JOURNAL OF RESEARCH ON ADOLESCENCE, ***(*), 1–14

Longitudinal Patterns in Parent and Friend Socialization: Associations With Adolescent Emotion Regulation

Rachel Miller-Slough and Julie C. Dunsmore Virginia Tech

Adolescents learn about through interacting with parents and friends, though there is limited longitudinal research on this topic. This study examined longitudinal patterns in parent and friend emotion socialization and ado- lescent emotion regulation. Eighty-seven adolescents reported on parent and friend emotion socialization. Parents reported on adolescent emotion regulation. Parents’ responses were stable over time and across gender. Friends of girls reciprocated negative emotions more and were less punitive over time, whereas friends of boys increased in comforting and decreased in of negative emotions. Parents and friends evidenced unique effects on adolescent emotion regulation, and the effect of friend socialization responses differed for girls and boys. Future research should examine combinatory influences of multiple socializers on adolescent adjustment.

Adolescence is a unique developmental context, One way in which adolescents understand their characterized by a changing social and emotional emotions is through interacting with others. Emo- landscape. Adolescents experience a shift in their tions are socially constructed through a dynamic social relationships, as they begin to individuate and interactive process with others, such that from their parents and spend an increasing amount others’ reactions shape one’s emotions and the of time with friends (Lam, McHale, & Crouter, emotional meaning attributed to a situation/behav- 2014). Particularly for girls, friendships transition ior (Eisenberg, Cumberland, & Spinrad, 1998; Mor- from being group-based and focused on activities, ris, Silk, Steinberg, Myers, & Robinson, 2007). This to becoming more dyadic and intimate during ado- process, known as emotion socialization, has been lescence (Rose, 2002; Rubin, Oh, Menzer, & Ellison, examined extensively in early and middle child- 2011). Although parents remain important figures hood (Morris et al., 2007; Zeman et al., 2013). How- during adolescence, they have a qualitatively dif- ever, there is less research on emotion socialization ferent relationship with adolescents than do during adolescence and little attention to the friends. As the parent–child relationship is a verti- changing roles of emotion socialization agents, cal relationship, parents often adopt a teaching such as parents and friends (Klimes-Dougan et al., approach to guide their child’s development. In 2007, 2014; Miller-Slough & Dunsmore, 2016). Par- contrast, friendships are horizontal relationships ents’ reactions to their children’s emotions continue characterized by similar socio-emotional experi- to serve as important feedback that communicates ences (Miller-Slough & Dunsmore, 2016). Adoles- evolving age-appropriate norms for expressivity cence is also notable for changes in the experience that are unique to adolescence (Morris et al., 2007; and expression of emotions. Research demonstrates Morris, Criss, Silk, & Houltberg, 2017). However, age-based expectations for adolescents’ increasing friends also emerge as influential socialization ability to independently regulate their emotions. agents in adolescence as friendships become more However, also increases in adoles- dyadic and intimate (Rose, 2002). Moreover, ado- cence, which also brings new social and emotional lescents may perceive the same reaction from a challenges for which adolescents need guidance parent and a friend in different ways, making both (Zeman, Cassano, & Adrian, 2013). Emotions also parents and friends central socializers of emotion become more complex and nuanced during this in unique ways (Boiger & Mesquita, 2012; Ship- developmental stage, and adolescents begin to man, Zeman, Nesin, & Fitzgerald, 2003). This study understand their own emotions in more flexible explores adolescent perceptions of how their emo- ways (Labouvie-Vief, 2015). tions are received by parents and friends, and whether these responses change over the course of adolescence for boys and girls. Requests for reprints should be sent to Rachel Miller-Slough, Psychology Department, Virginia Tech, 109 Williams Hall, © 2018 Society for Research on Adolescence Blacksburg, VA 24060. E-mail: [email protected] DOI: 10.1111/jora.12434 2 MILLER-SLOUGH AND DUNSMORE

EMOTION SOCIALIZATION RESPONSES IN displays of emotion (Morris et al., 2007). Punitive ADOLESCENCE responses by friends often take the form of playful teasing, whereas parents’ responses may come Types of Responses across as mocking or disapproving comments (e.g., “You are too young to be acting this way”), com- Socialization responses to adolescents’ emotions are municating that the emotion is unacceptable traditionally dichotomized into supportive and (O’Neal & Magai, 2005). Although ignoring and unsupportive responses (Klimes-Dougan et al., 2007, 2014; O’Neal & Magai, 2005). Supportive punitive responses are distinct, both convey that the emotion is inappropriate for the context. responses serve to validate, comfort, and encourage emotion expression. An individual can reward the emotional display, perhaps by recognizing the ado- Parents lescent’s emotion and speaking with them about Klimes-Dougan et al. (2007) conducted one of the what made them upset. Parents or friends may also few studies on parents’ responses to adolescents’ comfort adolescents or distract them from their negative emotions. They reported that parents emotions in attempts to reduce the negative emo- engaged in more supportive responses, such as tion. This is often referred to as an override rewarding and overriding adolescents’ negative response because it assists the adolescent in “mov- emotions, than unsupportive responses, such as ing off” of the emotion. The override response is punitive, neglectful, or magnifying responses. considered an unsupportive response in the middle Responses differed with respect to adolescent age, childhood literature because it functions to mini- in that parents engaged in more punitive responses mize the emotion. However, this response is often and displayed fewer reward responses to older conceptualized as supportive for adolescents adolescents compared to younger adolescents. This because there is some recognition of the emotion, pattern highlights age-based expectations for but the emotion is not overly reinforced or dwelled expressivity, in that parents expect older adoles- upon (Brand & Klimes-Dougan, 2010; Miller- cents to be more skilled in managing their emo- Slough & Dunsmore, 2016). tions. These findings have since been replicated in Unsupportive responses, on the other hand, other cross-sectional studies of parents’ responses serve to discourage and dampen an adolescent’s to adolescents’ negative emotions, with supportive negative emotions. Magnifying an adolescent’s emo- responses being more prevalent than unsupportive tion is one such response, in which a parent or responses (Daughters, Gorka, Rutherford, & Mayes, friend reciprocates the negative emotion. Depend- 2014; Jobe-Shields, Buckholdt, Parra, & Tillery, ing on the emotion expressed, this may come 2014; Jones, Brett, Ehrlich, Lejuez, & Cassidy, 2014; across as an empathetic response (i.e., showing Stone et al., 2016). Research in middle childhood when the adolescent is sad) or contentious often points to gender stereotypes in emotion (i.e., responding to an adolescent’s with socialization, with boys receiving more reward for anger). Regardless, magnifying an adolescent’s their anger and girls receiving more reward for emotions limits socializers’ ability to teach adoles- their sadness and (Brand & Klimes-Dougan, cents how to effectively manage their emotions 2010; Garside & Klimes-Dougan, 2002). Although because it amplifies the emotional climate (Moed Klimes-Dougan et al. (2007) did not find adolescent et al., 2015). Consequently, the adolescent may be gender differences in parent-reported socialization more likely to dwell on their distress rather than responses, another study indicated that boys resolve the situation that made them upset. reported receiving more punitive responses from Parents and friends may also respond unsup- parents than did girls (Jobe-Shields et al., 2014). portively by ignoring or punishing the adolescent for expressing negative emotion (O’Neal & Magai, 2005). With an ignoring response, it can be difficult Friends to ascertain if an individual is purposefully ignor- Research on friend emotion socialization is in its ing the emotional display or simply did not notice beginning stages. Klimes-Dougan et al. (2014) the emotion, although either conveys to the adoles- found that adolescents reported receiving more cent that the emotion was not recognized. Ignoring reward and override responses to their negative responses may be helpful in moderation for emo- emotions, whereas punitive and neglecting tionally labile adolescents, as the adolescent would responses were less prevalent. However, Legerski, not receive consistent reinforcement for excessive Biggs, Greenhoot, and Sampilo (2015) found that PARENT AND FRIEND RESPONSES OVER TIME 3 friends were observed to provide more unsupport- literature by longitudinally examining both par- ive responses than supportive responses, noting ents’ and friends’ responses to adolescents’ nega- that the unsupportive responses from friends may tive emotions. come across as playful teasing that is not meant to be taken seriously. These mixed findings should be LONGITUDINAL PATTERNS IN EMOTION considered in light of the methodology (adolescent SOCIALIZATION report vs. observational coding) and the categoriza- tion of responses (specific responses vs. broad sup- Despite the changing nature of emotion socializa- portive/unsupportive categories). When comparing tion in adolescence, studies typically examine emo- parent and friend studies that use adolescent tion socialization as a snapshot at one time point report (i.e., Klimes-Dougan et al., 2007, 2014), and solely as a predictor of outcomes, limiting our friends provided punitive and neglect responses understanding of how socialization unfolds over less frequently than parents. Friends may be more time. However, emotion socialization is an ongoing accepting of adolescents’ emotions and may allow process during which adolescents continue to more “behavioral latitude” with adolescents’ emo- receive feedback on their emotional displays with tions than do parents (Zeman & Shipman, 1997). In respect to age-based expectations (Miller-Slough & line with the expectations of each relationship, par- Dunsmore, 2016; Zeman et al., 2013). There are sev- ents may be focused on socializing their child’s eral reasons to expect that emotion socialization experience and expression of emotion, whereas changes over time. First, youth experience friends have no responsibility to regulate each increased emotionality over the course of adoles- other’s emotions (Shipman et al., 2003). Friends cence, and parents and friends may exhibit corre- may also be less likely to respond unsupportively sponding variability in their responses to to avoid negative consequences, such as fracturing adolescents’ emotions (Labouvie-Vief, 2015). Sec- or dissolving the friendship (von Salisch, 2001). ond, adolescents are expected to independently Klimes-Dougan et al. (2014) also indicated that manage their emotions as they age, which would friends engaged in moderate levels of magnifying correspond to less supportive responses and more responses, although more frequently than did par- unsupportive responses from others over the ents in their earlier study (Klimes-Dougan et al., course of adolescence during instances of inappro- 2007). Given that friends are also developing priate expressivity (Zeman et al., 2013). Third, ado- their own emotion regulation skills at this point lescents become more skilled at reading social cues in development, friends’ negative emotions may in other’s verbal and nonverbal feedback as they be more easily elicited than those of parents and develop. Therefore, parents’ and friends’ responses this may lead them to reciprocate their friends’ may be perceived differently by adolescents over emotions. time as adolescents become more skillful at deci- Although friends’ responses did not differ with phering parents and friends’ responses (Booker & adolescent age, gender differences were evident. Dunsmore, 2017). Adolescent girls reported more reward, override, Although extant longitudinal research is slim, and magnify responses than boys, who reported one study suggests that parents are stable over more neglect and punitive responses (Klimes-Dou- time in magnifying and punishing of adolescents’ gan et al., 2014). Interestingly, these findings are in negative emotions, but more variable in their line with gender differences documented in the reward of adolescents’ negative emotions parent literature on middle childhood, with girls (Mazursky-Horowitz et al., 2015). These findings receiving more reward responses for their negative contrast with cross-sectional findings that parents emotions than do boys (Zahn-Waxler, 2010). Girls are more punitive and less rewarding of older ado- may be more likely to show and respond to lescents’ emotions (Klimes-Dougan et al., 2007; friends’ negative emotions than boys because emo- Zeman et al., 2013). Regarding friends, Klimes- tional support is an expectation of girls’ friendship Dougan et al. (2014) collected longitudinal data and they anticipate positive outcomes for express- showing that friends were stable in their socializa- ing their , whereas boys anticipate negative tion responses across a 1-year period in adoles- consequences for expressing their feelings (Rose cence. This study also reported gender differences et al., 2012). In sum, cross-sectional studies of in friends’ responses at each time point, but did parent and friend emotion socialization demon- not explore longitudinal patterns separately for strate similar overall patterns with the exception of girls and boys. Taken together, longitudinal pat- the role of adolescent gender. We extend the terns in emotion socialization during adolescence 4 MILLER-SLOUGH AND DUNSMORE have only recently been considered and much addresses an important gap by longitudinally remains to be discovered. examining how parent and friend emotion socialization responses relate to adolescent emo- tion regulation over time. ASSOCIATIONS WITH EMOTION REGULATION PRESENT STUDY Emotion socialization responses shape many aspects of adolescent adjustment, such as adoles- In sum, parents and friends are unique sources cent emotion regulation (Morris , Criss, Silk, & of emotional support during the social and Houltberg, 2017). Emotion regulation, known as emotional challenges of adolescence. Their the ability to appropriately express emotion responses to adolescents’ negative emotions within socio-contextual demands, is a keystone vary with respect to adolescent age and gender. of socio-emotional adjustment with implications However, less is known about whether their for youth social competence and psychopathol- responses change over time, whether these pat- ogy (Essau, LeBlanc, & Ollendick, 2017; Thomp- terns vary with adolescent gender, and whether son, 1994). Although emotion regulation has these patterns relate to adolescents’ emotion biological and physiological underpinnings that regulation over time. This study addresses these develop with age (McRae & Shiota, 2017), ado- gaps by examining adolescents’ perceptions of lescents also learn how to regulate their emo- parents’ and friends’ responses to adolescents’ tions through interacting with others. Cross- negative emotions at three time points during sectional research indicates that supportive adolescence. responses by parents were associated with more The first research goal examined longitudinal adaptive emotion regulation in adolescents patterns in parent responses to adolescents’ emo- (Criss, Morris, Ponce-Garcia, Cui, & Silk, 2016). tions. Based on extant research with parents Supportive responses function to validate the (Klimes-Dougan et al., 2007; Zeman et al., 2013), it emotion and help the adolescent cope, thereby was hypothesized that adolescent reports of par- scaffolding adaptive emotion regulation (Morris ents’ reward of negative emotions would decrease et al., 2007). Mothers’ punish and neglect over time, whereas reports of parents’ punishment responses were related to maladaptive emotion of negative emotions would increase over time regulation in adolescence (Buckholdt, Parra, & (H1). Given conflicting findings regarding gender Jobe-Shields, 2014). These responses may inter- differences in parents’ emotion socialization fere with the adolescent’s emotion regulation, responses (Jobe-Shields et al., 2014; Klimes-Dougan perhaps by triggering more negative emotion. et al., 2007), we explored gender differences in The literature on parent socialization responses changes in parents’ emotion socialization responses and emotion regulation is more expansive in over time. middle childhood, with similar findings to ado- The second research goal examined longitudi- lescent studies. Both cross-sectional and longitu- nal patterns in friends’ emotion socialization dinal studies in middle childhood suggest that responses. Extrapolating from research on gender parents’ unsupportive responses, such as being differences in friends’ responses (Klimes-Dougan punitive or minimizing the child’s emotions, are et al., 2014), it was expected that adolescent girls associated with maladaptive emotion regulation would increase in reward, overriding, and magni- in children (Eisenberg et al., 1998; Morris et al., fying negative emotions over time (H2a). It was 2007). The literature on friend socialization expected that adolescent boys would increase in responses and adolescent emotion regulation is their punishment and neglect of negative emo- in its initial stages (Miller-Slough & Dunsmore, tions over time (H2b). The final research goal 2016). However, research suggests that involve- examined how parent and friend socialization ment in reciprocal and supportive friendships responses related to changes in adolescent emo- during adolescence is associated with decreases tion regulation. For both parents and friends, it in maladaptive emotion regulation strategies was expected that supportive responses (reward, over time (von Salisch & Zeman, 2018). More- override) would correspond to increased emotion over, frequently speaking with friends about regulation over time, and unsupportive upsetting events, also known as co-rumination, responses (punish, magnify, neglect) would be has been linked to adaptive emotion regulation associated with decreased emotion regulation (Criss, Houltberg, et al., 2016). This study over time (H3). PARENT AND FRIEND RESPONSES OVER TIME 5

METHOD validate their child’s emotions (Reward, “My parent talked to me about what made me upset,” a = .93), Participants reciprocate their emotions (Magnify, “When I got upset, my parent got upset too,” a = .85), attempt Participants were 87 adolescents ranging from 13 to reduce their emotions (Override, “When I got to 15 years old (50 girls, M age = 14.23 years, upset, my parent told me everything was going to SD = 0.50) and their parents. Families participated be ok,” a = .86), punish their emotional displays in the spring of eighth grade (n = 87; 50 girls, 37 Punish, boys), fall of ninth grade (n = 57; 36 girls, 21 boys), ( “When I got upset, my parent told me I was acting younger than my age,” a = .81), or and fall of tenth grade (n = 42; 23 girls, 19 boys). ignore their emotions (Neglect, “When I got upset, Participant attrition was unrelated to any demo- my parent did not notice that I was upset,” graphic variables (gender, socioeconomic class, eth- a = .89). Each response scale was highly correlated nicity; ps < .05). The adolescent sample identified across the discrete emotions (rs = .43–.87) and as 85.1% Caucasian, 8.0% Biracial, 3.4% Other, 2.3% therefore the response scales were averaged across African American, 1.1% Asian American. The emotions, resulting in five composite scales. majority of parents (83.9%) identified as being the biological mother, with 14.9% fathers, and 1.1% You and Your Friends Questionnaire (YYF; grandmothers. Regarding marital status, 83.7% of Klimes-Dougan et al., 2014). The YYF was devel- parents were married, 13.9% were separated or oped from the EAC to assess how friends respond divorced, and 2.3% were single. Most parents had to adolescents’ discrete negative emotions. As with a college degree (51%), 11.4% had a high school the EAC, adolescents completed 15 items for each degree or less, 12.6% had some college education, emotion (anger, sadness, worry) that were rated on 4.6% had some graduate school education, and a 5-point Likert scale. These items correspond to 19.5% had a graduate degree. A priori power anal- Reward, a = Punish, yses indicated that N = 56 was required to detect a the subscales of the EAC ( .92; a = .95; Magnify, a = .88; Override, a = .84; Neglect medium effect for the proposed analyses; thus, this a = .94). As with the EAC, the response scales were sample was considered sufficient (Cohen, 1992). highly correlated across emotions (rs = .32–.84) and were similarly averaged to create five response Procedure scales. Families were recruited from both a purchased Emotion Regulation Checklist (ERC; Shields & mailing list and a preexisting database of families Cicchetti, 1997). The ERC is a parent-report mea- interested in participating in psychology research sure of child affective behaviors. The ERC contains studies. Families were also recruited through flyers 24 items that are rated on a 4-point Likert-style posted in the community. Participating families scale, ranging from never to almost always. Items are were mailed questionnaire packets that contained summed into two subscales: Emotion Regulation measures for adolescents and parents to complete (e.g., “My child can recover quickly from episodes independently. Families were mailed a $10 gift of distress”) and Emotional Lability (e.g., “My child card for their participation at each time point, with exhibits wide mood swings”). Parents completed a $25 bonus payment for those who completed all the ERC at all three time points and the Emotion three time points (n = 35). Regulation subscale was used in analyses (a = .75).

Measures RESULTS Emotions as a Child Scale: Child Report (EAC; O’Neal & Magai, 2005). At each time point, ado- Data Analytic Plan lescents reported on how their parents responded The hypotheses of this study were tested with hier- to their discrete negative emotions (anger, worry, archical linear modeling (HLM), using HLM7 (Rau- sadness) in the past 6 months. For each emotion, denbush, Bryk, Cheong, Congdon, & Du Toit, 2011) 15 items are rated on a 5-point Likert-style scale for all analyses. HLM is most appropriate for (1 = not at all like my parent,5= a lot like my parent). hypothesis testing because it examines change over Five types of perceived parental responses to chil- time within and between subjects. HLM has also dren’s negative emotions were assessed, including proved useful with smaller sample sizes because it the degree to which their parents acknowledge and uses all available data, rather than eliminating 6 MILLER-SLOUGH AND DUNSMORE participants with missing data at one time point (0 = boy, 1 = girl). A number of demographic vari- (Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002). Each socialization ables (adolescent gender, parent education) were response was examined as the outcome in an explored as potential covariates. Ethnic differences unconditional growth model to test change in were not examined due to sample homogeneity. socialization responses over time (H1–2; see Table 1 There were a number of adolescent gender differ- for descriptive statistics at each time point). ences in socialization responses and adolescent Because the socialization response was the outcome emotion regulation (Table 1). Regarding parents’ of the model, models were tested separately for responses, there were two trends: girls reported parents and friends. Time point was included as a more overriding responses by parents at Time 2 within-subjects variable for both parent and friend and more magnifying responses by parents at Time models. 3, compared to boys. Regarding friends’ responses, Linear growth models tested the effect of parent girls reported more magnifying responses from and friend socialization responses on adolescent friends than did boys at all three time points. Girls emotion regulation over time (H3). For each model, also reported more reward and override responses socialization responses (Reward, Magnify, Over- from friends than did boys at Time 1 and Time 2. ride, Punish, Neglect) were entered as within-sub- Boys reported more neglect of their emotions than jects predictors and emotion regulation was did girls at Time 1, whereas girls reported more entered as the outcome variable. The Reward and punishment of their emotions than did boys at Neglect scales were highly correlated for the EAC Time 2. Regarding adolescent emotion regulation, and the YYF across time points (rs = À.56 to .90). parents reported better emotion regulation in girls Therefore, supportive responses (Reward, Over- than in boys at Time 1. ride) were tested as predictors in one model, and Parent education was associated with socializa- unsupportive responses (Magnify, Punish, Neglect) tion responses at Time 3. Parents with a college were tested in a second model to avoid mul- degree or higher were rated as providing more ticollinearity. Models were tested separately for reward of negative emotions (M = 4.09, SD = 0.70), parents and friends. less neglect (M = 1.81 SD = 0.72), and less punish- ment (M = 2.50, SD = 0.62) compared to parents with less than a college degree (Reward M = 3.33, Data Preparation and Preliminary Analyses SD = 1.05; Neglect M = 2.41, SD = 0.89; Punish To assess change over time, time was coded with M = 2.67, SD = 0.91). months as the unit of measurement (time 1 = 0, Based on these findings, adolescent gender and time 2 = 8, time 3 = 13). Adolescent gender was parent education were further examined for inclu- dummy coded in preparation for analyses sion as between-subjects covariates. The original

TABLE 1 Descriptive Statistics of Socialization Responses and Gender Differences Over Time

Time 1 Time 2 Time 3

Sample Boys Girls Sample Boys Girls Sample Boys Girls Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD)

Reward-P 4.01 (0.75) 3.89 (0.66) 4.10 (0.81) 3.87 (0.73) 3.80 (0.74) 3.91 (0.73) 3.86 (0.88) 3.79 (0.88) 3.93 (0.88) Override-P 2.97 (0.67) 2.86 (0.62) 3.05 (0.71) 2.90 (0.64) 2.70 (0.68) 3.04 (0.59) 2.95 (0.67) 2.86 (0.63) 3.01 (0.70) Magnify-P 2.08 (0.66) 2.08 (0.58) 2.08 (0.73) 2.05 (0.55) 1.91 (0.56) 2.14 (0.54) 2.30 (0.68) 2.08 (0.73) 2.47 (0.60) Punish-P 2.45 (0.66) 2.50 (0.72) 2.42 (0.62) 2.38 (0.61) 2.36 (0.75) 2.40 (0.51) 2.56 (0.72) 2.50 (0.82) 2.61 (0.64) Neglect-P 1.96 (0.77) 1.85 (0.61) 2.04 (0.88) 2.02 (0.73) 2.02 (0.65) 2.02 (0.79) 2.00 (0.81) 1.94 (0.80) 2.04 (0.84) Reward-F 3.83 (0.87) 3.37 (0.96) 4.16 (0.64) 3.80 (0.79) 3.48 (0.86) 4.00 (0.68) 3.63 (0.78) 3.52 (0.72) 3.72 (0.83) Override-F 2.85 (0.64) 2.53 (0.67) 3.08 (0.52) 2.85 (0.74) 2.50 (0.76) 3.08 (0.64) 3.39 (0.55) 3.31 (0.53) 3.45 (0.57) Magnify-F 2.14 (0.84) 1.81 (0.69) 2.38 (0.87) 2.22 (0.69) 1.98 (0.70) 2.37 (0.66) 2.72 (0.63) 2.52 (0.74) 2.88 (0.49) Punish-F 1.99 (0.58) 1.97 (0.58) 2.00 (0.60) 2.05 (0.65) 1.85 (0.63) 2.18 (0.63) 1.36 (0.35) 1.48 (0.68) 1.44 (0.57) Neglect-F 2.05 (0.73) 2.28 (0.72) 1.88 (0.71) 2.07 (0.76) 2.21 (0.73) 1.98 (0.78) 1.73 (0.62) 1.80 (0.92) 1.75 (0.58) Adolescent ER 25.36 (3.42) 24.47 (3.58) 26.15 (3.08) 25.86 (3.23) 25.17 (3.72) 26.33 (2.80) 26.00 (3.51) 25.50 (4.03) 26.39 (3.08)

Notes.P= parent, f = friend. PARENT AND FRIEND RESPONSES OVER TIME 7 unconditional growth models of socialization Hypothesis Testing responses and emotion regulation were compared Parent responses. Regarding H , it was to unconditional models that included these 1 expected that adolescent-reported parental reward covariates, using a Chi-square test of the deviance of negative emotions would decrease and parental and model parameters. Testing the inclusion of punishment of negative emotions would increase adolescent gender for H , the models of parent 1 over time. Unconditional growth models were socialization responses that included adolescent examined for each of the five parent socialization gender were not significantly different from the responses (Reward, Override, Magnify, Punish, original parent unconditional growth models Neglect). None of the models were significant at (ps > .05), and thus adolescent gender was not the Time slope (ps < .05), indicating that parents retained as a covariate. Models of friend social- did not change over time in their responses to ado- ization responses (H ) that included adolescent 2 lescents’ negative emotions, per adolescent report. gender were significantly different from the origi- The intercept was significant in each model, indi- nal friend unconditional growth models, indicat- cating that there was significant variability within ing gender differences in longitudinal patterns of the sample for each response (Table 3). Thus, the friend socialization responses (Table 2). In light of sample demonstrated a heterogeneous array of par- these gender differences and extant literature sup- ent socialization responses. When examining the porting gender differences in friend emotion means for each parent socialization response over socialization (Klimes-Dougan et al., 2014), friend time, adolescents reported frequently receiving models (H ) were tested separately for boys 2a, 2b reward responses and sometimes receiving over- and girls to detect gender differences in the tra- ride responses from parents. Conversely, adoles- jectories of friends’ responses. Adolescent gender cents reported infrequent use of magnify, punish, did not significantly contribute to the model of and neglect responses by parents (Figure 1). Thus, adolescent emotion regulation (p > .05) and was parents did not increase in unsupportive responses not retained as a covariate for H . To align with 3 as hypothesized, and supportive responses the models for H , the parent models for H 1–2 3 remained more prevalent than unsupportive were not split based on adolescent gender and responses. friend models for H3 were tested separately for boys and girls. Regarding parent education, the Friends’ responses. Unconditional growth mod- models of parent socialization responses that els were examined for each of the five friend social- included parent education were not significantly ization responses (Reward, Override, Magnify, different from the original unconditional growth Punish, Neglect), separately for boys and girls. See models (ps > .05) and thus parent education was Table 3 for all model statistics. not retained as a between-subjects covariate in Girls. It was expected that girls’ report of subsequent analyses. friends’ reward, override, and magnify responses

TABLE 2 Deviance Tests of Unconditional Growth Models With Gender

Deviance (Parameters) Deviance (Parameters) Original Models Models With Gender Deviance Test

Parent reward 953.39 (2) 926.99 (7) X2(5) = 2.64 Parent override 283.71 (2) 281.23 (7) X2(5) = 2.48 Parent magnify 258.03 (2) 251.30 (7) X2(5) = 7.16 Parent punish 247.97 (2) 241.22 (7) X2(5) = 6.74 Parent neglect 283.88 (2) 286.87 (7) X2(5) = 2.98 Friend reward 347.05 (2) 949.13 (7) X2(5) = 602.07* Friend override 277.97 (2) 249.69 (7) X2(5) = 28.28* Friend magnify 303.86 (2) 290.53 (7) X2(5) = 13.32* Friend punish 263.64 (2) 239.88 (7) X2(5) = 23.75* Friend neglect 328.04 (2) 312.68 (7) X2(5) = 15.35* Adolescent ER 591.66 (2) 587.75 (4) X2(2) = 3.90

*p < .05. 8 MILLER-SLOUGH AND DUNSMORE

TABLE 3 Summary of Parent and Friend Unconditional Growth Models

Parent Models Friend Models—Girls Friend Models—Boys

Intercept, Intercept, Intercept, b b b b b b 00 (SE) Time, 10 (SE) 00 (SE) Time, 10 (SE) 00 (SE) Time, 10 (SE)

Reward 16.11 (0.38)* À.46 (0.54) 19.74 (1.35)* À.34 (0.11)* 12.63 (1.21)* .05 (0.13) Override 2.99 (0.08)* À.01 (0.38) 3.08 (0.09)* .01 (0.01) 2.41 (0.14)* .05 (0.01)* Magnify 2.04 (0.08)* .01 (0.00) 2.19 (0.14)* .03 (0.01)* 1.73 (0.12)* .05 (0.01)* Punish 1.93 (0.32)* .51 (0.33) 2.05 (0.09)* À.03 (0.01)* 1.88 (0.11)* À.02 (0.01) Neglect 1.91 (0.31)* .03 (0.32) 1.92 (0.11)* .01 (0.01) 2.20 (11)* À.03 (0.01)*

*p < .05.

5.0000 4.5000 4.0000 3.5000 3.0000 2.5000 2.0000 1.5000 1.0000 Time 1 Time 2 Time 3

Reward Override Punish Magnify Neglect

FIGURE 1 Parents’ responses over time.

would increase over time (H2a). As expected, girls was variability in the sample for each socializa- reported that their friends increased in magnifying tion response. responses over time (Figure 2). Contrary to our hypothesis, girls reported that their friends Socialization responses and emotion regula- decreased in their reward responses and remained tion. It was expected that supportive responses stable in their override responses to adolescents’ (reward, magnify) by parents and friends would be negative emotions. Furthermore, friends decreased associated with increased adolescent emotion regu- in their punishment of negative emotions and lation, and unsupportive responses (punish, remained stable in their neglect of negative emo- neglect, magnify) by parents and friends would be tions, per adolescent report. The intercept was sig- associated with decreased emotion regulation (H3). nificant in each model, indicating that there was First, an unconditional growth model tested change variability in the sample for each socialization in emotion regulation over time, which indicated response. that emotion regulation did not change over time Boys. It was expected that boys’ report of (p > .05). Linear growth models then tested the friends’ punish and neglect responses would effect of parent and friend socialization responses increase over time (H2b). However, friends of on adolescent emotion regulation over time boys were stable over time in punishment of neg- (Table 4). Parents’ magnify and neglect responses ative emotions and decreased in their neglect of were associated with decreased emotion regulation negative emotions (Figure 3). Although not over time, whereas parents’ punish responses were hypothesized, boys reported that their friends associated with increased emotion regulation. increased in their overriding and magnifying of There was a trend in which parents’ override their negative emotions, and were stable over responses were associated with increased emotion time in their reward responses. The intercept was regulation. Regarding friends’ responses, receiving significant in each model, indicating that there punitive responses to negative emotions by friends PARENT AND FRIEND RESPONSES OVER TIME 9

5.0000 4.5000 4.0000 3.5000 3.0000 2.5000 2.0000 1.5000 1.0000 0.5000 0.0000 Time 1 Time 2 Time 3

Reward Override Punish Magnify Neglect

FIGURE 2 Friends’ responses to girls over time.

5.0000 4.5000 4.0000 3.5000 3.0000 2.5000 2.0000 1.5000 1.0000 0.5000 0.0000 Time 1 Time 2 Time 3

Reward Override Punish Magnify Neglect

FIGURE 3 Friends’ responses to boys over time. corresponded to decreased emotion regulation in emotional dynamics, and how socialization girls over time, as hypothesized. Boys’ report of responses correspond to adolescent emotion regula- friends’ magnify responses predicted an increase in tion (Miller-Slough & Dunsmore, 2016). Findings emotion regulation, contrary to H3. Lastly, there from this study suggest that adolescents perceive was a trend in which friends’ override of negative their parents and friends to respond differently to emotions was related to increased emotion regula- their negative emotions over time. Specifically, par- tion in boys over time. In sum, parents and ents’ responses were stable over time and across friends’ socialization responses had unique impacts gender, whereas friends’ responses varied over on adolescent emotion regulation, with the same time and by adolescent gender. Adolescent girls response having different effects for parents and reported their friends to reciprocate negative emo- friends. The effect of friends’ socialization tions more and be less punitive over time, whereas responses was further differentiated by adolescent adolescent boys perceived an increase in their gender, highlighting the contextual nature of emo- friends’ comforting and a decrease in their neglect tion socialization. of negative emotions. Parent and friend unsupport- ive socialization responses also demonstrated vary- ing effects on adolescent emotion regulation. DISCUSSION Emotion socialization has been a long-studied topic Parents’ Responses Over Time in early childhood and middle childhood (Morris et al., 2007). However, less is known about how It was hypothesized that parents would decrease in emotion socialization unfolds in adolescence, a their reward of negative emotion and increase in developmental stage with different social and punishment of negative emotion over time. Our 10 MILLER-SLOUGH AND DUNSMORE

TABLE 4 Summary of Parent and Friend Linear Growth Models in Relation to Emotion Regulation Across Time

Parent Models Friend Models—Girls Friend Models—Boys b (SE) b (SE) b (SE)

b * * * Intercept, 00 25.89 (0.40) 26.44 (0.40) 24.88 (0.62) b À Reward, 10 0.05 (0.05) 0.06 (0.05) 0.04 (0.05) b ** À ** Override, 20 0.92 (0.48) 0.19 (0.52) 0.95 (0.56) b * * * Intercept, 00 26.00 (0.40) 26.31 (0.40) 24.82 (0.59) b À * À * Magnify, 10 1.23 (0.57) 0.33 (0.55) 1.26 (0.58) b * À * À Punish, 20 1.03 (0.38) 1.04 (0.42) 0.46 (0.52) b À * À Neglect, 30 0.90 (0.33) 0.21 (0.47) 0.17 (0.50)

*p < .05; **p < .10. hypothesis for parents’ responses was not sup- ways that actively support ported, as parents were stable in all of their social- and function to solidify the friendship. It was ization responses over time, consistent with extant expected that adolescent girls would increase in research (Mazursky-Horowitz et al., 2015). Consid- reward, overriding, and magnifying negative emo- ering the context of the parent–child relationship, tions over time (H2a). Friends of adolescent girls parents have a longer history of socializing their increased in magnification, or mirroring, of nega- children’s emotions than do friends (Miller-Slough tive emotions by their friends. Adolescent girls & Dunsmore, 2016) and from that likely have a bet- convey connectedness and intimacy through shar- ter understanding of the variability in their child’s ing negative emotions, and so reciprocating a expressivity. With that history, parents may have friend’s emotion may be one avenue to further that developed an established method by which they connection (Rose, 2002). Because their friends are respond to their children’s emotions. Given that also still learning how to regulate their emotions long history, it is also possible that adolescents (Labouvie-Vief, 2015; Zeman et al., 2013), witness- may be less attuned to variations in their parents’ ing a friend’s distress may more easily trigger their behavior when reporting on parents’ socialization own negative emotions. Girls also consistently responses. Perhaps change over time in parents’ reported their friends to be low in neglect responses would be evident if examined over a responses and to decrease in their punishment of longer period of time, such as from middle child- negative emotions over time. Neglecting or punish- hood to adolescence. ing a friend’s negative emotion could produce neg- An examination of the means at each time point ative consequences in female friendships; therefore, indicates the relative balance in parents’ responses girls may infrequently employ these responses in over time (Figure 1). It appears as though, in this efforts to maintain the friendship. sample, parents were most likely to reward and Unexpectedly, friends of girls remained stable in override adolescents’ emotions. Adolescents their override responses over time. Override reported parents sometimes magnifying their emo- responses often take the form of comforting the tions, and infrequently neglecting or punishing adolescent by distracting the adolescent from the their negative emotions. In sum, the longitudinal negative emotion, which may be counter-produc- patterns of this study are consistent with those of a tive to friendship goals of intimacy and connected- prior longitudinal study indicating that parents are ness between adolescent girls (Rose, 2002). stable in their responses over time (Mazursky-Hor- Although adolescent girls reported a decrease in owitz et al., 2015), and with cross-sectional research friends’ reward of negative emotions, girls began showing that parents engage in supportive strate- adolescence with very high levels of reward gies more often than unsupportive strategies responses and so there may not be much more (Klimes-Dougan et al., 2007). room to increase in this response. Despite the slight decrease, friends were still engaging in reward responses at moderately high rates 1 year later, Friend Responses Over Time replicating prior research suggesting that this is a Girls. Across socialization responses, friends of prevalent socialization response for adolescent girls adolescent girls responded to negative emotions in (Klimes-Dougan et al., 2014). PARENT AND FRIEND RESPONSES OVER TIME 11

Boys. It was expected that adolescent boys each socialization response.1 Boys are also less would increase in their punishment and neglect of likely to show their negative emotions to friends negative emotions over time (H2b). Instead, because they anticipate negative consequences for although friends of adolescent boys also varied expressing them (Rose et al., 2012). If boys infre- over time in their socialization responses, their quently show their negative emotions to friends, responses to negative emotions changed in ways this provides fewer opportunities for friends to that passively support emotion expression. Boys punish their negative emotions. However, this reported that their friends decreased in neglect of explanation would also hold for other socialization negative emotions, rather than the hypothesized responses. Lastly, friends of boys were stable in increase. Consistently ignoring a friend’s negative their reward of negative emotions over time. There emotions over time may harm a friendship, which were no hypotheses for this response, but examina- is a voluntary relationship (von Salisch, 2001). tion of the means suggests that friends of boys However, an examination of the means at individ- engaged in reward responses at moderate levels. ual time points suggests that boys were more likely There may be little room for boys to increase in than girls to neglect each other’s emotions, consis- this response and still remain within gendered tent with prior research (Klimes-Dougan et al., expectations for boys to suppress their emotions. 2014). Boys also reported that their friends Lastly, it should be noted that the variability pre- increased in overriding and magnifying of their sent in friends’ responses may be a result of ado- negative emotions over time. This pattern of find- lescents reporting on different friends for each time ings suggests that boys may become more comfort- point. However, this would produce random vari- able with negative emotions over time, ability that presumably would not result in signifi- reciprocating negative emotions and comforting cant linear patterns. their friends through distraction, instead of ignor- ing their emotions. In this respect, adolescent Socialization Responses and Adolescent Emotion boys are providing emotional support but also Regulation remain within gendered expectations for negative emotions. For parents and friends’ responses, it was hypothe- Prior research indicated that boys punish each sized that supportive responses (reward, override) other’s negative emotions more than do female would correspond to increased emotion regulation friend dyads (Klimes-Dougan et al., 2014) and it over time, and unsupportive responses (punish, was hypothesized that boys would report an magnify, neglect) would be associated with increase in punishment responses from friends decreased emotion regulation over time (H3). Inter- over time. This hypothesis was not supported, in estingly, emotion regulation did not evidence that boys reported that friends were stable in pun- change over time when examined independently in ishment responses over time and engaged in this the unconditional growth model, but changes response at a low level. There are several possible in socialization responses corresponded to changes explanations for this unexpected pattern. Friends in emotion regulation over time. The inclusion of have been thought to be more lenient in their socialization responses in the model likely socialization responses as compared to parents, as increased the ability to detect and explain variance they do not have any obligation to shape adoles- in emotion regulation over time. Parents and cents’ emotions, and therefore may feel less friends both influenced adolescent emotion regula- inclined to punish negative emotional displays tion, albeit through different socialization (Shipman et al., 2003). Boys’ greater proclivity for responses. Receiving parental override in response punishing each other’s negative emotional displays to their negative emotions predicted increased ado- compared with girls has been thought to come lescent emotion regulation over time, consistent from a history of receiving unsupportive responses with cross-sectional research (Criss, Houltberg, to sadness and worry from parents (Brand & et al., 2016; Criss, Morris, et al., 2016). Override Klimes-Dougan, 2010; Garside & Klimes-Dougan, responses function to recognize the emotion and 2002). This study examined broad negative emo- provide reassurance, which may help the adoles- tion, so we considered the possibility that the cent cope and move on from the emotion (O’Neal hypothesized pattern might be present with dis- crete negative emotions. However, we note that we 1Furthermore, post hoc analyses indicate that boys did not composited across anger, sadness, and worry report change over time in friends’ punishment of sadness, because of the consistency across emotion types for anger, or worry (ps > .05). 12 MILLER-SLOUGH AND DUNSMORE

& Magai, 2005). Parental punishment of negative co-rumination with adaptive emotion regulation emotions predicted increased emotion regulation, (Criss, Houltberg, et al., 2016; Criss, Morris, et al., contrary to cross-sectional research (Jobe-Shields 2016). et al., 2014). Similar to override, discouraging the emotion may help the adolescent “move off” of the Strengths, Limitations, and Future Directions emotion and not dwell on their distress (Miller- Slough & Dunsmore, 2016). Given the increased This study offers several strengths. The inclusion of emotionality of adolescence, parental discourage- reports on parents and friends is a novel contribu- ment may actually help de-escalate periods of emo- tion to the emotion socialization literature; extant tional volatility and convey that frequent research typically examines either parents or expressions of dysregulated emotions are not friends. The longitudinal design is also an advance appropriate (O’Neal & Magai, 2005). Particularly in from largely cross-sectional studies and also spans the context of an otherwise supportive family emo- early to middle adolescence, an important period tional climate, discouragement is likely adaptive at for social dynamics. Moreover, this study provides times to signal inappropriate emotional displays. a novel contribution to the parent and friend litera- Alternatively, because parents reported emotion ture, as the first longitudinal study to indicate that regulation, parents who are perceived as increasing parent and friend socialization responses contribute in punishment may be less attuned to adolescents’ to emotion regulation in adolescence. The use of cues that they are having difficulty regulating emo- HLM is a more inclusive statistical analysis with tion. As expected, parental magnification and respect to missing data. However, the study is lim- neglect of negative emotion predicted decreased ited in its reliance on adolescent and parent report, emotion regulation over time. Reciprocating or compared to use of observational or psychophysio- ignoring negative emotions may trigger more nega- logical methods that can provide a more objective tive emotions or escalate the adolescent’s distress, measurement. The sample was also primarily Cau- leaving them “stuck” on their emotions (Miller- casian and middle-class, and thus the generalizabil- Slough & Dunsmore, 2016). Although parents are ity of these findings is limited (Zeman et al., 2013). stable in their socialization responses over time, Despite the benefits of an HLM approach, the sam- they continue to exert influence on adolescent emo- ple size of this study is also relatively small and tion regulation, extending middle childhood evidenced attrition across time points. research (Morris et al., 2007). Future research should employ larger sample Friends influenced adolescent emotion regula- sizes with a more diverse sample, with respect to tion in gender-specific ways that correspond to socioeconomic status and ethnic background. how girls and boys express emotions with friends. Although we found no relations of ethnic back- Friends’ punitive responses predicted decreased ground with socialization responses, our predomi- emotion regulation in girls. Punishment for nantly Caucasian sample limited our power to expressing negative emotions is discordant with examine this. We did find relations of parents’ col- how adolescent girls demonstrate closeness in lege education with more supportive and less friendships (Rose, 2002; Rose et al., 2012), and unsupportive parenting responses, suggesting the therefore likely is distressing and leads to increased importance of examining socioeconomic status emotionality. Receiving discouragement from a more fully. Future research should build from friend is likely more distressing than receiving this these analyses by connecting longitudinal patterns feedback from a parent, given that friendships are in emotion socialization to other aspects of adoles- voluntary and are more likely to have a horizontal cent adjustment (e.g., social competence, psy- power structure (von Salisch, 2001). On the other chopathology). Although socialization responses hand, magnifying and overriding responses appeared to be largely similar across discrete emo- between adolescent boys led to increased emotion tions in this study, future studies should continue regulation. Compared to girls, boys are less likely to explore the socialization of discrete negative to express their negative emotions to friends (Rose emotions in adolescence and how gender may et al., 2012). When those feelings are reciprocated shape distinct patterns over time. For example, per- and they receive reassurance from friends, perhaps haps the socialization of discrete emotions is con- boys feel supported and are better able to cope nected to unique outcomes (e.g., worry and with their feelings over time. The link between disorders, sadness and depressive disorders, anger magnifying and increased emotion regulation and externalizing disorders). The use of parent, is also in line with extant research linking friend, or observer ratings would also provide PARENT AND FRIEND RESPONSES OVER TIME 13 more comprehensive measurement. Finally, we rec- Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 128,85–100. ommend future research examining responses of https://doi.org/10.1002/(ISSN)1534-8687 other important socializers in adolescence, such as Buckholdt, K. E., Parra, G. R., & Jobe-Shields, L. romantic partners, mentors or coaches, and (2014). Intergenerational transmission of emotion employers (Booker & Dunsmore, 2017). As adoles- dysregulation through parental invalidation of emo- tions: Implications for adolescent internalizing and cents enter more complex and disparate social con- externalizing behaviors. JournalofChildandFamily texts, display rules for negative emotions and Studies, 23,324–332. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826- emerging socialization influences may enhance or 013-9768-4 contradict messages sent by parents and friends. Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–159. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155 Criss, M., Houltberg, B. J., Cui, L., Bolser, C., Morris, A., CONCLUSION & Silk, J. (2016). Direct and indirect links between peer These analyses offer foundational information factors and adolescent adjustment difficulties. Journal regarding the unique emotion socialization roles of of Applied Developmental Psychology, 43,83–90. parents and friends in adolescence, which furthers https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2016.01.002 our understanding of adolescent adjustment. Our Criss, M. M., Morris, A. S., Ponce-Garcia, E., Cui, L., & Silk, J. S. (2016). Pathways to adaptive emotion regulation among findings suggest that parents and friends evidence adolescents from low-income families. Family Relations, 65, distinct patterns of emotion socialization in adoles- 517–529. https://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12202 cence. Parents’ responses were stable over time Daughters, S. B., Gorka, S. M., Rutherford, H. J., & and across gender, whereas friends’ responses var- Mayes, L. C. (2014). Maternal and adolescent distress ied over time and by adolescent gender. Friends of tolerance: The moderating role of gender. Emotion, 14, girls reciprocated negative emotions more and 416–424. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034991 were less punitive over time, whereas friends of Eisenberg, N., Cumberland, A., & Spinrad, T. L. (1998). boys increased in comforting and decreased in Parental socialization of emotion. Psychological – neglect of negative emotions. Parents and friends Inquiry, 9, 241 273. https://doi.org/10.1207/ also evidenced unique effects on adolescent emo- s15327965pli0904_1 tion regulation, and the effect of friend socializa- Essau, C. A., LeBlanc, S. S., & Ollendick, T. H. (2017). Emo- tion regulation and psychopathology in children and adoles- tion responses differed for girls and boys. These cents. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. https://doi. findings advance research as the first study to org/10.1093/med:psych/9780198765844.001.0001 examine emotion socialization in both parents and Garside, R. B., & Klimes-Dougan, B. (2002). Socialization friends over time in adolescence, as well as how of discrete negative emotions: Gender differences and these socializers influence emotion regulation. Next links with psychological distress. Sex Roles, 47, 115– steps include examining how these patterns of sta- 128. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021090904785 bility and variability relate to other indices of ado- Jobe-Shields, L., Buckholdt, K. E., Parra, G. R., & Tillery, lescent adjustment and how parent and friend R. N. (2014). Adolescent reactions to maternal respon- emotion socialization may transmit risk or resili- siveness and internalizing symptomatology: A daily – ence, as well as examining combinatory influences diary investigation. Personal Relationships, 21, 335 348. of socializers on adolescent adjustment. These find- https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12034 Jones,J.D.,Brett,B.E.,Ehrlich,K.B.,Lejuez,C.W.,&Cassidy, ings might then be translated to intervention, to J. (2014). Maternal attachment style and responses to adoles- modify maladaptive patterns of emotion socializa- cents’ negative emotions: The mediating role of maternal tion during adolescence. emotion regulation. Parenting, 14,235–257. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/15295192.2014.972760 REFERENCES Klimes-Dougan, B., Brand, A. E., Zahn-Waxler, C., Usher, B., Hastings, P. D., Kendziora, K., & Garside, R. B. Boiger, M., & Mesquita, B. (2012). The construction of (2007). Parental emotion socialization in adolescence: emotion in interactions, relationships, and cultures. Differences in sex, age and problem status. Social Emotion Review, 4, 221–229. https://doi.org/10.1177/ Development, 16, 326–342. https://doi.org/10.1111/j. 1754073912439765 1467-9507.2007.00387.x Booker, J. A., & Dunsmore, J. C. (2017). Affective social Klimes-Dougan, B., Pearson, T. E., Jappe, L., Mathieson, competence in adolescence: Current findings and L., Simard, M. R., Hastings, P., & Zahn-Waxler, C. future directions. Social Development, 26,3–20. (2014). Adolescent emotion socialization: A longitudi- https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12193 nal study of friends’ responses to negative emotions. Brand, A. E., & Klimes-Dougan, B. (2010). Emotion socializa- Social Development, 23, 395–412. https://doi.org/10. tion in adolescence: The roles of mothers and fathers. New 1111/sode.12045 14 MILLER-SLOUGH AND DUNSMORE

Labouvie-Vief, G. (2015). Integrating emotions and cognition Rose, A. J. (2002). Co–rumination in the friendships of throughout the lifespan.Basel,Switzerland:SpringerInterna- girls and boys. Child Development, 73, 1830–1843. tional Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00509 Lam, C. B., McHale, S. M., & Crouter, A. C. (2014). Time with Rose, A. J., Schwartz-Mette, R. A., Smith, R. L., Asher, S. peers from middle childhood to late adolescence: Develop- R., Swenson, L. P., Carlson, W., & Waller, E. M. (2012). mental course and adjustment correlates. Child Development, How girls and boys expect disclosure about problems 85, 1677–1693. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12235 will make them feel: Implications for friendships. Child Legerski, J. P., Biggs, B. K., Greenhoot, A. F., & Sam- Development, 83, 844–863. https://doi.org/10.1111/j. pilo, M. L. (2015). Emotion talk and friend responses 1467-8624.2012.01734.x among early adolescent same-sex friend dyads. Social Rubin, K. H., Oh, W., Menzer, M., & Ellison, K. (2011). Dyadic Development, 24,20–38. https://doi.org/10.1111/sode. relationships from cross-cultural perspective: Parent–child 12079 relationships and friendships. In X. Chen, & K. H. Rubin Mazursky-Horowitz, H., Felton, J. W., MacPherson, L., (Eds.), Socioemotional development in the cultural context (pp. Ehrlich, K. B., Cassidy, J., Lejuez, C. W., & Chronis- 208–236). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Tuscano, A. (2015). Maternal emotion regulation medi- Shields, A., & Cicchetti, D. (1997). Emotion regulation ates the association between adult attention-deficit/ among school-age children: The development and vali- hyperactivity disorder symptoms and parenting. Jour- dation of a new criterion Q-sort scale. Developmental nal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 43, 121–131. https:// Psychology, 33, 906–916. doi.org/10.1007/s10802-014-9894-5 Shipman,K.L.,Zeman,J.,Nesin,A.E.,&Fitzgerald,M.(2003). McRae, K., & Shiota, M. N. (2017). Biological and physio- Children’s strategies for displaying anger and sadness: What logical aspects of emotion regulation. In C. A. Essau, S. works with whom? Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 49,100–122. LePlant, & T. H. Hollendick (Eds.), Emotion regulation https://doi.org/10.1353/mpq.2003.0006 and psychopathology in children and adolescents (pp. 43– Stone,L.B.,Silk,J.S.,Oppenheimer,C.W.,Allen,K.B.,Waller, 59). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. https:// J.M.,&Dahl,R.E.(2016).Linkingmaternalsocializationof doi.org/10.1093/med:psych/9780198765844.003.0003 emotion regulation to adolescents’ corumination with peers. Miller-Slough, R. L., & Dunsmore, J. C. (2016). Parent Journal of Early Adolescence, 37, 1341–1355. https://doi.org/ and friend emotion socialization in adolescence: Asso- 10.1177/0272431616659558 ciations with psychological adjustment. Adolescent Thompson, R. A. (1994). Emotion regulation: A theme in search Research Review, 4,1–19. https://doi.org/10.1093/ of definition. Monographs for the Society for Research in Child med:psych/9780198765844.003.0003 Development, 59,25–52. https://doi.org/10.2307/1166137 Moed, A., Gershoff, E. T., Eisenberg, N., Hofer, C., Losoya, von Salisch, M. (2001). Children’s emotional development: S., Spinrad, T. L., & Liew, J. (2015). Parent–adolescent Challenges in their relationships to parents, peers, and conflict as sequences of reciprocal negative emotion: friends. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 25, Links with conflict resolution and adolescents’ behavior 310–319. https://doi.org/10.1080/01650250143000058 problems. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 44,1–16. von Salisch, M., & Zeman, J. L. (2018). Pathways to recipro- https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-014-0209-5 cated friendships: A cross-lagged panel study on young Morris,A.S.,Criss,M.M.,Silk,J.S.,&Houltberg,B.J.(2017). adolescents’ anger regulation towards friends. Journal of The impact of parenting on emotion regulation during child- Youth and Adolescence, 47, 673–687. https://doi.org/10. hood and adolescence. Child Development Perspectives, 11, 1007/s10964-017-0683-7 233–238. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12238 Zahn-Waxler, C. (2010). Socialization of emotion: Who Morris, A. S., Silk, J. S., Steinberg, L., Myers, S. S., & influences whom and how? New Directions for Child Robinson, L. R. (2007). The role of the family context and Adolescent Development, 128, 101–109. https://doi. in the development of emotion regulation. Social Devel- org/10.1002/(ISSN)1534-8687 opment, 16, 361–388. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467- Zeman, J., Cassano, M., & Adrian, M. C. (2013). Socializa- 9507.2007.00389.x tion influences on children’s and adolescents’ emo- O’Neal, C. R., & Magai, C. (2005). Do parents respond in tional self-regulation processes. In K. C. Barrett, N. A. different ways when children feel different emotions? Fox, G. A. Morgan, D. J. Fidler, & L. A. Daunhauer The emotional context of parenting. Development and (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulatory processes in develop- Psychopathology, 17, 467–487. https://doi.org/10.1017/ ment: New directions and international perspectives (pp. S0954579405050224 79–101). New York, NY: Psychology Press. https:// Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical lin- doi.org/10.4324/9780203080719.ch5 ear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Thou- Zeman, J., & Shipman, K. (1997). Social-contextual influ- sand Oaks, CA: Sage. ences on expectancies for managing anger and sad- Raudenbush, S. W., Bryk, A. S., Cheong, Y. F., Congdon, ness: The transition from middle childhood to R. T., & Du Toit, M. (2011). HLM 7. Lincolnwood, IL: adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 33, 917–924. Scientific Software International. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.33.6.917