JOURNAL OF RESEARCH ON ADOLESCENCE, ***(*), 1–14 Longitudinal Patterns in Parent and Friend Emotion Socialization: Associations With Adolescent Emotion Regulation Rachel Miller-Slough and Julie C. Dunsmore Virginia Tech Adolescents learn about emotions 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 neglect 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, emotionality 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 sadness when the adolescent is sad) or contentious often points to gender stereotypes in emotion (i.e., responding to an adolescent’s anger 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 worry (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