of the present study, play and pretend play are used interchangeably to signify imaginative play with such an “as if” component.

In a review of the literature, Russ (2004) identified a number of cognitive and affective processes involved in play. Cognitively in play, children organize their thoughts into a sequence with cause and effect relationships, generate new ideas, problem-solve, and use symbolism. Particularly relevant to the present study, Russ

(2004) also identified two broad affective processes that occur in play—access to affect- laden thoughts and openness to affect states. Accessing affect-laden thoughts is the ability to think about thoughts that contain emotional content, such as affective fantasy in play. Children demonstrate a blend of affect and cognition through emotional themes in their play stories. Openness to affect states is the ability to experience the affect, such as feeling and tolerating anxiety and other intense emotions in the play.

Russ’ (2004) review clearly demonstrated that children can directly express emotion or can express affect images and content themes in play. As children are able to endow objects with pretend properties (e.g., pretending there is food on a plate or that the 18 food is too hot to eat), children are also able to endow dolls with mental states. For example, a child can make a doll vocalize, “I like you” (emotional expression-happiness), or a child can have the dolls act out swinging and having fun (affect theme of happiness).

Russ (2004) also identified children’s ability to immerse themselves in the enjoyment of the play and to cognitively integrate, regulate, and modulate affective content as relevant affective processes in play. Theoretically, play allows children to practice thinking, feeling, and expressing both positive and negative emotion. Further, play provides a safe, controlled environment in which children are able to access, integrate, and make sense of even negative themes. Pretend play and the ability to pretend allows children to engage in an imaginative understanding of other people’s mental states (Harris, 1989).

Such affective processes in play are important for a child’s overall development and functioning. However, the differential effects of positive and negative affect expression in play are not fully understood. The present study aims to further understand the implications of positive and negative affect expression and how affect is relevant to overall adaptive functioning.

Affect in Play, Mood, and Adaptive Functioning

Positive and negative affect expression in play are considered distinct domains, as they do not correlate with one another (Russ, 2004). Therefore, it is logical to measure them separately and to individually examine their relation to various constructs of adaptive functioning and mood. As suggested, theoretically pretend play allows children to practice thinking, feeling, and expressing both positive and negative emotion in a safe way that may be adaptive. However, precisely how positive and negative affect 19 expression in play relates to mood and constructs of adaptive functioning remains unclear.

Mood and the Processing of Emotions. It is thought that children use pretend play as a way of processing emotion. Through play, children can express and learn to deal with a variety of emotions. Kenealy (1989) suggested that half of children ages four through eleven use play strategies to improve their mood, specifically to feel better when depressed. Pretend play also acts as a context for children to learn to regulate emotion.

Singer and Singer (1990) theorized that play is beneficial when it allows the expression of positive affect and control over negative affect. When a child experiences a sense of control over the amount and pace of affect expression as in the context of play, theorists posit that both positive and negative affect expression in play may be adaptive. In other words, negative affect in play may not correspond to negative mood state (Singer &

Singer, 1990), and the lack of negative affect in play may not correlate with improved adaptive functioning. Rather, expression of negative affect in play can be beneficial.

The concept of pretend play as a context in which children are able to confront, experience, and learn to deal with emotions in a safe way is the theoretical basis of both psychodynamic and cognitive-behavioral play therapy.

Researchers have recently begun to directly examine the relationship between affect in play and mood in daily life. Although some support of the theory that both positive and negative affect expression in play can be adaptive exists, substantial empirical support has yet to be established. In support of theorists such as Singer and

Singer, Moore and Russ (2008) found statistically significant relationships between play affect scores and the PANAS-C in a sample of 45 male and female first and second 20 graders. Negative affect in play (on the APS) was negatively associated with the negative affect score on the PANAS-C (Moore & Russ, 2008). This suggests that negative affect expression in play is related to lower negative affect expression in daily life. Further, Moore and Russ (2008) found no significant relationship between positive affect on the APS and positive affect on the PANAS-C, suggesting that positive affect expression may not necessarily be an indication of daily mood.

Seja and Russ (1998) examined relationships among parents' reports of children's daily behavior, children's affect and fantasy in play, and emotional understanding among first grade children. Children who demonstrated more positive emotion in their daily behavior (as rated by parents) were more likely to express more emotion overall and more negative emotion in their play than children who expressed less positive emotion in daily behavior (Seja & Russ, 1998). Results indicate that negative affect in play corresponds to positive affect in daily living. This further implies that play can be context for children to practice thinking, feeling, and expressing positive and negative themes without having predominate negative emotion in daily living.

Additionally, children who demonstrated more negative emotion in their daily behavior displayed fewer different types of emotion, less positive emotion, and less emotion overall in their play than children who expressed less daily negative emotion

(Seja & Russ, 1998). This implies that less and more constricted emotional expression in play is associated with more negative emotion in daily living. In other words, a variety of types of emotion (including negative) expressed during play may actually be related to less negative affect in daily life. 21

In a study of girls in the first through 5th grades, Fiorelli and Russ (2012) found a relationship between positive affect in play and positive affect on the PANAS-C. This link between affect expression and daily mood was found over an 18-month period.

Inconsistent with Russ and Moore’s (2008) findings, negative affect in play did not relate to negative affect in daily life (r = 0.05). However, Fiorelli and Russ (2012) examined these relationships among a female sample over an 18-month period. Further understanding of these relationships between affect in play and daily mood is necessary, particular given the inconsistencies in previous results.

Adaptive Functioning. Affective and cognitive processes in play have been consistently linked to effective coping. In a sample of seven to nine year-olds undergoing an invasive dental procedure, Christiano and Russ (1996) demonstrated the link between affect in play and coping, finding that more affect expressed in play was related to more effective coping. The authors theorized that affect expression in play provides an indication of a child’s ability to manage emotional reactions to a stressor but did not examine positive and negative affect separately. Similarly, among males,

Grossman-McKee (1989) found that the frequency of health complaints was negatively related to the total amount of affect and negative affect expressed in play. Boys who reported fewer symptoms expressed more negative affect and more total affect in their play relative to those who reported more symptoms. The assumption was that the ability to express negative emotion in play would lessen the internalization of negative affect that would then lead to somatization.

Russ and Schafer (2006) found a relationship between negative affect in fantasy play and divergent thinking. Children who could express negative themes in play, such 22 as aggression or sadness, were able to generate more uses for objects and more original uses for those objects on the Alternate Uses Task of creativity. This suggests that the process of expressing negative affect in play may be positively related to creative processes and that negative affect in play may be indicative of better adaptive functioning. Similarly, in a preschool sample, oral aggression, a category of negative affect, was negatively correlated with physical aggression and prosocial behavior (Fehr &

Russ, 2013). Children who expressed more oral aggression in their play were rated by their teachers as demonstrating less physical aggression and prosocial behavior than children who expressed less aggression in their play. Of note, among the same preschool sample, positive affect positively correlated with prosocial behavior (Fehr & Russ, 2013).

Christian (2011) found that children who expressed more negative affect in play reported that they have a good sense of humor and enjoyed creating jokes to make others laugh, when assessed four years later. Humor is defined along three domains: “(1) playful recognition, enjoyment, and/or creation of incongruity, (2) a composed and cheerful view on adversity that allows one to see its lighter side and thereby sustain a good mood, (3) the ability to make others smile or laugh” (Peterson & Seligman, 2004, pp. 585). A number of developmental researchers have suggested that humor serves as a method for children to cope with arousing or threatening material (Loeb & Wood, 1986;

McGhee, 1979). Through the use of humor, children are able to laugh or joke about issues that are normally challenging or anxiety-provoking and feel less threatened.

Further, Bergen (2002) argued that humor and play share a number of similarities, suggesting that they are both inherently enjoyable, socialized, share an “as if” attitude, occur in safe settings, and involve consolidation and mastery of newly acquired skills and 23 concepts. Christian’s (2011) finding supports the theory that children are able to use both humor and play to master new emotional content, practice expressing negative affect, and learn to more effectively cope and maintain a good mood. The present study aimed to further explore the relationships among affect in play, humor, and daily mood to more thoroughly understand the link.

Pretend play and the ability to pretend allows children to engage in an imaginative understanding of other people’s mental states (Harris, 1989). In other words, pretend play can provide a context in which children are able to empathize and perspective-take, which are skills relevant to prosocial behaviors and overall adaptive functioning.

Theoretically, children who are able to express both positive and negative affect in their play are also able to empathize with the others and perspective-take, so that they can understand the world from other points of view.

However, other findings indicate that negative affect in play may not be beneficial. In a follow-up study, first and second graders who had more negative affect in their early play also had more symptoms of depression when measured 10 years later

(Russ & Cooperberg, 2002). Additionally, in a sample of 322 six year-olds, some of whom were exposed to cocaine prior to birth, negative affect in play as measured by the

APS significantly correlated with both internalizing (r = .16, p < .01) and externalizing behaviors (r = .20, p < .001) on the Dominic Interactive Assessment (Scott, Short, Singer,

Russ, & Minnes, 2006). Negative affect on the APS also correlated significantly with

Major Depression Disorder (r = .20, p < .001) and Oppositional Defiant Disorder (r = .21, p < .001).

Summary

24

In the adult literature, positive and negative affect in daily life are widely accepted as two distinct domains, varying independently. For example, positive and negative affect have been differentially linked to personality traits (Watson & Clark, 1984), social judgments (Abelson, Kinder, Peters, & Fiske, 1982), and psychopathology (Watson &

Clark, 1991). Although limited, there exists some support for positive and negative affect as two distinct constructs in children as well. Further understanding of positive and negative affect in children and to what each differentially relates is a necessary extension of the literature. The present study hypothesized that similar relationships found in adults also exist in children. Specifically, it was hypothesized that positive and negative affect in children would be differentially related to anxiety and depression (Watson & Clark,

1991), health complaints (Watson & Pennebaker, 1989), prosocial behaviors (Bradburn,

1969), and coping (Moore & Russ, 2008).

Additionally, an important gap in the present literature is the understanding of positive and negative affect expression in play. Scholars have theorized that pretend play provides a context in which a child is able to explore both positive and negative emotional content in a safe, controlled manner. This implies that negative themes in play are not necessarily indicative of negative mood or poor adaptive functioning in daily life.

Rather, negative affect expression in play may be suggestive of better adaptive functioning. Presently, empirical evidence to either support or disprove this theory is limited and conflicting. Therefore, further research is necessary. The present study aimed to explore positive and negative affect in play by examining their relation to various constructs of adaptive functioning and to daily mood. It was hypothesized that positive and negative affect expression in play would be differentially related to various 25 constructs of adaptive functioning. Generally, it was predicted that positive affect expression in play would relate to coping ability and prosocial behaviors, whereas negative affect expression in play would relate to the use of humor. Finally, the present study explored the relationship between positive and negative affect in play and mood in daily life.

Method

Participants

Participants included 64 students in first through fourth grades from two parochial elementary schools. The sample was 69% female (44 girls and 20 boys). The mean age was approximately 8 years, 11 months (SD = 1.27) with a range of six to eleven. The sample consisted of 17 (26.6%) first graders, 22 (34.4%) second graders, 11 (17.2%) third graders, and 14 (21.9%) fourth graders (see Table 2). Although demographic information was not available for individual children, the reported composition of the school in first through fourth grades at Site 1 (n = 25) was largely Caucasian (69%) with

31% African American. At Site 2 (n = 39), 59% were Caucasian, 26% were African

American, 8% Hispanic, 5% Asian, and 2% American Indian. Socioeconomic status was determined based on percent of children in grades one through four qualifying for reduced or free lunch (Site 1, 14% and Site 2, 5%).

Parental consent letters were mailed home to all parents with children enrolled in first through fourth grades. Written consent from both parents and children was obtained for all participants prior to beginning study procedures (see Appendex A). Of the 156 parents contacted, 64 (41%) agreed to participate in the study. 26

Procedure

Participants met with the researcher for a single session of approximately thirty minutes. Each student was administered the Affect in Play Scale, the School Coping

Scale, the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule for Children, and the Multidimensional

Sense of Humor Scale for Children. All children were administered the same measures in the same order. In addition, a parent or guardian of each child was asked to complete the parent versions of both the Spence Children’s Anxiety Scale and the Children’s

Depression Inventory, in addition to the Somatic Problems subscale of the Child

Behavior Checklist of the Achenbach scales. Finally, teachers were asked to complete the Walker-McConnell Scale of Social Competence and School Adjustment (see

Appendex A for teacher consent form). All measures were scored blind to scores on other measures. Refer to Table 1 for a list of measures and scores and see Appendix B for measures.

Measures

Affect in Play Scale (APS; Russ, 2004, 2014). The five-minute play task is a standardized instrument designed to assess affect and imagination in play in children ages six through ten. The individual play task consists of two human puppets, one boy and one girl, and three small blocks of different shapes and colors. Children were instructed as follows:

I’m here to learn about how children play. I have here two puppets and would like you to play with them any way you like for five minutes. For example, you can have the puppets do something together. I also have some blocks that you can use. Be sure to have the puppets talk out loud. The video camera will be on so that I can remember what you say and do (if children and parents consented). I’ll tell you when to stop. Go ahead, put the puppets on, and begin.

27

The videotaped version APS scoring system provides a detailed measure of affect and fantasy in play. This measure includes the subscales of: Organization, Imagination,

Comfort, Total Affect, Positive Affect, and Negative Affect, and Variety of Affect.

Organization, Imagination, and Comfort are scored on a five-point Likert scale. The

Organization score refers to the quality of the plot and the complexity of the story within the play. The Imagination score reflects the child’s ability to pretend and use fantasy within play, also includes the overall novelty and uniqueness of the play. The Comfort scale provides an indication of the child’s level of comfort and enjoyment of the play.

Total Affect is a frequency count of the number of emotion and emotional themes expressed during the play and is scored based on the total number of demonstrations of emotion within the play narrative. Affect in play is further understood by classifying each unit of affect as either positive or negative and then in terms of 11 categories, such as happiness/pleasure, aggression, sadness/hurt, competition, etc. The present study focused on the scores of positive and negative affect. The Positive Affect and Negative

Affect scores are a frequency count, or the total number of units of each type expressed in the play. For example,“Whee! This is fun!” is coded as happiness/pleasure (positive affect) and “Ahh! The monster is chasing me!” is an expression of fear (negative affect).

The Variety of Affect score is the total count of affect categories expressed in the play.

A large number of studies have demonstrated the validity of the APS (see Russ,

2004, 2014). For example, play as measured by the APS is related to creativity (Seja &

Russ, 1999), divergent thinking (Russ & Grossman-McKee, 1990), emotion regulation

(Hoffmann & Russ, 2012), and coping (Russ, Robins, & Christiano, 1999). Interrater reliability for the APS is high, typically in the .80s and .90s (Cordiano, Russ, & Short, 28

2008) and internal consistency is strong (Seja & Russ, 1999). Interrater reliability was assessed based on play videos of 20 participants from a previous study. Consistency between raters was follows: .81 for Organization, .82 for Imagination, .90 for Comfort,

.92 for Frequency of Affect, .88 for the Variety of Affect, .91 for Positive Affect, and .93 for Negative Affect. These values fall above Cicchetti’s .75 guidelines for excellent reliability (Cicchetti, 1994).

Positive and Negative Affect Schedule for Children (PANAS-C). The

PANAS-C (Laurent et al, 1999) is a 30-item self-report scale based on direct questioning, designed to assess affect, or recent experiences of positive and negative affect in children.

The PANAS-C was originally validated for children in grades four through eight but was adapted for younger children by Moore and Russ (2008). The adapted version used in this study altered the language for two of the items and removed three of the more difficult ones, which resulted in a 27-item measure (Moore & Russ, 2008). The PANAS-

C has good psychometric properties, with reliability alpha coefficients ranging from .89 to .94 for the two affect scores (Laurent et al., 1999). Further, convergent and divergent validity for the PANAS-C has also been demonstrated. Laurent et al. (1999) found the positive affect scale to negatively correlate with the Children’s Depression Inventory, and the negative affect scale to positively correlate with self-report measure of anxiety and depression. In addition, studies have begun to examine the psychometric properties of the adapted version of the PANAS-C, which was used in the present study. Fiorelli and

Russ (2012) found the positive affect scale to have acceptable internal consistency of .77

(Cronbach, 1951), and that the scale was related to effective coping and to affect 29 expression in play. For the present study, Cronbach’s alphas for the 13-item Positive

Affect scale and the 14-item Negative Affect scale were .75 and .89, respectively.

The School Coping Scale (SCS). The School Coping Scale (Russ et al., 1999) is a 10-item self-report measure that assesses how children deal with problems that potentially arise in school settings. The scale asks children to list what they would do in ten different stressful situations. For example, they were asked, “What would you do if you were going to be late to school?” and “What would you do if your best friend didn’t want to play with you anymore?” The number of acceptable coping responses generated by the child is summed to yield the total frequency score. The School Coping Scale has been found to be related to play and to divergent thinking (Fiorelli & Russ, 2012; Russ et al., 1999).

Multidimensional Sense of Humor Scale for Children (MSHSC). The

MSHSC (Dowling & Fain, 1999) is 17-item self-report scale developed to evaluate children’s sense of humor (Dowling & Fain, 1999). The measure assesses three areas of humor: coping humor, humor appreciation, and humor creation. Coping humor refers to using humor to cope with a problem (e.g., “jokes and funny stories help me get through tough times”). Humor appreciation refers to the comfort and enjoyment in finding humor

(e.g., “I like a good joke”). Humor creation refers to a willingness to make jokes and share humorous thoughts (e.g., “my jokes and funny stories make others laugh”).

Children are asked to rate how often each statement is true for them, on a Likert scale of

1 (never) to 5 (always). Internal consistency estimates for the three subscales are adequate: Coping Humor (.81), Humor Appreciation (.90), and Humor Creation (.89), internal consistency for the total score was excellent (.92), and its validity was 30 demonstrated by relating the total score to self-reported degree of sense of humor and psychological adjustment (Dowling & Fain, 1999; Dowling, Hockenberry, & Gregory,

2003). The present study examined the Total Humor score, the Coping Humor score, and the Humor Creation score. Cronbach’s alphas for Total Humor, Coping Humor, and

Humor Creation were .90, .84, and .88, respectively.

Spence Children’s Anxiety Scale – Parent Report. The Spence Children’s

Anxiety Scale (Spence, 1999) is a 38-item children’s anxiety measure intended for parents of children ages 6-18 years old. Parents are instructed to respond to the items about their child on a 0 (never) to 3 (always) scale. The parent version of the Spence corresponds with the child self-report version and with the DSM-IV TR classification of anxiety disorders, particularly separation anxiety, generalized anxiety, social phobia, panic/agoraphobia, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and fear of physical injuries (Nauta et al., 2004). Reliability for the total scale was .89 and for the subscales, reliability estimates ranged from satisfactory to excellent (.80-.92; Nauta et al., 2004). In addition, convergent and divergent validity was demonstrated, as the parent version of the SCAS correlated well with internalizing symptoms on the CBCL, but not with externalizing symptoms. (Nauta et al., 2004). The present study used the total score and internal consistency was consistent with previous samples (α = .83).

Children’s Depression Inventory – Parent Version (CDI-P). The CDI-P

(Kovacs, 1992) is a 17-item parent-report of depression in children ages 7-17 but has been validated in children as young as 6 years old (Fristad, Weller, Weller, Teare, &

Preskorn, 1991). The measure is similar to the Children’s Depression Inventory self- report version but is reworded so that parents describe their child over the past two weeks 31 and maximizes validity by focusing on the observable manifestations of depression.

Considered an extension of the Beck Depression Inventory for adults (Beck &

Beamesderfer, 1974), the CDI-P includes two scales (emotional problems and functioning problems) and five subscales (negative mood, ineffectiveness, negative self- esteem, anhedonia, and interpersonal problems). The present study examined the total score. The CDI-P is considered a valid and reliable measure of child depression, as the parent version is highly correlated with the CDI and is able to differentiate depressed children from healthy controls (Fristad et al., 1991; Slotkin, Forehand, Fauber,

McCombs, & Long, 1988). In the present study, internal consistency was excellent (α =

.93).

Walker-McConnell Scale of Social Competence and School Adjustment. The

Walker-McConnell Scale of Social Competence and School Adjustment (Walker &

McConnell, 1988) is a 43-item measure of social behavior and school adjustment intended for teachers. Two scales were used in the present study. First, the Teacher-

Preferred Social Behavior subscale consists of 16 items and measures peer-related social behavior highly valued or preferred by teachers (e.g., “cooperates with peers in group activities or situations”). Second, the Peer-Preferred Social Behavior subscale consists of

17 items and measures peer-related social behavior highly valued by peers (e.g., “makes friends easily with other children”). Each behavior is rated on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (never occurs) to 5 (frequently occurs). The scale is considered a reliable and valid measure of children’s social skills. Cronbach’s reliability coefficient for the total measure was .95 and coefficients for teacher-preferred behavior, peer-preferred behavior, and school adjustment were .92, .95, and .94, respectively (Blankemeyer, 32

Flannery, & Vazsonyi, 2002). Finally, the scale is sensitive in differentiating antisocial and normal children and children with different sociometric status (e.g., rejected, neglected, average, and popular) and has been related to other measures of social functioning (Walker & McConnell, 1988; Walker, Shinn, O-Neill & Ramsey, 1987).

Cronbach’s alphas for the Teacher-Preferred Social Behavior scale and the Peer-Preferred

Social Behavior were .94 and .90, respectively.

Somatic Complaints subscale of the Child Behavior Checklist. The Somatic

Complaints subscale of the Child Behavior Checklist (Achenbach & Rescorla, 2001) is an 8-item, parent-report checklist of physical problems without known medical cause designed for children ages 6-18. Items on this scale are rated as Not True (0), Somewhat or Sometimes True (1), or Very True or Often True (2). Validity and reliability of the total Child Behavior Checklist are excellent and there exists extensive normative data

(Achenbach, et al., 2008; Achenbach, Dumenci, & Rescorla, 2003; Achenbach &

Rescorla, 2001; Cohen, Gotlieb, Kershner, & Wehrspann, 1985). Internal consistency was acceptable (α = .78)

Specific Hypotheses

The current study tested the following hypotheses:

(1) Positive and negative affect would be differentially related to constructs of

adaptive functioning

a. Psychopathology:

i. PANAS-C Negative Affect would positively correlate with the

Total Score on the Spence Children’s Anxiety Scale. 33

ii. PANAS-C Positive Affect would negatively correlate with the

Total Score on the Children’s Depression Inventory—Parent

Version; PANAS-C Negative Affect would positively correlate

with the Total Score on the CDI-P.

b. Health complaints

i. PANAS-C Negative Affect would positively correlate with the

Total Score on the Somatic Problems subscale.

c. Pro-social Behavior

i. PANAS-C Positive Affect would positively correlate with

Teacher-Preferred and Peer-Preferred Social Behavior scores on

the Walker-McConnell Scale of Social Competence and School

Adjustment.

d. Coping

i. PANAS-C Positive Affect would positively correlate with the

Frequency of Coping score on School Coping Scale.

(2) Positive and negative affect expression in play would be differentially related to

constructs of adaptive functioning

a. Health Complaints

i. APS Negative Affect would negatively correlate with the Total

Score on the Somatic Complaints subcale of the CBCL.

b. Humor 34

i. APS Negative Affect would positively correlate with Humor

Creation and Total Humor scores on the Multidimensional Sense

of Humor Scale for Children.

c. Pro-social Behavior

i. APS Positive Affect would positively correlate with prosocial

behavior.

d. Coping

i. APS Positive Affect would positively correlate with the Frequency

of Coping scores on SCS.

(3) Positive and negative affect expression in play would be related to mood states

and psychopathology

a. Positive affect

i. APS Positive Affect would correlate with positive affect on

PANAS-C

b. The role of negative affect in play was explored.

Results

Data Analysis

Pearson product-moment correlations were used to test for significant relationships among positive and negative mood states, coping, anxiety, depression, prosocial behavior, and health complaints. Pearson product-moment correlations were also used to test significant relationships among positive and negative affect expression in play, humor, coping, mood, and prosocial behavior. One-tailed tests were used for a 35 priori hypotheses between variables, while two-tailed tests were computed for additional exploration of relationships.

Hierarchical multiple regressions were used to examine the interaction effect between APS affect scores (positive and negative) and PANAS-C scores (positive and negative) in predicting variables of adaptive functioning. Standard multiple regression was used to assess variance explained by the predictors. Independent and dependent variables were examined using Pearson product-moment correlations, independent samples t-tests, and analysis of variance (ANOVA) to detect differences in mean scores of criteria based on subject variables of grade, age, gender, and school site. Finally, APS and PANAS-C scores were each factor analyzed using principal component analysis.

Descriptive Statistics

Descriptive statistics for all variables, including means, standard deviations, and ranges are presented in Table 3. The number of participants varied across measures. In total, 64 participants completed the study. Of the total sample, 12 did not wish to participate in the play task (18.75% of the sample). This percentage is higher than previous studies. However, demographic characteristics and means on all other measures were similar to those of the total sample.

All 64 participants completed the PANAS-C, School Coping Scale, and the

Multidimensional Sense of Humor Scale for Children (MSHSC). Teachers completed the

Walker-McConnell Scale of Social Competence and School Adjustment for 38 participants and parents of 40 students completed the Spence Anxiety Scale, the

Children’s Depression Inventory, and the Somatic Complaints measure. 36

There were no differences on any measures between school sites. Therefore, samples were combined. Means and standard deviations for each measure were compared to other samples to determine how typical the current sample is. The present sample was similar to previous studies on all but two measures. On the Spence Anxiety

Scale, means and standard deviations were lower than the validated norms, especially for boys (Nauta et al., 2004). According to Nauta et al. (2004), norms for the Spence

Anxiety Scale among typical children ages six to eleven are for females: M = 16.0 (SD =

11.6) and for males: M = 15.9 (SD = 9.0). Spence Anxiety Scales for boys in this sample

(M = 9.46, SD = 3.23) were significantly lower than validated norms, t(12) = -7.19, p <

.001. Similarly, compared to a meta-analysis of 310 samples of typical children (Twenge

& Nolen-Hoeksema, 2002), scores on the CDI-P for boys were significantly lower than previous samples of boys of comparable age, t(12) = -6.44, p < .001.

Relationships between variables and age and grade were examined. Across tests, results did not differ significantly, but correlations with grade were slightly higher.

Grade significantly correlated with School Coping Scale scores of frequency (r = .27, p <

.05) and effectiveness (r = .35, p < .01). Similarly, age was significantly related to scores of frequency (r = .24, p < .05) and effectiveness (r = .33, p < .01). Neither grade nor age significantly was related to any other measures of affect, play, or variables of adaptive functioning. Therefore, grade was controlled for in all analyses involving coping scores.

Positive and Negative Affect in Daily Life and Variables of Adaptive Functioning

Hypotheses. Pearson product-moment correlations between affect in daily life and other variables of coping, prosocial behavior, humor, anxiety, depression, and somatic complaints are presented in Table 4. As hypothesized and consistent with the 37 previous literature, PANAS-C Positive Affect significantly positively correlated with the

Frequency of Coping responses on the School Coping Scale (r = .38, p < .01). Children who rated themselves as having more positive affect in daily life were also able to generate a greater number of coping strategies when presented with stressful situations.

However, this correlation did not remain significant when controlling for grade (r = .21) and PANAS-C Positive Affect did not significantly correlate with the Effectiveness of

Coping responses on the SCS (r = .16). Also consistent with hypothesis, PANAS-C

Positive Affect was positively related to Teacher-Preferred Social Behavior (r = .49, p <

.01), so that children who rated themselves as having more positive affect in daily life were also rated by teachers as evidencing more teacher-preferred prosocial behaviors.

PANAS-C Positive Affect did not significantly correlate with Peer-Preferred Social

Behavior (r = .20).

It was hypothesized that positive and negative affect in daily life would be differentially related to parent-reported anxiety and depression. Inconsistent with previous literature and hypotheses, PANAS-C Negative Affect did not significantly correlate with either the Spence Anxiety Scale (r = -.13) or the CDI-P (r = -.06). It was predicted that positive affect would not be related to anxiety but would negatively correlate with depression, so that children with less positive affect would have higher scores on the measure of depression. Contrary to this, PANAS-C Positive Affect correlated with the Spence (r = .38, p < .05), but not with the CDI-P (r = .15). Children with more positive affect were rated by their parents as evidencing more symptoms of anxiety than children who reported less positive affect. Also contrary to hypothesis, 38 parent-reported Somatic Complaints significantly correlated with PANAS-C Positive

Affect (r = .46, p < .01), but not PANAS-C Negative Affect (r = -.12).

Exploratory Analyses. Relationships between affect in daily life and humor were not part of main hypotheses but were explored. Pearson product-moment correlations revealed strong, statistically significant positive relationships between

PANAS-C Positive Affect and MSHSC variables of Total Humor (r = .53, p < .001),

Humor Coping (r = .49, p < .001), and Humor Creation (r = .54, p < .001). Children who rated themselves as having more positive affect in daily life also scored higher on measures of humor. Negative Affect on the PANAS-C was not related to humor variables. Exploratory analyses also revealed a significant negative relationship between

PANAS-C Negative Affect and the Effectiveness of Coping responses (r = -.26, p < .01).

Children who rated themselves as having more negative affect in daily life were also considered less effective copers.

Summary. Consistent with prediction, positive affect in daily life was positively related to coping and prosocial behavior. Contrary to hypotheses, positive affect was related to anxiety, but not depression. Also inconsistent with hypotheses, negative affect was not related to anxiety or somatic complaints. Exploratory analyses revealed significant positive relationships between positive affect in daily life and humor scores and a negative relationship between negative affect and effective coping, so that children with lower negative affect scores were considered more effective copers.

Positive and Negative Affect Expression in Play and Variables of Adaptive

Functioning 39

Hypotheses. Pearson product-moment correlations between affect expression in play and other variables of coping, prosocial behavior, humor, anxiety, depression, and somatic complaints are presented in Table 4. It was hypothesized that positive affect in play would be related to coping ability. Inconsistent with this, APS Positive Affect did not significantly correlate with the Frequency (r = .11) or the Effectiveness (r = .18) of

Coping responses on the School Coping Scale. Also inconsistent with hypothesis, APS

Positive Affect was not significantly related to Teacher-Preferred Social Behavior (r =

.28, p = .06). APS Positive Affect did not correlate with Peer-Preferred Social Behavior

(r = .08). Among the total sample, APS Negative Affect did not correlate with measures of humor or somatic complaints as predicted.

Exploratory Analyses. Interestingly, APS Negative Affect positively correlated with the Frequency (r = .60, p < .001) and Effectiveness (r = .47, p < .01) of Coping responses on the School Coping Scale. Children with more negative affect expression in play were able to generate more coping responses and responses with greater effectiveness. Similarly, APS Negative Affect was positively related to Teacher-

Preferred (r = .44, p < .05) and Peer-Preferred (r = .43, p < .05) social behaviors.

Children with more negative affect expression in their play were rated by their teachers as evidencing more teacher-preferred and peer-preferred prosocial behaviors than children with less negative affect in play. Significant tests on correlation differences, such as between APS Positive Affect and Teacher-Preferred Social Behaviors and APS Negative

Affect and Teacher-Preferred Social Behaviors, were conducted. However, significant differences were not detected among the total sample. 40

Hypotheses. Consistent with hypothesis, APS Positive Affect significantly correlated with PANAS-C Positive Affect (r = .46, p < .01). Children with more positive affect expression in their play also rated themselves as having more positive affect in daily life.

Exploratory Analyses. While the affective scores in play were of focus, relationships between other play variables and mood were also explored and are presented in Table 7. Interestingly, in addition to APS Positive Affect, Total Affect and

Variety of Affect scores on the APS also positively correlated with PANAS-C Positive

Affect, r = .44, p < .01 and r = .41, p < .01, respectively. Additionally, APS Comfort was related to PANAS-C Positive Affect (r = .32, p < .05). Children with greater enjoyment of the play rated themselves as having more positive affect in daily life. The cognitive scores on the APS significantly correlated with negative affect in daily life. Organization and Imagination in play was negatively related to PANAS-C Negative Affect, r = -.29, p

< .05, and r = -.33, p < .05, respectively, so that children with more organization and imagination in their play rated themselves as having less negative affect in daily life.

Summary. APS Positive Affect was not related to coping and prosocial behavior as predicted but did significantly correlate with positive affect in daily life. Exploratory analyses indicated significant relationships between APS Negative Affect and measures of coping and prosocial behavior. Children with more negative affect expression in their play had higher coping scores and were rated by teachers as evidencing more prosocial behavior. Other play scores were significantly related to affect in daily life. Children who appeared more comfortable with the play and had more total affect and greater variety of affect in their play stories also rated themselves as having more positive affect 41 in daily life. Children with more imagination and organization in their play rated themselves as having less negative affect in daily life.

Given the large number of correlations, post-hoc analyses of the total sample were reexamined using Bonferroni adjusted alpha levels of .002 per test (.05/26) to reduce the likelihood of obtaining significant findings by chance. The correlation between APS

Negative Affect and the Frequency of Coping responses remained significant, as did correlations between PANAS-C Positive Affect and humor scores.

Gender Effects

Gender Differences in Affect in Play and Affect in Daily Life. Descriptive statistics by gender for the APS and PANAS-C are presented in Table 8. Independent samples t-tests revealed gender differences in affect expression on the APS and affect on the PANAS-C. First, independent samples t-tests showed gender differences on APS

Positive Affect, t(50) = 3.46, p < .01, such that females displayed significantly more positive affect in their play (M = 8.50, SD = 6.44) than males did (M = 3.11, SD = 1.84).

There were no differences between means on the APS Negative Affect, t(50) = -1.58, p =

.12. Independent samples t-tests revealed a similar pattern on the PANAS-C: significant differences between means on the Positive Affect scale t(62) = 3.71, p < .01, such that girls (M = 48.68, SD = 7.12) rated themselves as having higher positive affect than boys did (M = 41.60, SD = 6.97). There were no differences between means on the Negative

Affect scale of the PANAS-C, t(62) = 0.19, p = .46.

Gender Differences in Variables of Adaptive Functioning. Descriptive statistics for the measures of adaptive functioning are presented in Table 8. Independent samples t-tests revealed significant differences between boys and girls on several 42 measures of adaptive functioning. Results indicate differences between means on the

Spence Anxiety Scale (t(38) = 2.31, p < .05), CDI-P (t(39) = 1.88, p < .05), and Somatic

Complaints (t(38) = 2.76, p < .001). Girls evidenced higher means on all three measures:

Spence (M = 14.26, SD = 7.10), CDI-P (M = 8.11, SD = 5.29), and Somatic (M = 1.85,

SD = 1.98) than boys did: Spence (M = 9.46, SD = 3.23), CDI-P (M = 5.23, SD = 2.20), and Somatic (M = 0.31, SD = .48). No gender differences on measures of coping ability, prosocial behavior, or humor were found.

Gender Differences in Correlations Among Variables. Given differences

between girls and boys on several measures, the sample was split by gender and correlations among all variables were reexamined. Results are presented in Tables 9 and 10.

Overall, in females, there was a very similar pattern of correlations compared to the total sample. Of note, females comprised a larger portion of the total sample.

Despite the small sample size of males, the findings among the 18 boys with play scores are worth noting. Also of note, given the small sample size, the generalizability of the present findings is unclear. Because of differences on APS Positive Affect and PANAS-

C Positive Affect scales, the correlation between these variables was of particular interest. APS Positive Affect was correlated with PANAS-C Positive Affect for girls (r =

.43, p < .05), but not for boys (r = -0.14). The difference between these correlations approached statistical significance, based on Fisher’s r-to-z transformation (z = 1.91, p =

.05). In contrast, APS Negative Affect was correlated with PANAS-C Positive Affect for boys (r = .54, p < .05), but not for girls (r = .13). Boys with more negative affect in their play generally rated themselves as having more positive affect in life. 43

Further examination of the relationship between affect in play and coping ability also yielded gender differences. Among females, APS Negative Affect correlated with the Frequency of Coping responses on the SCS (r = .64, p < .001) and APS Positive

Affect correlated with the Effectiveness of Coping responses (r = .35, p < .05). In contrast, among males, APS Negative Affect correlated with the Frequency (r = 65, p <

.01) and Effectiveness (r = .74, p < .001) and APS Positive Affect correlated with the

Frequency of Coping responses (r = .51, p < .05).

APS Negative Affect correlated with Humor Creation (r = .52, p < .05) in boys, but not girls, so that boys with more negative affect in their play rated themselves as creating more humor in daily life. Finally, APS Negative Affect was negatively correlated with Somatic Complaints in males (r = -.51, p < .05), but not for girls.

Predictors of Adaptive Functioning

Hierarchical multiple regressions were used to examine predictors of areas of adaptive functioning, including coping ability and prosocial behavior. First, a hierarchical multiple regression was used to examine predictors of frequency of effective coping while controlling for grade. The results of this analysis are presented in Table 11.

Frequency of coping was entered as the dependent variable and grade, APS Negative

Affect and PANAS-C Positive Affect were entered as predictor variables. Grade was entered at Step 1, explaining 9% of the variance in frequency of coping. At Step 2, APS

Negative Affect and PANAS-C Positive Affect significantly predicted more variance than grade alone, 39% (R = .62, R2 = .39, F(3, 48) = 10.09, p < .001). When standard multiple regression was carried out with APS Negative Affect and PANAS-C Positive 44

Affect, 33.1% of the variance of Teacher-Preferred Social Behavior was accounted for, F

(2, 29) = 7.19, p < .01 (see Table 12).

APS Component Analysis

APS scores were subjected to principal component analysis with direct oblimin rotation to determine if positive and negative affect expression in play were loading onto two separate components. Two categories were found with eigenvalues exceeding 1:

Imagination and Positive Affect, and Negative Affect (explaining 67.2% and 15.8% of the variances, respectively). The correlation between the two factors was .28 (p < .05).

See table 13 for results.

PANAS-C Component Analysis

The 27 items on the PANAS-C were subjected to principal component analysis with varimax rotation requesting a two-factor solution. Factor 1 was labeled “Negative

Affect” and Factor 2 was labeled “Negative Affect” (explaining 26.8% and 15.4% of the variance). The majority of items had factor loadings of .4 or greater onto the primary predicted factor with few exceptions. Items with high cross-loadings and/or primary factor loadings of less than .4 were words that seem to be more complex, especially for younger children. Items such as “interested,” “jumpy,” and “calm” are more difficult for children to define and make sense of than words that are used more regularly. For example, it is likely that children misinterpreted “jumpy” to mean “energetic,” hence its high cross-loading value. See table 14 for results.

Discussion 45

There were several important results. First, the study provides some support for the hypothesis that positive and negative affect expression in play are two distinct constructs that are differentially related to variables of adaptive functioning. Importantly, results provide support for the theory that negative affect expression in play is adaptive, as negative affect in play was positively related to coping and prosocial behavior and not related to negative affect in daily life. In this sample, negative affect in play appears to be a differential predictor of constructs of adaptive functioning more so for boys than for girls.

Results do not provide support for the hypothesis that positive and negative affect in daily life are differentially related to constructs of adaptive functioning. Several relationships were consistent with prediction, but several predicted relationships between mood in daily life and measures of adaptive functioning were not found. Gender differences were also evident.

Relationships among affect in play and variables of adaptive functioning

Results provide support for the theory that negative affect expression in play is adaptive. Negative affect in play was positively related to coping ability, so that children who had more negative affect in play were able to both generate a greater number of coping responses to stressful situations and had more effective coping responses than children who had less negative affect in their play. This finding extends earlier literature that identified links between affect in play and coping ability (Christiano & Russ, 1996), specifically demonstrating that negative affect expression is associated with better coping. This relationship is also consistent with previous research on the link between affect in play and divergent thinking (Russ & Schafer, 2006). 46

In the present study, negative affect in play was related to children’s ability to generate more coping solutions to a problem, which involves similar processes to the divergent thinking task of generating alternate uses for everyday objects. Results provide support for the theory that children use play as a context of working through negative themes and practice thinking, feeling, and dealing with negative feelings.

Among the total sample, coping was related to negative affect in play, but not to positive affect in play, which suggests positive and negative affect in play are differentially related to coping ability. However, examination of gender yielded differences. Positive affect in play was related to one coping score among girls and the other coping score among boys. Girls with more positive affect in their play were considered more effective copers, whereas boys with more positive affect in their play generated a greater frequency of coping strategies. Replication and further study of the relationship between affect in play and coping ability in a larger sample are necessary to understand if this gender difference is generalizable. The two scores of coping ability on the School Coping Scale generally performed similarly in other correlations.

Children with more negative affect expression in their play were rated by teachers as evidencing more prosocial behavior than those with less negative affect in their play.

This provides further support for the theory that negative themes in play are adaptive and children who are able to express these negative feelings in their play stories are also able to engage with others in more prosocial ways. This finding is also consistent with previous literature. Fehr and Russ (2012) found that preschool-aged children who expressed more oral aggression in their play were rated by teachers as evidencing more prosocial behavior in the classroom than those that expressed less aggression in their 47 play. In addition, Harris (1989) suggested that children who are able to express more emotion in their play, particularly negative affect, are also able to empathize with the others and perspective-take, so that they can understand the world from other points of view.

Examination of the relationship between affect in play and mood in daily life revealed several noteworthy gender differences. Among girls (and not boys), positive affect expression in play was related to positive affect in daily life, so that girls with more positive affect themes in play rated themselves as having more positive affect in life than girls with less positive affect in their play. This is consistent with hypothesis and previous findings from a sample of solely females (Fiorelli & Russ, 2012). However, among boys (and not girls), negative affect expression in play was related to positive affect in daily life, so that boys with more negative themes in their play rated themselves as having more positive mood in daily life than boys with less negative affect expression in their play. Taken together, these results suggest an important difference between genders. For girls, happier mood is associated with more positive affect in play and for boys, happier mood is related to more negative affect in play. However, given the small sample, especially of boys, the generalizability of these findings is unclear. Importantly, negative affect expression in play was not related to negative affect in daily life for either gender, which is consistent with the theory that posits that negative affect in play (e.g. sadness, aggression, etc.) is not necessarily an indication of sadness and aggression outside the play context.

Based on Christian’s (2011) findings, it was hypothesized that negative affect in play would positive relate to humor, so that children with more negative affect in their 48 play would have higher scores of humor creation, humor coping, and total humor. Gender differences were found but were not expected given Christian’s findings from a similar sample of both males and females. Despite no differences between humor scores, negative affect in play was negatively related to humor among boys, but not among girls.

More specifically, boys with more negative affect expression in their play rated themselves as creating more humor, or as having a greater willingness to make jokes and share humorous thoughts, than boys with less negative affect in their play.

Similarly, the relationship between negative affect in play and somatic health complaints was significant among boys, but not girls. Boys with more negative affect expression in their play were rated by their parents as having fewer somatic complaints than boys with less negative affect expression in their play. This is consistent with a previous study. In a sample of boys, Grossman-Mckee (1989) found that more negative affect expression in play was associated with self-reported fewer somatic complaints in daily life. Grossman-McKee (1989) theorized that the expression of negative emotion in play lessened the internalization of negative affect that would otherwise lead to somatization. Given the consistency between Grossman-McKee’s research and the present findings, there is more support for this relationship in boys than girls.

Finally, factor analyses revealed that positive and negative affect in play loaded onto separate factors. Positive affect loaded with other cognitive scores of the Affect in

Play Scale, while negative affect loaded onto a separate factor. This is consistent with recent findings from a preschool-aged sample (Fehr & Russ, in press) and provides further support for the theory that positive and negative affect in play are separate constructs with different correlates. 49

Relationships between Affect in Daily Life and Variables of Adaptive Functioning

As predicted, positive affect in daily life positively was related to coping ability.

Children who rated themselves as having more positive affect (e.g. happy, strong, calm, proud) were able to generate a greater number of coping responses to stressful situations than children who reported less positive affect. Additionally, negative affect in daily life was negatively related to effectiveness of coping responses, so that children who rated themselves as having less negative affect (e.g. sad, mad, scared, lonely, miserable) were able to generate more effective coping responses than children who rated themselves as having more negative affect. This is consistent with Fredrickson’s broaden and build theory of emotion (Fredrickson, 2001) and previous findings that link positive affect with psychological well-being and resilience in adults (Block & Kremen, 1996; Fredrickson &

Joiner, 2002). According to Fredrickson’s (2001) theory, positive affectivity in daily life produces a greater array of responses and more experiences, which then contributes to more effective coping and less stress. Similarly, it is thought that negative affectivity leads to a more narrow way of thinking and ultimately fewer coping responses and resources. The present findings extend the adult literature and provide support for this in children.

Positive affect in daily life was positively related to teacher-reported prosocial behavior. Children who reported more positive affect in daily life were rated by their teachers as evidencing more teacher-preferred prosocial behavior than children who reported less positive affect. Also as expected, negative affect was not significantly related to prosocial behavior. This is consistent with the work of Bradburn (1969) and 50

Clark and Watson (1988). Moods, such as feeling happy, interested, and proud, were positively related to sociability and social participation, such as showing empathy to others, cooperating with peers, accepting constructive criticism, and expressing feelings appropriately. Importantly, this provides support for these relationships among children, which had yet to be specifically examined.

While not a hypothesis of the present study, positive affect in daily life was positively related to humor. This is consistent with Fredrickson’s (2001) theory of positive emotions and previous findings that indicate humor helps children distance themselves from distressing situations (Martin, Kuiper, Olinger, & Dance, 1993).

Through the use of humor, children are able to laugh or joke about issues that are normally challenging or anxiety-provoking and ultimately feel better (Loeb & Wood,

1986; McGhee, 1979).

Several empirical studies provide support for the tripartite model of anxiety and depression in children that posits both anxiety and depression correlate with negative affect, whereas only depression correlates with positive affect (Chorpita, 2002; Joiner,

Catanzaro, & Laurent, 1996; Laurent et al., 1999; Turner & Barrett, 2003). In the present study, negative affect on the PANAS-C was not significantly related to either anxiety or depression and no significant relationship was found between positive affect on the

PANAS-C and depression. Unexpectedly, positive affect on the PANAS-C was positively related to anxiety, indicating that children who reported more positive affect were rated by their parents as evidencing more symptoms of anxiety than those who reported less positive affect. This is inconsistent with hypotheses and surprising given previous findings. However, most of the previous studies examined these relationships in 51 older children (grades four through eight) and within this age group, Lonigan et al. (1999) found the pattern of relationships to be evident but weaker for younger children (M =

10.3) than for the older children (M = 14.2). In addition, while Hughes and Kendall

(2009) replicated these findings in younger children (ages seven to eleven), the sample was comprised of children with a principal anxiety disorder. Replication and further understanding of these relationships in younger, typical children is necessary to determine the generalizability of the present findings. Despite contradicting the adult literature, it may be that these relationships are only present in older children or in children with clinical levels of anxiety and depression. Relative to other samples, means on the Spence Anxiety Scale and the CDI-P were significantly lower for boys (Nauta et al., 2004; Twenge & Nolen-Hoeksema, 2002). Low standard deviations on the Spence

Anxiety Scale indicate limited variation of scores, which could also explain the surprising finding between positive affect and anxiety. Given differences in means and the small sample of boys, the generalizability is likely limited.

Also surprising, somatic complaints correlated with positive affect in daily, but not negative affect. Among girls (but not boys), positive affect was correlated with somatic complaints. Girls who reported more positive affect were rated by their parents as evidencing more somatic complaints than girls who reported less positive affect in daily life. This is not consistent with theory or previous findings among adults (Watson

& Pennebaker, 1989). Interestingly, girls who reported more positive affect were rated by their parents as having more symptoms of anxiety and more somatic health complaints than girls with less positive affect. As with the relationship between affect and anxiety, 52 replication with a larger sample would aid in understanding of the generalizability of findings from this sample.

Affect in play and affect in daily life

The present study adds to the understanding of the relationship between affect in play and mood in daily life. Importantly, they are not the same. Affect in play and affect in daily life were not consistently related to one another and they each had different correlates of adaptive functioning. While positive affect in play correlated with positive affect in daily life among girls, the two were not related among boys. Among the total sample, positive affect in play and positive affect in daily life also correlated with different constructs of adaptive functioning. Also in both boys and girls, negative affect in play was not significantly related to negative affect in daily life and the two were not related to the same constructs. These findings have important implications for how emotional themes and expressions in play are interpreted. More specifically, aggression, sadness, and frustration in play should not be considered maladaptive or concerning.

Quite the opposite, the findings indicate that in many children, negative expression in play is helpful and is associated with constructs important for adaptive functioning.

Limitations and Future Directions

The present study has several limitations. First, the generalizability of the findings is limited given the small sample size. A larger sample of children would provide increased power to enable further data analysis, particularly related to understanding gender differences and the relationships involving parent- and teacher- report measures. Additionally, while the reported school demographic information is meaningful, obtaining the individual demographic information may add to the 53 generalizability of the findings. Knowledge of specific socioeconomic status and racial background aids in understanding how applicable the findings are to other samples of children.

There were significant unexpected gender differences that may also impact the generalizability of the present findings. First, girls had significantly more positive affect in their play than boys and girls in previous samples did (Hoffmann, 2012). Second, girls had significantly higher scores on the PANAS-C Positive Affect than boys did. This is inconsistent with previous studies showing that positive and negative affect do not differ across gender (Ebesutani, Okamura, Higa-McMillan, & Chorpita, 2011; Lonigan et al.,

1999). Also unexpected, girls had higher parent-reported anxiety, depression, and somatic complaints than boys did (Garber, Walker, & Zeman, 1991; Nauta et al., 2004).

That said, research on somatization symptoms in children does indicate relationships among anxiety, depression, and somatic complaints (Garber et al., 1991). Children who report more somatic complaints without known medical cause tend to have more symptoms of anxiety and depression. Therefore, given their higher performance on the somatic complaints measure, it is not surprising that they also scored higher on measures of anxiety and depression. Relative to previous samples, female scores on anxiety and depression are not higher than expected. In contrast, male scores were significantly lower than expected relative to means of previous samples. Such unexpected gender effects may limit the generalizability of the present sample.

An important limitation to understanding the relationships among play, mood, and somatic health complaints is the lack of valid and reliable measures of somatic health complaints. An extensive literature search yielded no widely used method of assessing 54 somatic complaints in typically developing children. Most measures of somatic complaints are aimed toward medically ill populations, which was not appropriate for the present study. While the Achenbach Child Behavior Checklist is validated, using a single subscale reduces the validity. While the Somatic Complaints scale correlated with APS

Negative Affect in boys as predicted, a validated and reliable measure of health complaints would improve the understanding of the relationships among play, mood, and somatic complaints in typical children.

In addition, the School Coping Scale is a self-report measure that provides an indication of the ability to generate coping strategies to potentially stressful situations. It does not, however, reflect the actual use of coping strategies in stressful situations in life.

Validation of the School Coping Scale with actual use of strategies and teacher- and parent-report of coping would improve the understanding of how play and mood relate to actual coping ability in daily life. In addition, the two coping scores on the SCS generally performed similarly across correlations with other variables, with the exception of APS affect scores. Further validation of the scoring system would aid understanding of how these two scores relate to one another. In theory, an ability to generate coping strategies may be different than the ability to generate strategies that are considered more effective. The frequency score seems to a more reliable measure, but further examination of the effectiveness score and its additive value is necessary for continued scale development and understanding of the construct.

There were a large number of correlations examined in the present study, which increases the likelihood of a significant correlation achieved by chance. However, a priori hypotheses were grounded in theory and Bonferroni adjusted p-values were utilized 55 for post-hoc correlational analyses for the total sample to reduce the likelihood the correlations were obtained by chance alone. Finally, the present study is correlational in nature, meaning causation cannot be inferred.

Replication is important for understanding the generalizability of the present findings, particularly relative to gender differences. In addition, replication with a larger sample would aid in more fully understanding how affect in play relates to mood in daily life and other constructs of adaptive functioning. It will be important to further examine the hypothesized variables, in addition to considering how mood relates to additional constructs of adaptive functioning and different measures.

56

Table 1. Measures and Scores

Construct Measure Subscales and Scores Informant

Play Processes Affect in Play Scale Positive Affect Child (Russ, 2004, 2014) Negative Affect Performance Task (observation)

Positive and Positive and Negative Positive Affect Child Rating Negative Mood Affect Schedule for Negative Affect States Children (Laurent et al., 1999)

Coping School Coping Scale Frequency of Coping Child Task (Russ et al., 1999) Effectiveness of Coping

Prosocial Walker-McConnell Scale Teacher-Preferred Teacher Rating Behavior of Social Competence Behavior and School Adjustment Peer-Preferred (Walker & McConnell, Behavior 1988)

Humor Multidimensional Sense Humor Total Score Child Rating of Humor Scale for Humor Coping Children (Dowling & Humor Creation Fain, 1999) Anxiety Spence Children’s Total Score Parent Rating Anxiety Scale—Parent Report (Spence, 1999)

Depression Children’s Depression Total Score Parent Rating Inventory—Parent Version (Kovacs, 1992)

Health Somatic Complaints scale Total Score Parent Rating Complaints of CBCL (Achenbach & Rescorla, 2001)

57

Table 2. Sample Demographics

School Site Gender First Second Third Fourth Total Grade Grade Grade Grade

Site 1 Female 3 3 5 5 16

Male 2 3 3 1 9

Site 2 Female 10 10 3 5 28

Male 2 6 0 3 11

Total 17 22 11 14 64

58

Table 3. Descriptive Statistics for Overall Sample

Measure N Mean SD Range Subscale

Affect in Play Scale Positive Affect 52 6.63 5.89 0-26 Negative Affect 52 4.65 4.74 0-16

PANAS-C Positive Affect 64 46.47 7.76 21-61 Negative Affect 64 27.13 9.02 14-57

School Coping Scale Total Frequency 64 11.61 3.03 5-19 Effectiveness 64 1.97 0.35 1.17-2.71

Walker-McConnell Teacher-Preferred Behavior 38 69.34 9.41 45-80 Peer-Preferred Behavior 38 77.82 5.00 61-85

MSHSC Humor Total 64 65.94 12.28 34-87 Humor Coping 64 30.41 5.44 18-40 Humor Creation 64 20.77 4.25 8-27

Spence Anxiety Scale Total 40 12.70 6.48 2-28

Children’s Depression Inventory Total 40 7.20 4.71 0-24

Somatic Complaints Total 40 1.35 1.79 0-5

59

Table 4. Pearson Product Moment Correlations among APS, PANAS-C and Other Variables

Measure Affect in Play Scale PANAS-C Score Positive Negative Positive Negative Affect Affect Affect Affect

PANAS-C N = 52 N = 52 Positive Affect .46** .16

Negative Affect -.27 -.03

School Coping Scale N = 52 N = 52 N = 64 N = 64 Frequency .11 .60*** .38** -.20 (.15) (.64***) (.21) (.03)

Effectiveness .18 .47** .16 -.26* (.21) (.42*) (.09) (-.08)

Walker-McConnell N = 32 N = 32 N = 38 N = 38 Teacher-preferred .28 .44* .49** .08

Peer-preferred .08 .43* .20 .13

MSHSC N = 52 N = 52 N = 64 N = 64 Humor Total .09 .09 .53*** .06

Humor Coping .03 .12 .49*** .14

Humor Creation .16 .19 .54*** .14

Spence Anxiety N = 35 N = 35 N = 40 N = 40 Total .27 .13 .38* -.13

CDI-P N = 35 N = 35 N = 40 N = 40 Total .03 .07 .15 -.06

Somatic Complaints N = 35 N = 35 N = 40 N = 40 Total .47** -.31 .46** -.12

*p< .05 **p < .01 ***p < .001 ( ) partial correlations controlling for grade 60

Table 5. Pearson Product Moment Correlations among Variables of Adaptive Functioning

School Coping Scale Walker-McConnell MSHSC Frequency Effective Teacher Peer Total Coping Creation

SCS Frequency .47*** .08 .05 .30* .28* .30*

Effectiveness .16 .09 .19 .30* .20

Walker- McConnell .56*** .25 .22 .41* Teacher Peer .22 .18 .21

MSHSC Humor Total .86*** .76***

Coping .53***

Creation

*p< .05 **p < .01 ***p < .001

61

Table 6. Intercorrelations among Affect in Play Scale Variables

Organization Imagination Comfort Total Variety Positive Negative Affect of Affect Affect Affect Organization -- .75*** .68*** .62*** .67*** .61*** .26

Imagination -- .59*** .51** .57*** .52** .17

Comfort -- .72*** .69*** .60*** .42**

Total Affect -- .82*** .71*** .60***

Variety of Affect -- .68*** .54***

Positive Affect -- .06 Negative Affect -- n = 52 *p< .05 **p < .01 ***p < .001

62

Table 7. Pearson Product Moment Correlations among APS and PANAS-C Variables

Affect in Play Scale Variables Organization Imagination Comfort Frequency Variety Positive Negative of Affect of Affect Affect Affect

PANAS-C Positive Affect .21 .02 .32* .44** .41** .46** .16

Negative Affect -.29* -.33* -.19 -.22 -.17 -.27 -.03

n = 52 *p< .05 **p < .01

63

Table 8. Descriptive Statistics for Variables by Gender*

Females Male Measure Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Subscale

Affect in Play Scale Positive Affect 8.50 (6.44) 3.11 (1.84) Negative Affect 3.91 (4.17) 6.06 (5.51)

PANAS-C Positive Affect 48.68 (7.12) 41.60 (6.97) Negative Affect 27.48 (9.70) 26.35 (7.50)

School Coping Scale Total Frequency 11.77 (3.20) 11.25 (2.65) Effectiveness 1.94 (0.34) 2.03 (0.36)

Walker-McConnell Teacher-Preferred Behavior 70.42 (9.63) 67.00 (8.85) Peer-Preferred Behavior 77.77 (5.20) 77.92 (4.78)

MSHSC Humor Total 66.45 (11.91) 64.80 (13.31) Humor Coping 30.70 (5.37) 29.75 (5.69) Humor Creation 21.09 (4.17) 20.05 (4.44)

Spence Anxiety Scale Total 14.26 (7.10) 9.46 (3.23)

Children’s Depression Inventory Total 8.11 (5.29) 5.23 (2.20)

Somatic Complaints Total 1.85 (1.98) 0.31 (0.48)

*Females: APS n = 34; PANAS-C, SCS, & MSHSC n = 44; WM n = 26; Spence, CDI, & Somatic n = 27

Males: APS n = 18; PANAS-C, SCS, & MSHSC n = 20; WM n = 12; Spence, CDI, & Somatic n = 13

64

Table 9. Pearson Product Moment Correlations among APS, PANAS-C and Other Variables for Females

Measure Affect in Play Scale PANAS-C Score Positive Affect Negative Affect Positive Affect Negative Affect

PANAS-C N = 34 N = 34 Positive Affect .43* .13

Negative Affect -.37* -.19

School Coping Scale N = 34 N = 34 N = 44 N = 44 Frequency .04 .64*** .35* -.33*

Effectiveness .35* .25 .17 -.37*

Walker-McConnell N = 21 N = 21 N = 26 N = 26 Teacher-preferred .33 .45* .62** .02

Peer-preferred .13 .35 .33 .10

MSHSC N = 34 N = 34 N = 44 N = 44 Humor Total .06 -.03 .53*** -.10

Humor Coping -.01 .03 .42** -.03

Humor Creation .07 .02 .65*** .08

N = 23 N = 23 N = 27 N = 27 Spence Anxiety Total .11 .28 .29 -.16

CDI-P Total -.19 .21 .09 -.06

Somatic Complaints Total .35 -.24 .42** -.16

*p< .05 **p < .01 ***p < .001

65

Table 10. Correlations among APS, PANAS-C and Other Variables for Males

Measure Affect in Play Scale PANAS-C Score Positive Affect Negative Affect Positive Affect Negative Affect

PANAS-C N = 18 N = 18 Positive Affect -.14 .54*

Negative Affect -.20 -.05

School Coping Scale N = 18 N = 18 N = 20 N = 20 Frequency .51* .65** .52* .23

Effectiveness -.01 .74*** .40* .06

Walker-McConnell N = 11 N = 11 N = 20 N = 20 Teacher-preferred -.23 .54* .20 .20

Peer-preferred -.05 .60* .08 .27

MSHSC N = 18 N = 18 N = 20 N = 20 Humor Total .27 .30 .61** .46*

Humor Coping .12 .30 .72** .62**

Humor Creation .32 .52* .31 .29

N = 12 N = 12 N = 13 N = 13 Spence Anxiety Total .19 .26 .39 .12

CDI-P Total .45 .05 -.19 -.22

Somatic Complaints Total -.27 -.51* .16 .29

*p< .05 **p < .01 ***p < .001

66

Table 11. Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis Predicting Frequency of Coping from APS Negative Affect and PANAS-C Positive Affect while controlling for Grade

Variable B SE B ß R2 R2∆

Step 1 .09

Grade .72 .32 .31***

Step 2 .39 .35

Grade .39 .28 .17***

APS Negative Affect .29 .06 .56***

PANAS-C Positive Affect .01 .04 .01

N = 52 ***p < .001

Table 12. Multiple Regression Analysis Predicting Teacher-Preferred Prosocial Behavior

Variable B SE B ß

APS Negative Affect .66 .29 .35*

PANAS-C Positive Affect .45 .19 .38* Note, R2 = .33, Adj. R2 = .29 (p < .01)

67

Table 13. Principal Component Analysis with Direct Oblimin Rotation for APS Scores

Component

APS Score Factor 1 Factor 2 Organization .91 -.17 Imagination .82 -.28 Comfort .88 .10 Variety of Affect .89 .21 Positive Affect .81 -.29 Negative Affect .42 .89 n = 52

68

Table 14. Principal Component Analysis Requesting a Two-Factor Solution for the 27-item PANAS-C Scales

Loadings

Factor 1: Negative Factor 2: Positive Guilty -.159 .836 Nervous .236 .738 Blue -.200 .736 Scared .196 .703 Miserable -.105 .697 Gloomy -.037 .696 Mad -.006 .690 Sad -.376 .664 Upset -.014 .644 Afraid .171 .644 Lonely -.009 .607 Frightened .218 .512 Ashamed .136 .452 Jumpy .455 .326 -.177 .690 Lively Cheerful .242 .685 Excited .388 .645 Proud -.057 .615 Joyful -.353 .544 Active -.322 .532 Happy .067 .517 Strong -.211 .510 Alert -.383 .497 Lots of Energy .261 .478 Interested .162 .333 Fearless .458 .321 Calm .400 .021 Lively -.177 .690 n = 64

69

Appendix A

[PARENT INFORMED CONSENT DOCUMENT] A Play Study with School-Aged Children

Your child is being asked to participate in a research study about how play relates to areas of adaptive functioning. Your child was selected as a possible participant because your child’s school has agreed to participate in the research. Please read this form and ask any questions you may have before agreeing to be part of this research. The researchers conducting the study are from Case Western Reserve University.

Background Information The present research will explore positive and negative emotions and pretend play skills in school-aged children. Further understanding of positive and negative mood in daily life and positive and negative affect in pretend play is important to a child’s development. The research will examine relationships among emotions, play ability, and other constructs of adaptive functioning such as humor, coping, health complaints, and pro-social behavior. Your child’s participation in the present study is an essential part of exploring these relationships and would be greatly appreciated.

Procedure If you give permission for your child to participate, he/she will meet for one session during the school day. Your child will also be asked for his/her permission to be in the study. Regardless of your signed consent form, your child may refuse to participate or may discontinue at any time. This will be explained to your child. If your child grants permission, he/she will complete several measures in one 30-minute session. Of note, the session will be conducted at a time that does not interfere with essential class time and will be at the discretion of the school.

Researchers will be taking notes, but also request your permission to videotape part of the session. We would like to videotape part of the session to further understand children’s play. Importantly, we will not use names on the videotapes and they would only be accessed by our researchers.

The measures will evaluate your child’s pretend play ability (playing with puppets and blocks for 5 minutes), coping ability (what he/she would do in response to different school situations), positive and negative affect (identifying how they have felt over the past two weeks), humor (answering questions about their sense of humor), and health complaints (identifying any pain complaints in past two weeks).

We are also asking that you, the parent, complete three measures about your child, that will take about 5-10 minutes of your time. The measures will ask about your child’s emotional functioning and frequency of health complaints. One of the measures asks about symptoms of depression. In order to maintain your child’s safety and well-being, please be aware that if your child’s scores fall within a range of concern, you will be notified by our researchers via a letter mailed home. However, if your child’s scores do not fall in such ranges, no feedback will be 70 given. Finally, we are also asking your child’s teacher to complete one measure about his/her pro-social behavior, such as how he/she gets along with peers. If you would prefer that your child’s teacher do not complete this measure, but

Risks and Benefits For most children, there are no risks to participating in the study other than those of daily living. Although there are no direct benefits to your child for participating in this study, we are hoping that we find relationships between pretend play and the other constructs of adaptive functioning, such as coping and pro-social behavior. Findings from the present study will help us better understand these concepts and how we could possibly improve them in children.

Confidentiality Code numbers will be used instead of names on all notes and information regarding your child’s session. All questionnaires will be treated as confidential material. No information about the individual child will be shared with the school, teachers, parents, or children with one exception. The confidentiality of responses will be broken if the researchers are concerned about your child’s safety. This includes parent, child, or teacher responses indicating abuse, neglect, or suicidal intent. The researchers must report to the child welfare authority if they suspect that a child has suffered or faces threat of any physical or mental wound, injury, disability or condition that reasonable indicates child abuse or neglect.

Additionally, the records of this research will be kept private. Any potential published report will not include any information that will make it possible to identify a participant. Research records will be kept in a locked file and access will be limited to researchers and the university review board responsible for protecting human participants and regulatory agencies. Videotapes will be destroyed after three years.

At the discretion of the school, group results will likely be explained in a report and/or presentation. Individual scores will not be released to the school or to the parents.

Voluntary Nature of the Study Your child’s participation in this study is voluntary. If you or your child chooses not to participate, it will not affect your current or future relations with Case Western Reserve University or your child’s school. There is no penalty or loss of benefits for not participating or discontinuing your participation.

Contacts and Questions The researchers conducting this study are Dr. Sandra Russ, Ph.D. and Julie Fiorelli, M.A. You may contact Dr. Russ at (216) 368-2814 and Julie Fiorelli at (216) 368-8869 ext. 6 if you have any questions. Julie Fiorelli is a graduate student at in Case Western Reserve University’s Clinical Child Psychology Program and is working with Dr. Russ on this study.

If you would like to talk with someone other than the researchers about 1) concerns about this study 2) research participants rights 3) research-related injuries or 4) other human subject issues, please contact Case Western Reserve University’s Office of Research Administration at 216- 71

368-6925 or write: Case Institutional Review Board, Office of Research Compliance, Sears Library Building, Room 662, Cleveland, OH 44106-7230. If you agree to have your child participate in this study, please sign one copy of the consent form and have your child return the full letter with your signature to her teacher. Please keep the other copy of the consent letter for your records.

Thank you,

______

Julie Fiorelli, M.A. Graduate Student Clinical Psychology (216) 368-8869 ext. 6

______

Sandra Russ, Ph.D. Professor of Psychology (216) 368-2814

72

[CHILD ASSENT FORM] A Play Study with School-Aged Children

Children under 8 only need to verbally assent, while children 8 and older need to sign their name. For children 8 and older, please include the words in the parenthesis.

Name: ______

Date: ______

Hi, my name is Julie Fiorelli. We are here to learn about play and how play relates to the way kids think and feel. We would like to ask you some different questions and play with some toys for a while. Your parents have said it is okay for you to do these things, but it is okay if you choose not to do these things. Even if you say “yes” now, you can still stop what we are doing at any time. If you don’t like what you are doing and don’t want to do this, just tell me that you want to stop. We will be doing this for about thirty minutes. Is this okay with you?

I will be taking some notes so I can remember what you say. What you say and do will not be told to your parents or teachers, unless we are concerned about your safety. But you can talk to anyone you want to about what we do. Also, we’re going to videotape some of what we are doing today. Your parents said this is okay and your parent(s) know that I am asking you to do these things. Is this okay with you?

Child’s signature (8+): ______

Date: ______

Researcher’s signature: ______

Date: ______

73

[TEACHER INFORMED CONSENT DOCUMENT] A Play Study with School-Aged Children

You are being asked to participate in a research study about how children’s play relates to areas of adaptive functioning, including coping, mood, humor, anxiety, depression, health complaints, and prosocial behavior. You were selected as a possible participant because you are the teacher of a student enrolled in the study. Please read this form and ask any questions that you may have before agreeing to be in the research. The researchers conducting the study are from Case Western Reserve University.

Background Information The purpose of this research is to examine the relationships among emotions, play ability, and other areas of adaptive functioning, including humor, coping, health complaints, prosocial behavior, and symptoms of anxiety and depression. Further understanding how these constructs relate to one another has important implications for a child’s overall functioning.

Procedure If you agree to participate in this research, we are asking that you complete one measure about the prosocial behaviors of each child in your classroom who is participating in the study. The measures to be completed will be provided to you by a researcher, once you, the parent(s), and the student have all consented to the study.

Risks and Benefits There are no foreseeable risks for participating in this study. If you wish to stop, you may stop at any time.

There are no direct benefits for participating in this study. However, we are hoping that exploring how these constructs relate to one another will have important implications for further understanding a child’s overall functioning.

Confidentiality Each teacher will be assigned a code letter, so that questionnaires do not contain your name. When given the measure, it will have a child’s code number instead of their name and a sticky note with their name, which you will be asked to throw away after completing the measure, in order to maintain confidentiality.

No information provided by you will be shared with the student, parent(s), or school unless the researchers have reason to suspect child abuse or neglect or other mental issues of clinical concern, in which case the research will alert the school psychologist. In addition, the researchers must report to the child welfare authority if the child is in imminent risk of harming the self or others.

The records of this research will be kept private in a locked file cabinet. Access to this information will be limited to researchers and the University review board response for 74 protecting human participants. In any sort of report we may publish, we will not include individual information that would make it possible to identify any participant.

Voluntary Nature of the Study Your participation is voluntary. If you choose not to participate, it will not affect your current or future relations with Case Western Reserve University or to the school. There is no penalty or loss of benefits for not participating or for discontinuing your participation.

Contacts and Questions The researchers conducting this study are Sandra Russ, Ph.D. and Julie Fiorelli, M.A. You may contact Dr. Russ at 216-368-2814 and Julie Fiorelli at 216-268-8869 ext. 6 if you have any questions. Julie Fiorelli is a graduate student at in Case Western Reserve University’s Clinical Child Psychology Program and is working with Dr. Russ on this study.

As a reminder, the researchers must report to the child welfare authority if they suspect that a child has suffered or faces threat of any physical or mental wound, injury, disability or condition that reasonably indicates child abuse or neglect.

If the researchers cannot be reached, or if you would like to talk to someone other than the researcher(s) about; (1) questions, concerns or complaints regarding this study, (2) research participant rights, (3) research-related injuries, or (4) other human subjects issues, please contact Case Western Reserve University’s Office of Research Administration at 216-368-6925, or write: Case Institutional Review Board, Office of Research Compliance, Sears Building 657, Cleveland, OH 44106-7230.

If you agree to participate in this study, please sign one copy of the consent form. You will be given a copy of this form for your records.

Statement of Consent I have read the above information. I have received answers to questions I may have asked. I consent to participate in this research. I am at least 18 years of age.

Print Name of Participant: ______Date: ______

Signature of Participant: ______Date: ______

75

Appendix B

Affect in Play Scale Directions: “I am here to learn about how children play. I have here two puppets and would like you to play with them any way you like for five minutes. For example, you could have the puppets do something together. I also have some blocks that you can use. Be sure to have the puppets talk out loud. The video camera will be on so I can remember what you say and do. I’ll tell you when to stop.”

When on minute left, “You have one minute left to play with the toys.”

Stop the play after 5 minutes and say, “That was good!” or “That was fine.”

Prompts and Special Circumstances: 1. If the child does not know to put on the puppets, tell the child to put them on. Let the child know when they can start and start timing from that point. 2. If the child does not start to play, prompt the child after 30 seconds by saying, “Go ahead, have the puppets do something together.” Two prompts of this sort can be given. After two minutes of no play, the task should be discontinued. 3. If the child plays but does not have the puppets talk, prompt with “Have the puppets talk out loud so I can hear you” after 30 seconds. Two prompts of this sort can be given, spaced about one minute apart. 4. If a child has been playing, but then stops before time is up, prompt with “You still have time left, keep on playing.” Most children who already played will be able to continue with prompts. If they cannot, then discontinue after two minutes of no play. 5. Be sure not to give any verbal reinforcement during the child’s play. It is important however, to be attentive and watch the child and be interested. After the child has finished say, “That was good” or “That was fine.” 6. Be sure to stop after five minutes. A wristwatch with a second hand is adequate. Time in an unobtrusive manner.

76

Affect in Play Scale- Scoring Manual

The Affect in Play Scale consists of a standardized play task and a criterion-based rating scale. The APS-BR is appropriate for children 6-10 years of age, which includes children in grades one through three. The APS measures the amount and quality of organization, imagination, and comfort in the child’s play. The APS also measures the frequency of positive and negative affective units as well as the variety of affect expressed in play. Play sessions are five minute standardized puppet play periods. The rating is done by the observer during the five minute task. Timing should be discreet, and a stopwatch should not be used.

The APS Play Task

The play task consists of two human puppets, one boy and one girl, and three small blocks that are laid out on a table. The puppets have neutral facial expressions. Both Caucasian and African-American puppets are used, depending upon the child population. The blocks are brightly colored and of different shapes. The play props and instruction are unstructured enough so that individual differences in play can emerge. The task is administered individually to the child. The instructions for the task are: “I’m here to learn about how children play. I have here two puppets and would like you to play with them any way you like for five minutes. For example, you can have the puppets do something together. I also have some blocks that you can use. Be sure to have the puppets talk out loud. The video camera will be on so that I can remember what you say and do. I’ll tell you when to stop. Go ahead, put the puppets on, and start.” The child is told when there is one minute left with the instruction, “You have one minute left.”

Prompts and Special Circumstances

If the child does not know to put on the puppets, tell the child to put them on. Let the child know when she can start and start timing from that point.

If the child does not start to play, prompt the child after 30 seconds by saying, “Go ahead, have the puppets do something together.” Two prompts of this sort can be given. After two minutes of no play, the task should be discontinued.

If the child plays but does not have the puppets talk, prompt with “Have the puppets talk out loud so I can hear” after 30 seconds. Two prompts can be give, spaced about one minute apart.

If a child has been playing, but then stops before time is up, prompt with “You still have time left, keep on playing.” Prompt a second time if needed with “Keep on playing, I’ll tell you when to stop.” Most children who already played will be able to continue with prompts. If they cannot, then discontinue after two minutes of no play.

77

Be sure not to give any verbal reinforcement during the child’s play. It is important however to be attentive and watch the child and be interested. After the child has finished, say “That was good” or “That was fine.”

If you cannot hear something the child said, it is appropriate to ask the child to repeat it and speak louder. It is fine to do this occasionally, but do not repeatedly ask the child to repeat or speak louder.

Be sure to stop after five minutes. A wristwatch with a second hand is adequate. Time in an unobtrusive manner.

The APS Rating Scale

The APS measures the amount and types of affect expression children’s fantasy play. The APS measures affect themes in the play narrative. Both emotion laden content and expression of emotion in the play are coded. The APS also measures cognitive dimensions of the play, including the quality of fantasy and organization in the play narrative. Comfort playing is also scored. Make sure to confine the scoring to the pretend play between the puppets. Verbalizations by the child not relating to the play are not scored. You may find it helpful to keep a written dialogue of the child’s play. You also want to keep track of the general plot of the play, including transformations, new characters, and events.

There are two major affect scores for the APS, the frequency of affect and variety of affect.

FREQUENCY OF AFFECT EXPRESSION:

Measures the frequency of affective expression by scorable units. A unit of affect expression is defined as one scorable expression by an individual puppet. In a two-puppet dialogue, expressions of each puppet are scored separately. A unit can be an expression of an affect state (e.g. “This is fun.”), an affect theme (e.g. “Here is a bomb that is going to explode.”), or a combination of the two. The expression can be verbal (e.g. “I hate you.”) or non-verbal (e.g. one puppet punching the other). If non-verbal activity, such as fighting, occurs in a continuous fashion, a new unit is scored about every five seconds (timing should be discreet - no stopwatch is necessary). The frequency of affect score is the total number of units expressed in the five minute period.

VARIETY OF AFFECT CATEGORIES

There are 11 possible affect categories. These include: happiness/pleasure, anxiety/fear, sadness/hurt, frustration/disappointment, nurturance/affection, aggression, competition, oral, oral aggression, sexual, and anal. The variety of affect score is the number of different categories of affect expressed in the 5-minute period. Affect categories are classified as positive affect (i.e. happiness/pleasure, nurturance/affection, competition, oral, sexual) and negative affect (i.e. anxiety/fear, sadness/hurt, frustration/disappointment, aggression, oral aggression, anal).

78

AFFECT CATEGORIES:

Aggression: Expression of anger; fighting, destruction, or harm to another character or object; or reference to destructive objects (guns, knives) or actions (breaking).

Nurturance/Affection: Expressions of empathy or sympathy with another character; affection; helping and support.

Happiness/Pleasure: Expression of positive affect that denotes pleasure, happiness, having a good time, enjoyment, and contentedness.

Anxiety/Fear: Expressions of fear and anxiety. Content such as school anxiety, doctors visits, fears, concern about punishment, and worry. Actions of fleeing and hiding, agitation.

Sadness/Hurt: Expression of illness, physical injury, pain, sadness, loneliness.

Frustration/Disappointment/Dislike: Expressions of disappointment and frustration with activities, objects, and limitations.

Competition: Expressions of wanting to win, competitive game-playing, pride in achievement, and striving for achievement.

Oral: Expressions of oral content of food, cooking, eating and drinking. Affect expressions are positive about oral content.

Oral Aggression: Expressions of oral aggressive themes such as biting or food that has negative affect associated with it.

Sexual: Expressions of sexual content.

Anal: Expression of anal content including dirt and making a mess.

ORGANIZATION:

Measuring the quality of the plot and story complexity. The rating categories are not “all-or- none” categories. For example, a child does not have to have all aspects of a 3, if one aspect is particularly salient. One aspect can compensate for deficiencies in other aspects.

5-POINT LIKERT SCALE 1. Series of unrelated events, no cause-effect; disjointed; story is very simple

2. Some cause-effect; series of somewhat related events organized; story is somewhat simple

3. Cause-effect; organized in a temporal sequence, but no overall integrated plot

4. More cause and effect, close to an integrated plot 79

5. Integrated plot with beginning, middle, & end; story is complex

IMAGINATION:

Measures the novelty and uniqueness of the play and the ability to use pretend and fantasy; imagination indicates the ability to use the blocks and/or puppets to pretend with them, to make up stories, and to create novel events; transformations involve pretending that the block is something else. The rater is encouraged to keep track of the number of transformations, although an exact count is not necessary. The rating categories are not “all-or-none” categories. For example, a child does not need to have all aspects of a 3, if one particular aspect is especially salient. One aspect can compensate for deficiencies in other aspects.

5-POINT LIKERT SCALE 1. No make-believe, transformations, or fantasy, or only one of these, without the context of a story

2. One or two instances of transformations. No novel events; very few fantasy events in the story

3. Three or more transformations. Some fantasy and pretend events, such as “Let’s play house. Some variety of events. No novel events or events removed from daily experience.

4. Many transformations, variety of events, some novel events; some fantasy with unusual twists or removed from daily experience, such as living in a castle or building a space ship. Other characters in addition to the two puppets are included in the story.

5. Many transformations, many novel fantasy events; Novelty of ideas is evident Fantasy has new twists and often has elements outside of daily experiences.

COMFORT:

A global rating for the child’s overall comfort while they play. It measures the involvement of the child in the play and the enjoyment of the play The lower end of the scale rates comfort (ability to play) more than enjoyment, while higher end of the scale indicates involvement and pleasure (immersion in play).

5-POINT LIKERT SCALE 1. Reticent, distressed; stops and starts

2. Some reticence and stiffness

3. OK, but not involved or enjoying; continues to play

4. Comfortable and involved

5. Very comfortable, involved, and enjoying the play. 80

81

School Coping Scale

WHAT WOULD YOU DO IF…

* after student responds, query. “what else?”

1. …you were going to be late to school?*

2. …your teacher asked you a question and you didn’t know the answer?*

3. …you forgot something that you needed to bring to school (i.e. homework, show and tell object, project)

4. …your best friend didn’t want to play with you anymore?

5. …another student in your class called you names?

6. …another student in your class took a pencil from you when you were using it?

7. …you were put into a class where you didn’t know any of the other children?

8. …another student in your class tattled on you?

9. …you felt sick while you were at school?

10. …you were the last person to be picked when your class picked sides to play a game? 82

Multidimensional Sense of Humor Scale for Children (MSHSC)

Directions: Below are statements that describe feelings of school age children. I will be reading the questions out loud. You can follow along and afterwards tell me or point to the word that best describes how you feel. Remember there are no right or wrong answers.

1. I make up jokes or funny stories. Never Almost Never Sometimes Almost Always Always

2. I like a good joke. Never Almost Never Sometimes Almost Always Always

3. Jokes and funny stories help me get through tough times. Never Almost Never Sometimes Almost Always Always

4. I can make other people laugh. Never Almost Never Sometimes Almost Always Always

5. I like people who tell jokes. Never Almost Never Sometimes Almost Always Always

6. People tell me that I say funny things. Never Almost Never Sometimes Almost Always Always

7. I use jokes and funny stories to make my friends laugh. Never Almost Never Sometimes Almost Always Always

8. I like being around people who tell jokes and funny stories. Never Almost Never Sometimes Almost Always Always

9. I can make problems better by saying something funny. Never Almost Never Sometimes Almost Always Always

10. It bothers me when people tell jokes. Never Almost Never Sometimes Almost Always Always

83

11. I like to hear a funny story. Never Almost Never Sometimes Almost Always Always

12. I can make people laugh with the things I say. Never Almost Never Sometimes Almost Always Always

13. I like it when people share a joke or funny story with me. Never Almost Never Sometimes Almost Always Always

14. Jokes and funny stories are a good way to face tough times. Never Almost Never Sometimes Almost Always Always

15. I like people who make me laugh. Never Almost Never Sometimes Almost Always Always

16. My jokes and funny stories make others laugh. Never Almost Never Sometimes Almost Always Always

17. Jokes and funny stories help to relax me. Never Almost Never Sometimes Almost Always Always

18. Using jokes and funny stories to get through tough times is a good way to go through life. Never Almost Never Sometimes Almost Always Always

19. On a scale of 1 to 5, how would you describe your sense of humor? Low Humor High Humor 1 2 3 4 5

84

Somatic Complaints Parent Report (Achenbach scale Child Behavioral Checklist, 2001)

Please respond 0 = not true, 1 = somewhat or sometimes true, 2 = very true or often true as the following apply to your child:

1. Nightmares 0 1 2

2. Constipated; doesn’t move bowels 0 1 2

3. Feels dizzy or lightheaded 0 1 2

4. Overtired without good reason 0 1 2

5. Physical problems without known medical cause

a. Aches or pains (not stomach of headaches) 0 1 2

b. Headaches 0 1 2

c. Nausea; feels sick 0 1 2

d. Problems with eyes (not if corrected by glasses) 0 1 2

e. Rashes or other skin problems 0 1 2

f. Stomachaches 0 1 2

g. Vomiting; throwing up 0 1 2

h. Other; please describe: 0 1 2

______

______

______

85

SPENCE CHILDREN’S ANXIETY SCALE (Parent Report)

Your Name: Date:

Your Child’s Name:

BELOW IS A LIST OF ITEMS THAT DESCRIBE CHILDREN. FOR EACH ITEM PLEASE CIRCLE THE RESPONSE THAT BEST DESCRIBES YOUR CHILD. PLEASE ANSWER ALL THE ITEMS.

1. My child worries about things...... … Never Sometimes Often Always 2. My child is scared of the dark...... ……. Never Sometimes Often Always 3. When my child has a problem, s(he) complains of having a funny feeling in his / her stomach ………...... Never Sometimes Often Always

4. My child complains of feeling afraid...... Never Sometimes Often Always 5. My child would feel afraid of being on his/her own at home………….... Never Sometimes Often Always 6. My child is scared when s(he) has to take a test...... …………………. Never Sometimes Often Always 7. My child is afraid when (s)he has to use public toilets or bathrooms.…. Never Sometimes Often Always 8. My child worries about being away from us / me...... ………………. Never Sometimes Often Always 9. My child feels afraid that (s)he will make a fool of him/herself in front of people...... …………….....…...... ……………...... Never Sometimes Often Always

10. My child worries that (s)he will do badly at school...... …………………. Never Sometimes Often Always 11. My child worries that something awful will happen to someone in our family...... ………...... …………...……………..... Never Sometimes Often Always

12. My child complains of suddenly feeling as if (s)he can't breathe when there is no reason for this...... ………...... …………...…………. Never Sometimes Often Always

13. My child has to keep checking that (s)he has done things right (like the switch is off, or the door is locked)...... …...... …………...... Never Sometimes Often Always 14. My child is scared if (s)he has to sleep on his/her own…………………… Never Sometimes Often Always 15. My child has trouble going to school in the mornings because (s)he feels nervous or afraid...... …………………………………. Never Sometimes Often Always 16. My child is scared of dogs ...... …………………………………. Never Sometimes Often Always 17. My child can't seem to get bad or silly thoughts out of his / her head...... Never Sometimes Often Always 18. When my child has a problem, s(he) complains of his/her heart beating really fast...... ………………...... Never Sometimes Often Always

86

19. My child suddenly starts to tremble or shake when there is no reason for this...……...... …...... ………... Never Sometimes Often Always

20. My child worries that something bad will happen to him/her…………….. Never Sometimes Often Always 21. My child is scared of going to the doctor or dentist ………………………. Never Sometimes Often Always 22. When my child has a problem, (s)he feels shaky…...... …………………. Never Sometimes Often Always 23. My child is scared of heights (eg. being at the top of a cliff)...... ………... Never Sometimes Often Always 24. My child has to think special thoughts (like numbers or words) to stop bad things from happening.....…...... ……………… Never Sometimes Often Always

25. My child feels scared if (s)he has to travel in the car, or on a bus or train ……...... ………...... ……………………. Never Sometimes Often Always

26. My child worries what other people think of him/her...... …………..... Never Sometimes Often Always 27. My child is afraid of being in crowded places (like shopping centres, the movies, buses, busy playgrounds)...... ………………….… Never Sometimes Often Always 28 All of a sudden my child feels really scared for no reason at all...... Never Sometimes Often Always 29. My child is scared of insects or spiders...... …………………...... Never Sometimes Often Always 30. My child complains of suddenly becoming dizzy or faint when there is no reason for this...... …………………………………………… Never Sometimes Often Always 31. My child feels afraid when (s)he has to talk in front of the class.....…….. Never Sometimes Often Always 32. My child’s complains of his / her heart suddenly starting to beat too quickly for no reason ……………………………………………… Never Sometimes Often Always

33. My child worries that (s)he will suddenly get a scared feeling when there is nothing to be afraid of...... …..……………….. Never Sometimes Often Always

34. My child is afraid of being in small closed places, like tunnels or small rooms...... …..………...... …..………..... Never Sometimes Often Always

35. My child has to do some things over and over again (like washing his / her hands, cleaning or putting things in a certain order).....………… Never Sometimes Often Always

36. My child gets bothered by bad or silly thoughts or pictures in his/her head ………….…..………...... …...... …..… Never Sometimes Often Always 37. My child has to do certain things in just the right way to stop bad things from happening ...... ………………………………...... … Never Sometimes Often Always 38. My child would feel scared if (s)he had to stay away from home overnight...... …………………….. Never Sometimes Often Always

39. Is there anything else that your child is really afraid of? .....…………..…. YES NO Please write down what it is, and fill out how often (s)he is afraid of this thing: ______Never Sometimes Often Always ______Never Sometimes Often Always ______Never Sometimes Often Always

2000 Susan H. Spence 87

88

89

References Abelson, R., Kinder, D., Peters, M., & Fiske, S. (1982). Affective and semantic components in

political person perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 619-630.

Achenbach, T., Becker, A., Dopfner, M., Heiervang, E., Roessner, V., Steinhausen, H., &

Rothenberger, A. (2008). Multicultural assessment of child and adolescent

psychopathology with ASEBA and SDQ instruments: research findings, applications, and

future directions.

Achenbach, T. & Resorla, L. (2001). The manual for the child ASEBA school-age forms &

profiles. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont, Research Center for Children, Youth,

and Families.

Achenbach, T., Dumenci, L., & Rescorla, L. (2003). DSM-oriented and empirically based

approaches to constructing scales from the same item pools. Journal of Clinical Child

and Adolescent Psychology, 32, 328-340.

Andrews, F., Crandall, & Andrews, R. (1976). The validity of measures of self-reported well-

being. Social Indicators Research, 3, 1-19.

Beck, A. (1979). Cognitive therapy of depression. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Beck, A., & Beamesderfer, A. (1974). Assessment of depression: The depression inventory.

Psychological Measurements in Psychopharmacology, 7, 151-169.

Bergen, D. (2002). Finding the humor in children’s play. In J.L. Roopnarine (Ed.), Conceptual,

social-cognitive, and contextual issues in the fields of play (pp. 209-220). Westport, CT:

Ablex Publishing.

Blankemeyer, M., Flannery, D., &Vazsonyi, A. (2002). The role of aggression and social

competence in children’s perceptions of the child-teacher relationship. Psychology in the

Schools,39, 293-304. 90

Block, J. & Kremen, A. (1996). IQ and ego-resilience: Conceptual and empirical connections

and separateness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 349-361.

Bordwine, V. & Huebner, S. (2010). The role of coping in mediating the relationship between

positive affect and school satisfaction in adolescents. Child Indicators Research, 3, 349-

366.

Bradburn, N. (1969). The structure of psychological well-being. Chicago: Aldine.

Bretherton, I., McNew, S., & Beeghly-Smith, M. (1981). Early person knowledge as expressed

in gestural and verbal communication: When do infants acquire a “theory of mind”? In

M. Lamb & L. Sherrod (Eds.), Infant social cognition pp. 333-373). Hillsdale, NJ:

Erlbaum.

Buck, R. (1990). Mood and emotion: A comparison of five contemporary views. Psychological

Inquiry, 1, 330-336.

Buck, R. (1993). What is this thing called subjective experience? Reflections on the

neuropsychology of qualia. Neuropsychology, 7, 490-499.

Cicchetti. D. (1994). Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and

standardized assessment instruments in psychology. Psychological Assessment, 6, 284-

290.

Chorpita, B. (2002). The tripartite model and dimensions of anxiety and depression: An

examination of structure in a large school sample. Journal of Abnormal Child

Psychology, 30, 177-190.

Christian, K. (2011). The construct of playfulness: Relationships with adaptive behaviors,

humor, and early play ability. (Unpublished dissertation). Case Western Reserve

University, Cleveland, OH. 91

Christiano, B., & Russ, S. (1996). Play as a predictor of coping and distress in children during

an invasive dental procedure. Journal of Child Clinical Psychology, 25, 130-138.

Clark, L. & Watson, D. (1988) Development and validation of brief measures of positive and

negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54,

1063-1070.

Clark, L. & Watson, D. (1991). Tripartite model of anxiety and depression: Psychometric

evidence and taxonomic implications. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 100, 316-336.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd edition). United

Kingdom: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Cohen, N., Gotlieb, H., Kershner, J., & Wehrspann, W. (1985). Concurrent validity of the

internalizing and externalizing profile patterns of the Achenbach Child Behavior

Checklist. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53, 724-728.

Cordiano, T., Russ, S. & Short, E. (2008). Development and validation of the Affect in

Play Scale-Brief Rating Version (APS-BR). Journal of Personality Assessment, 90, 52-

60.

Crook, K., Beaver, B., & Bell, M. (1998). Anxiety and depression in children: A preliminary

examination of the utility of the PANAS-C. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral

Assessment, 20, 333-350.

Diener, E. & Emmons, R. (1984). The independence of positive and negative affect. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 1105-1117.

Dowling, J, & Fain, J. (1999). A Multidimensional Sense of Humor Scale for school-aged

children: Issues of reliability and validity. Journal of Pediatric Nursing, 14, 38-43.

Dowling, J., Hockenberry, M., & Gregory, R. (2003). Sense of humor, childhood cancer 92

stressors, and outcomes of psychosocial adjustment, immune function, and infection.

Journal of Pediatric Oncology Nursing, 20, 271-292.

Ebata, A, & Moos, R. (1991). Coping and adjustment in distressed and healthy adolescents.

Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 12, 33-54.

Ebesutani, C., Okamura, K., Higa-McMillan, & Chorpita, B. (2011). A psychometric analysis of

the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule for Children—Parent Version in a school

sample. Psychological Assessment, 23, 406-416.

Emmons, R. & Diener, R. (1985). Personality correlates of subjective well-being. Personality

and Social Psychology Bulletin, 11, 89-97.

Fehr, K. & Russ, S. (2013). Aggression in pretend play and aggressive behavior in the

classroom. Early Education and Development, 24, 332-345.

Fehr, K. & Russ, S. (in press). Assessment of pretend play in preschool-aged children:

Validation and factor analysis of the Affect in Play Scale-Preschool Version. Journal of

Personality Assessment,

Fein, G. (1981). Pretend play in childhood: An integrative review. Child Development, 52, 1095-

1118.

Fein, G. (1987). Pretend play: Creativity and consciousness. In P. Gorlitz & J. Wohlwill (Eds.),

Curiosity, imagination, and play (pp. 281-204). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates, Inc.

Fiorelli, J. & Russ, S. (2012). Pretend play, coping, and subjective well-being in children: A

follow-up study. Pretend play, coping, and subjective well-being in children: A follow-up

study. American Journal of Play, 5, 81-103.

Fredrickson, B. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-and- 93

build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56, 218-226.

Fredrickson, B. & Joiner, T. (2002). Positive emotions trigger upward spirals toward emotional

well-being. Psychological Science, 13, 172-175.

Fristad, M., Weller, R., Weller, B., Teare, M., & Preskorn, S. (1991). Comparison of the parent

and child versions of the Children’s Depression Inventory (CDI). Annals of Clinical

Psychiatry, 3, 341-346.

Garber, J., Walker, L., & Zeman, J. (1991). Somatization symptoms in a community sample of

children and adolescents. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 3, 588-595.

Gross, J. (1998). The emerging field of emotion regulation: An integrative review. Review of

General Psychology, 2, 271-299.

Grossman-McKee, A. (1989). The relationship between affective expression in fantasy play and

pain complaints in first and second grade children. Dissertation Abstracts International,

50.

Harris, P. (1989). Children and emotion: The development of psychological understanding.

Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell.

Harris, P., Olthof, T., Terwogt, M., & Hardman, C. (1987). Children’s knowledge of the

situations that provoke emotion. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 10,

319-343.

Herman-Stabl, M., Stemmler, M., & Peterson, A. (1995). Approach and avoidant coping:

Implications for adolescent mental health. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 24, 649-

665.

Hoffmann (2012). A pretend play group intervention for elementary school children

(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH. 94

Hoffmann, J. & Russ, S. (2012). Pretend play, creativity, and emotion regulation. Journal of

Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 6, 175-184.

Hughes, A., & Kendall, P. (2009). Psychometric properties of the Positive and Negative Affect

Scale for Children (PANAS-C) in children with anxiety disorders. Child Psychiatry and

Human Development, 40, 343-352.

Joiner, T., Catanzaro, S., Laurent, J. (1996). Tripartite structure of positive and negative affect,

depression, and anxiety in children and adolescent psychiatric inpatients. Journal of

Abnormal Psychology, 105, 401-409.

Kenealy, P. (1989). Children’s strategies for coping with depression. Behavior Research and

Therapy, 27, 27-34.

Kovacs, M. (1992). Children’s Depression Inventory Manual. North Tonawanda, NY: Multi-

Heath Systems.

Laurent, J., Catanzaro, S., Joiner, T., Rudolph, K., Potter, K., Lambert, S., Osborne, L., &

Gathright, T. (1999). A measure of positive and negative affect for children: Scale

development and preliminary validation. Psychological Assessment, 11, 326-338.

Loeb, M. & Wood, V. (1986). Epilogue: A nascent idea for an Eriksonian model of humor. In L.

Nahemow, K. McCluskey-Fawcett, & P. McGhee (Eds.), Humor and aging (pp. 279-

284). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Lonigan, C., Hooe, E., David, C., & Kistner, J. (1999). Positive and negative affectivity in

children: Confirmatory factor analysis of a two-factor model and its relation to symptoms

of anxiety and depression. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67, 374-386.

Martin, R., Kuiper, N., Olinger, J., & Dance, K. (1993). Humor, coping with stress, self-concept, 95

and psychological well-being. International Journal of Humor Research, 6, 89-104.

McGhee, P. (1979). Humor: Its origin and development. San Francisco, CA: W. H. Freeman.

Moore, M., & Russ, S. (2008). Follow-up of a pretend play intervention: Effects on play,

creativity, and emotional processes in children. Creativity Research Journal, 20, 427-

436.

Nauta, M., Scholing, A., Rapee, R., Abbott, M., Spence, S., Waters, A. (2004). A parent-report

measure of children’s anxiety: Psychometric properties and comparison with child-report

in a clinic and normal sample. Behavior Research and Therapy, 42, 813-839.

Oberle, E., Schonert-Reichl, K., & Thomson, K. (2010). Understanding the link between social

and emotional well-being and peer relations in early adolescence: gender-specific

predictors of peer acceptance. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 39, 1330-1342.

Ortony, A., Clore, G., & Collins, A. (1988). The cognitive structure of emotions. New York, NY:

Cambridge University Press.

Peterson, C. & Seligman, M.E. (2004). Humor (Playfulness). In Character strengths and virtues:

A handbook and classification. (pp.583-598). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Richards, R. (1990). Everyday creativity, eminent creativity, and health: Afterview for

CRT issues on creativity and health. Creativity Research Journal, 3, 300-326.

Russ, S. (1993). Affect and creativity: The role of affect and play in the creative process.

Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Russ, S. (2004). Play in child development and psychotherapy: Towards empirically supported

treatment. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Russ, S. (2014). Pretend Play in Childhood: Foundation of Adult Creativity. Washington, DC:

American Psychological Association. 96

Russ, S. & Cooperberg, M. (2002). Play as a predictor of creativity, coping, and depression in

adolescence. Unpublished manuscript and data set.

Russ, S., & Grossman-McKee, A. (1990). Affective expression in children’s fantasy play,

primary process thinking on the Rorschach, and divergent thinking. Journal of

Personality Assessment, 54, 756-771.

Russ, S., Robins, D., & Christiano, B. (1999). Pretend play: Longitudinal prediction of creativity

and affect in fantasy in children. Creativity Research Journal, 12, 129-139.

Russ, S., & Schafer, E. (2006). Affect in fantasy play, emotion in memories, and divergent

thinking. Creativity Research Journal, 18, 347-354.

Russell, J. (2003). Core affect and the psychological construction of emotion. American

Psychological Association, 110, 145-172.

Scott, T., Short, E., Singer, L., Russ, S., & Minnes, S. (2006). Psychometric properties of the

Dominic Interactive Assessment: A computerized self-report for children. Assessment,

13, 16-26.

Seja, A., & Russ, S. (1998, May). Children’s fantasy play, emotional understanding and

parents’ reports of children’s daily behavior. Poster session presented at the Great Lakes

Regional Conference on Child Health Psychology, Louisville, KY.

Singer, D. & Singer, J. (1990). The house of make-believe: Children’s play and the developing

imagination. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Slotkin, J., Forehand, R., Fauber, R., McCombs, A., & Long, N. (1988). Parent-completed and

adolescent-completed CDIs: Relationship to adolescent social and cognitive functioning.

Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 16, 207-217.

Spence, S. (1999). A measure of anxiety symptoms among children. Behavior Research and 97

Therapy, 36, 545-566.

Trabasso, T., Stein, N., & Johnson, L. (1981). Children’s knowledge of events: A causal

analysis of story structure. In G. Bower’s (Ed), The Psychology of Learning and

Motivation, (pp 237-282). New York, NY: Academic Press, Inc.

Twenge, J. & Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (2002). Age, gender, race, socioeconomic status, and birth

cohort differences on children’s depression inventory: A meta-analysis. Journal of

Abnormal Psychology, 111, 578-588.

Turner, C., & Barrett, P. (2003). Does age play a role in structure of anxiety and depression in

children and youths? An investigation of the tripartite model in three age cohorts. Journal

of Counseling and Clinical Psychology, 71, 826-833.

Udwin, O. (1983). Imaginative play training as an intervention method with institutionalized

preschool children. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 53, 32-39.

Walker, H., & McConnell, S. (1988). The Walker-McConnell Scale of Social Competence and

School Adjustment: A social skills rating scale for teachers.

Walker, H., Shinn, M., O’Neill, R., Ramsey, E. (1987). A longitudinal assessment of the

development of antisocial behavior in boys: Rationale, methodology, and first-year

results. Remedial and Special Education, 8, 7-27.

Watson, D., Clark, L., Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of

positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 54, 1063-1070.

Watson, D. & Pennebaker, J. (1989). Health complaints, stress, and distress: Exploring the

central role of negative affectivity. Psychological Review, 96, 234-254.