Emotional Correlates of Social Competence in … · Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, Vol 40, No. /...

Emotional Correlates of Social Competence in Children's Peer RelationshipsAuthor(s): Julie A. Hubbard and John D. CoieSource: Merrill-Palmer Quarterly (1982-), Vol. 40, No. 1, Invitational Issue: Children'sEmotions and Social Competence (January 1994), pp. 1-20Published by: Wayne State University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/23087905 .

Accessed: 24/05/2013 04:52

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Wayne State University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Merrill-Palmer Quarterly (1982-).

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 128.175.13.10 on Fri, 24 May 2013 04:52:27 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=wsupress

http://www.jstor.org/stable/23087905?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, Vol 40, No. /

Emotional Correlates of Social Competence in Children's Peer Relationships

Julie A. Hubbard and John D. Coie Duke University

The purpose of this paper Is to explore the role of emotional functioning in the social competence of children, with a particular focus on children's peer relations. Literature on children's emotional functioning that has the greatest relevance for

peer relations is discussed. Using the framework afforded by this literature review, research that provides connections between the constructs of emotional functioning and social competence is examined. Although there is reasonable evidence that

accuracy in reading the emotions of others is related to children's social status, there is no research on the relationship between social competence and the ability to monitor one's own emotions. There is some support for the idea that high social status is related to the ability to regulate strong feelings effectively, although much of this evidence is based on inferences from behavioral observation. Few data exist on the relation of emotional display rules and sympathetic responding to social

competence.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the role of emotional func

tioning in the social competence of children. For the most part, we will use a definition of social competence that emphasizes peer relations as a criterion for competence. A brief review is provided of the literature

pertaining to children's emotional functioning that we think has greatest relevance to peer relations. In the framework of this review we will discuss data that seem to speak most closely to the linkages between emotional functioning and social competence, although relatively little research has been conducted on the emotional determinants of peer

relations directly. Therefore, we will draw inferences about emotional

functioning from studies of the behavioral and social cognitive correlates

of social competence and discuss neglected areas of research.

Support for this paper has been provided by Grant R01MH38765 from the Violence and Antisocial Behavior Branch and Grant K05MH00797 from the Prevention Branch of the National Institute of Mental Health. Correspondence may be sent to Julie A. Hubbard,

Department of Psychology, Social and Health Sciences, Duke University, P. O. Box 90085, Durham, NC 27708-0085.

Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, January 1994, Vol. 40, No. 1, pp. 1-20.

Copyright © 1994 by Wayne State University Press, Detroit, Ml 48202

1



2 MERRILL-PALMER QUARTERLY

DEFINING SOCIAL COMPETENCE

Although an accepted definition of social competence for children

has yet to emerge, the task of defining social competence has been

approached in two ways. First, social competence has been defined

solely in terms of social skills. For example, Sarason (1981) discussed

the dimensions of social competence that she believed were essential

to socially competent functioning; this list included problem-solving be

havior, perspective taking, and person perception. In the second approach to defining social competence, more em

phasis has been placed on the social outcomes that children achieve than on the acts that constitute social competence. Foster and Ritchey

(1979) and Anderson and Messick (1974), for example, defined social

competence as the ability to be effective in the realization of social goals. These social outcomes include having friends, being popular or liked by other children, and engaging in effective social interaction with peers.

We will adopt the latter approach of using social success as a crite

rion for defining competence, rather that attempt to define the skills that

constitute children's social competence a priori. Whereas lists such as Sarason's make good sense, they limit the discovery of developmental changes in the nature of social competence by taking an adult-centered

perspective on child competence. The strategy in this paper is to review

what is known of the functioning of children who meet a certain outcome

standard for defining social competence and to allow a definition of social competence based on social skills to emerge empirically from this review.

Taking a criterion-based approach to the problem of defining social

competence has its own difficulties because there can be disagreement

about what constitutes a competent social outcome. Who is the best

judge of childhood social outcomes? We have opted for peers as the source of competence evaluations. Our reluctance to adopt the skills

based approach was partly a result of wanting to be empirical rather

than a priori, but also a matter of wanting to describe social compe tence in terms of a child-centered standard rather than an adult-based

standard. In so doing, we emphasize the peer domain of childhood

competence. Although a major portion of children's lives involves get

ting along with adults, peer relationships become increasingly important with age and play a central role in children's mastery and display of

competent functioning. The question of which outcomes should define competence is

equally controversial. Our choice is to define social competence as

being well-liked by peers. Although some children may not view social



Emotions and Competence 3

success as a primary goal and may focus instead on creative, intellectual,

or athletic pursuits, a definition of social competence must be based on

social achievements.

An alternative to being well-liked by peers is to define social com

petence as being able to influence peers and direct their activities ef

fectively, regardless of liking. As it turns out, there is a reasonably high correlation between being perceived as a peer leader and being well liked by peers (Bukowski & Newcomb, 1984; Coie, Dodge, & Coppotelli, 1982). This is not surprising in that one could expect these characteristics to be mutually reinforcing. It is difficult to enlist cooperation from those who dislike you; conversely, those who are able to direct the group toward desired goals are likely to engender respect and admiration. For these reasons, and the fact that more is known about peer social status

than leadership, we have opted for social popularity as the childhood index of social competence for this criterion-based examination of the emotional determinants of social competence.

CHILDREN'S UNDERSTANDING OF EMOTIONS

The study of social competence has focused primarily on behavioral

skills, with the social behavioral correlates of sociometric status having been investigated as early as the 1930s. For the past two decades, a new

dimension has been added to the study of the behavioral correlates of

peer status, namely social-cognitive processes that antecede behavior. More recently, however, there has been a growing interest in the emo

tional functioning of children, specifically in the ability of children to think about emotions and to regulate their emotions.

Much of the social developmental research of the 1970s related to children's ability to take the perspective of others and to perceive their thoughts and feelings accurately. It was a short step from this

purely social-cognitive research to research on children's ability to label facial expressions of emotions in other people. Interest in this ability

was fueled by the work of investigators who demonstrated that a set

of facial expressions can be cross-culturally identified as representing

discrete emotional states (Ekman, 1973; Izard, 1971). Izard (1981) and Odom and Lemond (1972) found that by the preschool years, most children can discriminate the facial expressions for happiness, sadness,

anger, and fear. However, as Harris and Saarni (1989) stated, only a few emotions are linked clearly to distinct facial expressions (or vocal or

postural expressions), and children rapidly require a more sophisticated understanding of emotions than can be provided by knowledge of facial

expressions alone.




Emotional development research thus began to shift to children's

understanding of the connection between common interpersonal situ

ations and emotions elicited by these situations. Children were found to understand at the ages between the ending of the preschool period and the early elementary school years the situational determinants of

happy, scared, sad, and angry feelings, with the emotions of happiness and fear being understood earlier than anger and sadness (Harris, Olthof, Meerum Terwogt, & Hardman, 1987; Mood, Johnson, & Shantz, 1978;

Reichenbach & Masters, 1983). Older children also were shown to have

knowledge of situations that evoke more complex emotions, such as

pride, shame, guilt, gratitude, jealousy, and worry (Harris et al., 1987; Russell & Ridgeway, 1983; Schwartz & Trabasso, 1984).

Stein and her colleagues (Stein & Jewett, 1986; Stein & Levine, 1987) advanced a theory of the conceptual linkage between children's emotions and the situations that elicit them. Obviously, this is a difficult task for children because different situations can elicit the same emotion and similar situations can elicit different emotions in different people or even in the same person at different times. Stein proposed that chil dren conceptualize emotions as the outcome of particular relationships

between desires or goals and reality. Thus, children view happiness as

resulting from the attainment of a desired goal and fear as resulting from a perception that goal loss is likely to occur. Children view both sadness and anger as occurring when a desired goal is lost or not attained. In

the case of sadness, the goal is construed as unattainable whereas in the

case of anger, the goal is perceived as attainable were some obstacle to be removed. Stein and Trabasso (1989) demonstrated that kindergartners

were capable of following complex story plots in which the relationship

between desire and reality shifted over the course of the story and could

provide the appropriate emotional labels for each story shift.

Weiner, Graham, Stern, and Lawson (1982) offered the following modification of Stein's theory: Children first associate simple emotions with various goal-based outcomes. As they get older, children begin to understand emotions as resulting not just from positive or negative goal achievements, but from the causal attribution that is assigned to the goal status; they become better able to understand more complex emotions because of their use of casual attributions when analyzing emotion-evoking situations. Thus, children are not just happy at goal attainment; they may feel pride if a goal was reached through ability or effort, or they may feel gratitude if a goal was reached through the

help of another. Similarly, children may feel anger if goal attainment is obstructed by the intervention of another and shame or guilt if a

goal is not achieved because of one's own lack of effort or ability. In




a series of studies, children's developmental progression from outcome

dependent to attribution-dependent analyses of emotion has been docu

mented (Graham & Weiner, 1986; Thompson, 1989; Weiner et al., 1982). Gnepp further refined the study of children's understanding of the

situational determinants of emotion in a series of studies that demon

strated children's increasing ability to use personalized information when

predicting an individual's emotional response to a particular situation

(Gnepp & Gould, 1985; Gnepp, Klayman, & Trabasso, 1982). Gnepp (1989) discussed the importance during childhood of acquiring an under

standing that all people do not respond with similar emotional reactions to various situations and that their differences are based on demographic factors, personality traits, abilities, preferences, and past experience. In

Gnepp's studies, she found that preschool children were able to take into account only individual preferences when predicting emotions, that children in the 5- to 8-year age range were aware of a broader array

of personalized information but were unable to use it effectively in

predicting emotional responses, and that older children were able to use personalized information of all sorts effectively in their predictions of an individual's emotional response.

Several researchers have demonstrated that social status is related to

an understanding of emotion. Rubin and Maioni (1975) and Goldman, Corsini, and DeUrioste (1980) found that children of higher social status

performed better than other children on a task requiring children to match emotional expressions with hypothetical social situations. Gnepp (1989) measured children's ability to use personalized information about others when inferring emotional reactions to emotion-evoking situations;

she found that social status was related to the ability to use such informa tion. A study by Field and Waiden (1982) of preschool children's ability to imitate and produce basic emotional facial expressions revealed that this ability was related to sociometric ratings. Cassidy also found that children's understanding of emotion across a broad range of dimensions

(including the identification, experience, and expression of emotion and

knowledge of its antecedents) was related to their social acceptance (Cas

sidy, Parke, Butkovsky, & Braungart, 1992). Popular children, Dodge, Murphy, and Buchsbaum (1984) found, are better able to detect the social intentions of their peers than are other children. Denham (1986) studied the relationship between preschoolers' emotional understanding and their prosocial behavior when interacting with peers; although she did not measure social status, she found that children with higher levels of emotional understanding behaved more prosocially toward their peers.

The ability to understand emotions in others is reflected in studies of

peer functioning that have been tied directly to peer status. The ability




to observe a group of peers and determine the type of entry behavior

that is considered relevant requires that children be able to recognize

emotions accurately in others. This ability to enter both familiar and unfamiliar peer groups by determining the frame of reference of the group and then making relevant comments and engaging in group-oriented behavior has been found to be positively related to peer social status

(Dodge, Schlundt, Schocken, & Delugach, 1983; Putallaz, 1983; Putallaz & Gottman, 1981). Peer social status also is related to the ability to

engage successfully in cooperative play for sustained periods of time

(Ladd, 1983; Ladd & Mars, 1986; Rubin & Daniels-Beirness, 1983). The coordination of mutual play activity is another task that requires children to read others' emotions accurately.

CHILDREN'S IDENTIFICATION OF THEIR OWN EMOTIONS

Much of what has just been described could be more easily con strued as an account of social-cognitive development rather than emo

tional development, because emotions were studied as the content of

children's social-cognitive processes (Casey, 1993). That is, children's

understanding of emotion, rather than their actual experience or expres

sion of emotion, was the focus of these studies. In fact, investigators of emotional functioning in children often employ paradigms in which children are questioned about their own emotions or the emotions of others, rather than measures of actual emotionality.

How do children identify their own actual emotional states? It is conceivable that a child could reach these determinations by the same

cognitive processes of matching emotions to situations discussed earlier.

However, for children to identify their own emotions, the process is more

likely one of deciphering the internal physiological and cognitive signals that accompany various emotional reactions (Carroll & Steward, 1984;

Shields & Stern, 1979).

Early investigators (Lewis, Wolman, & King, 1972; Plutchik, 1962) found that the number of emotions children are able to describe and the details of their descriptions increase with age. More recently, Casey (1993) assessed children's ability to monitor and understand their own emotional experiences in circumstances of positive or negative feedback from a peer. Following this feedback, children's emotional expressions were recorded, and they were questioned about their feelings and their

understanding of the reason for these emotions. Casey found that chil

dren's emotional expression, self-report, and understanding were more

coherently related following positive peer feedback than negative peer




feedback. She also found that girls were more accurate reporters of their

facial expressions than boys. Unfortunately, there is no direct evidence

that being able to identify one's own emotions has an impact on so cial functioning with peers, although it follows logically that the ability to alter one's emotional responses requires the capacity to recognize

these emotions.

EMOTION REGULATION IN CHILDREN

The ability to alter one's emotional response to provocative situations is generally referred to as emotion regulation. In an initial study of chil dren's emotion regulation ability, Harris, Olthof, and Meerum Terwogt (1981) demonstrated that both 6- and 10-year-old children showed ihey understood that it is possible to change their feelings. When asked how these emotions could be changed, younger children suggested leaving the situation or changing it, whereas older children also indicated that

they could change how they feel by thinking different thoughts. In a second study, Meerum Terwogt, Koops, Oosterhoff, and Olthof

(1986) asked children to regulate their emotional response to stories.

They were asked to make themselves feel either sad or not sad in re

sponse to identical stories. After hearing the story, children performed a

cognitive task. Children who had been asked to make themselves feel sad performed more poorly on the task than did those who had not. The authors inferred that the children actually had been able to manipulate their experience of sadness upon request, because of corresponding shifts in the levels of their cognitive performance (Easterbrook, 1969). After the story, children were asked what they had done to comply with the

instructions. To increase their sadness, children reported they expanded

the story in a negative way, related the story to a similar incident in their own lives that had an even worse outcome, or attempted to identify with the story character. Those who were asked to avoid feeling sad

reported that they either expanded the story in a positive way, related the story to a personal incident with a more positive outcome, or re

minded themselves that is was "just a story." These two studies provide

some evidence that children can engage in a self-conscious process of emotion regulation.

Although there is some research on adult individual differences in

psychophysiological recovery from strong feelings like anger (Katz &

Gottman, 1991), most of what is known about children's recovery from

angry emotions has been discussed in the context of anger-control train

ing techniques. For example, Lochman, White, and Wayland (1991)




described an anger coping program that includes a self-control com

ponent. In this program, aggressive children are taught to recognize

the behavioral, environmental, and physiological cues of anger and to

use self-talk strategies to control angry feelings. Anger control interven

tions such as Lochman's have been shown to be successful in teaching children to control angry feelings (Kazdin, Esveldt-Dawson, French, &

Unis, 1987; Kendall, Ronan, & Epps, in press; Lochman, Burch, Curry,

& Lampron, 1984). Although the aggressive children in these studies have been taught to alter their emotional reactions, it is reasonable to infer that more socially competent children engage in comparable emo tion regulation without such instruction. Gottman and Mettetal (1986) proposed that children acquire emotional self-control as a result of the

increasingly complex demands placed on them by peer interactions and social play. As children get older, the extent to which successful play requires the negotiation of conflict and the deescalation of excitement increases. Children who meet these emotional play demands effectively, Gottman and Mettetal suggested, will be perceived as attractive play

partners by their peers and thus will be more well-liked. More direct evidence for the role of emotion regulation skills in peer

social success comes from a recent study of Eisenberg, Fabes, Bernzweig, Karbon, Poulin, and Hanish (in press). They found that teachers' ratings of boys' ability to cope constructively with negative emotions were posi tively related to the boys' social status, whereas teachers' ratings of boys' use of acting out as a coping mechanism were negatively related to their

social status. Additional inferences about the role of emotion regulation in deter

mining childhood social status can be drawn from behavioral studies of popular, average, and rejected status children. Rejected children,

especially rejected boys, consistently have been reported to be more

aggressive than average status children, whereas popular children are

less aggressive than other children (Coie, Dodge, & Kupersmidt, 1990). These findings suggest that peer social status is positively related to the control of angry feelings, although it is possible that children who are more overtly aggressive also are more prone to experience anger. In one

study (Coie & Dodge, 1988), peers did describe rejected children as

being angry more often than average or popular children. More direct evidence on this issue comes from an observational study of preschool children by Fabes and Eisenberg (1992). Although their measure of socio metric status only involved positive rating scales of likability, they found that social popularity was inversely related to overt anger incidents.

Furthermore, more popular boys were more likely to actively resist other

children who provoked them. It may be that this active resistance takes the place of anger. Thus, rather than having to deal with anger to the




extent that less competent children do, more competent children may

preempt the need to regulate angry feelings by taking assertive social

action toward provocateurs.

Further evidence of the ability of socially competent children to

regulate their emotions comes from observations of 9-year-old boys of

popular and average social status meeting in play groups of unfamiliar

peers for the first time (Hubbard, Coie, & Dodge, 1993). In this study, play groups were sorted into high- versus low-aggressiveness groups, based on the frequency of aggression displayed by all group members. Thus, in a between-groups design, popular and average boys were exposed to either a high-aggression or a low-aggression group context. Popular boys were much less influenced by the level of group aggressiveness than were average boys; that is, popular boys displayed more similar levels of aggressive behavior in both high- and low-aggressiveness con

texts, whereas average status boys showed more aggression when they

were members of more aggressive groups. (Mean number of aggressive

acts: popular boys in high-aggression groups = 1.6, popular boys in

low-aggression groups = 0.5, average in high-aggression groups = 3.8,

average boys in low-aggression groups = 0.1). These findings suggest that popular boys are better able to modulate their internal response to

anger-arousing situations; these boys did not display more aggression in

the high-aggressiveness groups, although it would be expected that they experience more provocation in these groups.

A second finding from this same study (Hubbard et. al, 1993) sup

ports the contention of Gottman and Mettetal (1986) that competent children are those who are able to regulate their affect during emotionally arousing play. When transitions between play states were contrasted for

these same popular and average status boys, popular boys were better

able to make the transition from rough and tumble play to less arousing

but still quite interactive play states such as conversation and constructive

play. In contrast, average boys were more likely than popular boys to shift to a socially isolated state from rough and tumble play. It is such highly arousing play activities that Gottman and Mettetal noted cause children

the most difficulty when trying to sustain interactive play. Besides being highly active, rough and tumble play has the potential to produce both

feelings of excitement and feelings of anger in children. Popular boys apparently are better able to regulate their angry and excited emotions in these situations and sustain play with their play partners.

EMOTION DISPLAY RULES

The use of display rules for emotional expression introduces a dif

ferent aspect of self-regulation to the concept of emotional functioning.




When children attempt to regulate their internal experiences of emotion,

the purpose often is to reduce painful feelings or levels of excitement.

In contrast, the concept of display rules essentially is interpersonal in nature. Here the goal of the child is to alter the expression of emotion for social purposes: to spare another person hurt feelings, to mislead others about the extent to which they have been injured or are distressed, or to avoid embarrassing themselves by displaying an emotion that others would view as inappropriate to the situation. These is an element of

dissembling in the use of display rules, even though the act of altering emotional display also may achieve the secondary purpose of reducing the internal experience of the original emotion.

Display rules is a term that describes children's recognition that there are times when it is not appropriate or adaptive to express the emotions one is feeling; that is, there are rules for what emotion should be displayed under particular social circumstances. Children as young as 6 years of age have been found to understand that facial expressions of emotion do not necessarily correspond to internal emotional experiences

(Gardner, Harris, Ohmoto, & Hamazaki, 1988; Harris, Donnelly, Cuz, &

Pitt-Watson, 1986; Harris & Gross, 1988; Saarni, 1979). In an interview

study in which she asked children about parental reactions to emotional

displays, Saarni (1987) found that children think their parents are less ac

cepting of emotional displays that hurt other people and more accepting of displays that do not hurt others. In another study, Saarni (1979) asked children to discuss reasons for hiding their emotions. Children stated that

they would mask their affect to avoid embarrassment, to get attention, to make others feel sorry for them, and to get help. Children thought it was acceptable to show genuine emotion when their feelings were very

intense, when they were sick, or when they were with trusted others.

The use of display rules changes with age in children. Saarni (1979), using a story paradigm, found that older children report using display rules for sadness and disappointment more than younger children. Sim

ilarly, Gnepp and Hess (1986) demonstrated an increase in knowledge about the use of display rules for shame and disappointment across first, third, and fifth grades. In contrast to these two studies in which children were asked about their use of display rules, Saarni (1984) experimentally studied actual display rule use by inducing disappointment in a labora

tory situation. She found that younger children (boys especially) showed more negative emotion upon receiving an unappealing prize than older

children; that is, older children were more likely to use display rules than

younger children.

The use of display rules appears to be more complicated for anger,

however. Underwood, Coie, and Herbsman (1992) found that children




increasingly mask anger toward teachers as they get older, but do not

report doing so toward peers. In fact, girls were more likely to express

anger directly toward peers as they entered adolescence. These findings

do not contradict the results of earlier display rules studies; in fact, they il lustrate what is meant by the term. Display rules for emotion define what

is considered socially appropriate in a given situation. Thus, although it

may be most adaptive to mask one's emotions in some situations, in other

contexts it may be more adaptive to give these emotions full expression. The fact that older children learn to mask their disappointment over the

receipt of an unappealing gift does not mean that they should learn to mask all emotions in all circumstances as they get older. For girls, it may be a developmental achievement of sorts to recognize that it is adaptive for them to let peers know they are angry with them. For this reason, they would show more anger to peers as they grow older but less anger

or disappointment with adults. The former reaction might lead to better treatment by peers, whereas the latter might lead to better responses from adults.

Thus, although greater social competence might be associated with

greater use of display rules, it would not necessarily be associated with

greater masking of emotion. In order to determine whether some children are using display rules more than others, it is necessary to know how these rules are defined for specific situations, and this adds a major element of complexity and ambiguity to the research task. Whereas the rules for child-adult interaction may be relatively easy to identify, display rules for peer situations may be more complex or less well defined, as the Underwood et al. (1992) findings suggest.

Research on children's use of emotional display rules is relatively recent in origin and the connection to peer social status has yet to be

made empirically. One would expect that more popular children excel in the use of display rules because doing so calls for an ability to adopt the peer group's frame of reference in understanding what is appropriate for a particular situation. Display rules also call for an other-centered or relationship-oriented perspective, given that the child must consider how the display of a felt emotion will affect the relationship at hand. In some display rule circumstances, such as Saarni's experimental gift

giving paradigm, children must balance their own interests with those of the adult whose feelings might be hurt if true feelings of disappointment in the gift were expressed. Finally, the use of display rules requires social perceptiveness for the reason that children must recognize the

strategic value of masking certain emotions such as fear in the face of

peer bullying. Thus, competence in display rule utilization fits the four

principles that characterize popular children in both conflictual and peer




entry situations, as described by Putallaz and Sheppard (1992), who state

"competence is a consequence of being able to perceive relevant norms,

detect the interests and motives of other children accurately, strike a balance between one's own preferences and those of other children,

while behaving in a relevant manner" (p. 36).

SYMPATHETIC RESPONDING IN CHILDREN

Except for a brief reference to individual differences in spontaneous rates of recovery from strong emotion, most of the preceding discussion

of emotional functioning has had a strong cognitive or self-awareness focus. There is another literature on children's capacity or proclivity for

experiencing certain emotions, particularly the emotions occurring in

the form of sympathy or empathy for another person. Eisenberg (1986) has made the case for viewing sympathy as a prosocial emotional re

sponse that is a form of social competence. Sympathy is defined as an other-oriented emotional reaction to another person's emotional circum

stances. Sympathy is distinguished from empathy, or personal distress

arising from a similarly accurate appraisal of another's emotional condi tion. Whereas personal distress is self-oriented (e.g., anxiety), sympathy is

associated with altruistic motivation and has been related empirically to

prosocial behavior (Eisenberg & Fabes, 1991). Ironically, Eisenberg and Fabes (1992) concluded that children who experience personal distress

when faced with empathy-inducing events are not likely to respond with sympathy because their emotional distress makes them self-focused.

For example, Eisenberg et. al (1989) found that children's self-report of empathy, when exposed to another person's distress, was unrelated

to their prosocial behavior. Thus, the response of sympathy requires a

degree of emotional control to allow children to be other oriented.

Although the ability to experience sympathy might be taken as a

good example of social competence in a skills approach to defining this

construct, there is no direct empirical evidence for concluding that social

status is predicted from sympathetic responding. In contrast to sympathy,

Eisenberg has argued that empathie responding would not necessarily be related to social competence. In fact, the overwhelming feelings of

personal distress that usually accompany strong empathie responding

actually may inhibit socially skillful behavior. There are other research findings that suggest social status may be

related to sympathetic responding. For example, peers and teachers both

describe popular children as more cooperative and helpful than average

children, whereas rejected children are described as less cooperative and




helpful than their peers (Coie et al., 1982). Popular children also choose more prosocial and fewer aggressive solutions when faced with social

problems than do other children and they evaluate these solutions as be

ing more effective than to other children. Rejected children, however, are more likely both to choose aggressive solutions to social problems and

to evaluate prosocial solutions as being less effective than their average peers (Asarnow & Callan, 1985; Asher & Renshaw, 1981 ; Deluty, 1983; French & Waas, 1987). It can be hypothesized that these differences in

prosocial orientation are at least partially the result of varying levels of

sympathy in children of popular and rejected sociometric status.

CHILDREN'S MOOD STATES

In the review thus far, we have dealt with characteristic emotional

responding only in the context of sympathy and empathy and have not

explored data on emotional mood states. However, the peer relations

literature does have something to say about mood differences between

children of different levels of social status, with children who routinely display more positive affect being more well-liked by their peers. Bonney (1943), Gronlund and Anderson (1957), and Kuhlen and Lee (1943) found that sociometric status was related to peer-nominated cheerfulness or happiness. Stocker and Dunn (1990) found that moody or emotionally negative children experience more peer rejection than other children. In

a study of preschool children, Eisenberg and her colleagues (in press) found boys' negative affect to be negatively related to both social skills and peer status. Sroufe, Schork, Motti, Lawroski, and LaFreniere (1985) found that popularity was related to both direct observations and teacher

ratings of positive affect. In all these studies, there is a difficulty in

distinguishing the direction of causal effects, however. Because the chil dren in these studies were well acquainted at the time the ratings were

established, it is not possible to separate the impact of mood on social status from the consequences of being well liked or disliked. It is easy to understand why children who are well liked would be happier than less well-liked children. However, Dodge, Coie, Pettit, and Price (1990) found that peer popularity in the classroom context was related to lower

ratings on sadness made by male peers in new and completely unfamiliar social groups as compared to other boys. Although cheerfulness does not have the same connotation of competence as do the other dimensions

of emotional functioning that we have discussed, this characteristic does fit the criteria that Asher and Williams (1987) list for childhood peer success. It is more enjoyable (within limits) to be around someone who is cheerful than someone who is sad.




CONCLUSIONS

We have attempted to provide an outline of the dimensions of emo tional functioning that might be related to social competence. Socially competent children presumably ought to be able to recognize affect in others and in themselves more readily and more accurately than less

competent children. This ability could be manifest in reading the facial or body cues of others or in matching emotions to social situations.

Competent children should be more effective in regulating their own emotional experiences, particularly when these emotions could give

rise to maladaptive social behavior. The ability to modulate or recover from strong feelings of anger or excitement, therefore, should be related

positively to children's ability to sustain active play with others or to

negotiate conflictual or frustrating situations with peers more effectively. Similarly, being able to recognize how the display of certain feelings will affect others is apt to make it more likely for socially competent children not to give offense to others or portray themselves as vulnerable to

intimidation. Finally, the ability to sympathize with the emotions of peers should enable socially competent children to relate more appropriately to peers. With the exception of a modest literature on the relationship

between social status and the ability to recognize and understand others'

emotions in social situations, there is very little research that connects social status to the other dimensions of childhood emotional functioning. It is clear that there is much work still to be done.

Although it is plausible that socially competent children are better able to identify their own emotions than are other children, there is no

empirical support for this assumption. One compelling reason for this

absence of research is that there are no convincing methods for obtaining

independent measurement of children's affective states and thus there is no stable reference point for making comparisons of children's ability in this area. There are available methods for physiologically assessing emotional arousal, and it may be that these procedures will provide a

partial solution to this methodological problem. Similar methodological limitations hold true for the assessment of

emotion regulation in children. We need to know what children are

feeling in order to know how well they are managing these feelings. There is, however, indirect support for the contention that more popular children are better at regulating their emotions than are other children; there is ample evidence that popular children do not display as much overt negative emotion or aggression as other children. However, it

is uncertain whether socially competent children actually experience

negative emotion as frequently and intensely as do other children; this




question is crucial to understanding the way that socially competent

children regulate affect. If these children do experience anger to the same

degree as their peers, they apparently are able to modulate these feelings

more easily than are other children. It is also possible, however, that

socially competent children simply do not experience strong negative

emotions to the same extent as their peers. We do know that popular

children are not provoked by peers as frequently as are other children

(Coie & Kupersmidt, 1983), and this fact could account for their reduced

display of negative affect. We also know that popular children are more

likely to respond with actions that avert the negative behavior of oth

ers, and this helps them avoid experiencing increased negative emotion

(Fabes & Eisenberg, 1992). It is possible, as well, that socially competent children may have higher thresholds for anger arousal than their peers and thus may be able to remain calm even when faced with provoca tions they cannot avoid. In order to resolve these questions, paradigms need to be developed in which the emotional states of children can be assessed accurately.

Although little is known about peer social status differences in chil dren's ability to use emotional display rules, this deficit can be very easily addressed. Experimental paradigms exist for the examination of children's display rules (Saarni, 1984). For the most part, the study of

display rules has related to circumstances where a priori decisions could

be made about correct display rules for the experimental situation. Less is known about display rules in everyday peer life, and this is what is most important to the study of peer competence. In order to determine

whether socially competent children use display rules more effectively than other children, we must know more about the nature of display

rules for the significant social and emotional contexts of children's peer

interactions. The existing research on children's sympathetic responding provides

a compelling paradigm for examining directly the importance of this

aspect of emotional functioning for peer social success. If socially com

petent children could be shown to experience more sympathetic feelings

than other children do, these findings could provide one important expla nation for the fact that they are perceived by peers as more cooperative and helpful.

In conclusion, substantial methodological advances are needed be fore some aspects of emotional functioning in peer relationships can be addressed adequately. However, there are several other domains, such as display rules and sympathetic responding, that could be studied

immediately.




REFERENCES

ANDERSON, S., & MESSICK, S. (1974). Social competency in young children. Develop mental Psychology, 10, 282-293.

ASARNOW, J. R., & CALLAN, J. W. (1985). Boys with peer adjustment problems: Social

cognitive processes, journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53, 80-87.

ASHER, S. R., & RENSHAW, P. D. (1981). Children's social competence in peer relations: Sociometric and behavioral assessment. In J. D. Wine & M. D. Smye (Eds.), Social

competence. New York: Guilford.

ASHER, S. R., & WILLIAMS, G. A. (1987). Helping children without friends in home and school. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Bureau of Educational Research. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 283 625)

BONNEY, M. E. (1943). Personality traits of socially successful and socially unsuccessful children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 34, 449-472.

BUKOWSKI, W. M., & NEWCOMB, A. F. (1984). Stability and determinants of sociometric status and friendship choice: A longitudinal perspective. Developmental Psychology, 20, 941-952.

CARROLL, J. J., & STEWARD, M. S. (1984). The role of cognitive development in children's

understanding of their own feelings. Child Development, 55, 1486-1492.

CASEY, R. J. (1993). Children's emotional experience: Relations among expression, self

report, and understanding. Developmental Psychology, 29, 119-129.

CASSIDY, )., PARKE, R. D„ BUTKOVSKY, L„ & BRAUNGART, J. M. (1992). Family-peer connections: The roles of emotional expressiveness within the family and children's

understanding of emotions. Child Development, 63, 603-618.

COIE, J. D., & DODGE, K. A. (1988). Multiple sources of data on social behavior and social status in the school: A cross-age comparison. Child Development, 59, 815-829.

COIE, J. D., DODGE, Κ. Α., & COPPOTELLI, H. (1982). Dimensions and types of social status: A cross-age perspective. Developmental Psychology, 18, 557-570.

COIE, J. D., DODGE, Κ. Α., & KUPERSMIDT, J. B. (1990). Peer group behavior and social status. In S. R. Asher & J. D. Coie (Eds.), Peer rejection in childhood. New York: Cambridge University Press.

COIE, J. D., & KUPERSMIDT, J. B. (1983). A behavioral analysis of emerging social status in boys' groups. Child Development, 54, 1400-1416.

DELUTY, R. H. (1983). Children's evaluations of aggressive, assertive, and submissive

responses, journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 12, 124-129.

DENHAM, S. A. (1986). Social cognition, prosocial behavior, and emotion in preschoolers: Contextual validation. Child Development, 57, 194-201.

DODGE, Κ. Α., COIE, J. D., PETTIT, G. S., & PRICE, J. M. (1990). Peer status and aggression in boys' groups: Developmental and contextual analyses. Child Development, 61, 1289-1309.

DODGE, Κ. Α., MURPHY, R. M„ & BUCHSBAUM, Κ. (1984). The assessment of intention cue detection skills in children: Implications for developmental psychopathology. Child

Development, 55, 163-173.



Emotions and Competence 1 7

DODGE, Κ. Α., SCHLUNDT, D. C, SCHOCKEN, I., & DELUGACH, J. D. (1983). Social

competence and children's sociometric status: The role of peer group entry strategies. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 29, 309-336.

EASTERBROOK, J. A. (1959). The effect of emotion on cue utilization and the organization of behavior. Psychological Review, 66, 183-201.

EISENBERG, Ν. (1986). Altruistic emotion, cognition, and behavior. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

EISENBERG, Ν., & FABES, R. A. (1991). Prosocial behavior and empathy: A multimethod, developmental perspective. In P. Clark (Ed.), Review of personality and social psychol ogy (Vol. 12). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

EISENBERG Ν., & FABES, R. A. (1992). Emotion, self-regulation, and social competence. In M. Clark (Ed.), Review of personality and social psychology (Vol. 14). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

EISENBERG, N„ FABES, R. Α., BERNZWEIG, J., KARBON, M., POULIN, R., & HANISH, L. (in press). The relations of emotionality and regulation to preschoolers' social skills and sociometric status. Child Development.

EISENBERG, Ν., FABES, R. Α., MILLER, P. Α., FULTZ, J., MATHY, R. M., SHELL, R„ & RENO, R. R. (1989). The relations of sympathy and personal distress to prosocial behavior: A multimethod study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 55-66.

EKMAN, P. (1973). Darwin and facial expression: A century of research in review. New York: Academic Press.

FABES, R. Α., & EISENBERG, Ν. (1992). Young children's coping with interpersonal anger. Child Development, 63, 116-128.

FIELD, T. M., & WALDEN, T. A. (1982). Production and discrimination of facial expressions by preschool children. Child Development, 53, 1299-1311.

FOSTER, S. L., & RITCHEY, W. L. (1979). Issues in the assessment of social competence in children, journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 12, 625-638.

FRENCH, D. C., & WAAS, G. Α. (1987). Social cognitive and behavioral characteristics of

peer rejected boys. Professional School Psychology, 2, 103-112.

GARDNER, D„ HARRIS, P. L„ OHMOTO, M„ & HAMAZAKI, T. (1988). Understanding of the distinction between real and apparent emotion by Japanese children. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 11, 203-218.

GNEPP, J. (1989). Children's use of personal information to understand other people's feelings. In C. Saarni & P. L. Harris (Eds.), Children's understanding of emotion. New York: Cambridge University Press.

GNEPP, J., & GOULD, Μ. E. (1985). The development of personalized inferences: Under

standing other people's emotional reactions in light of their prior experiences. Child


GNEPP, J., & HESS, D. (1986). Children's understanding of verbal and facial display rules.

Developmental Psychology, 22, 103-108.

GNEPP, J., KLAYMAN, J., & TRABASSO, T. (1982). A hierarchy of information sources for

inferring emotional reactions. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 33. 111-123.

GOLDMAN, J. Α., CORSINI, D. Α., & DE URIOSTE, R. (1980). Implications of positive and negative sociometric status for assessing the social competence of young children.

Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 1, 209-220.



MERRILL-PALMER QUARTERLY

GOTTMAN, J. M., & METTETAL, G. (1986). Speculations about social and affective de

velopment: Friendship and acquaintanceship through adolescence. In J. M. Gottman & J. G. Parker (Eds.), Conversations of friends: Speculations on affective development. New York: Cambridge University Press.

GRAHAM, S., & WEINER, B. (1986). From an attributional theory of emotion to develop mental psychology: A round-trip ticket? Social Cognition, 4, 153-179.

GRONLUND, N. E., & ANDERSON, L. (1957). Personality characteristics of socially ac

cepted, socially neglected, and socially rejected junior high school pupils. Educational Administration and Supervision, 43, 329-338.

HARRIS, P. L., DONNELLY, K., GUZ, G. R., & PITT-WATSON, R. (1986). Children's un

derstanding of the distinction between real and apparent emotion. Child Development, 57, 895-909.

HARRIS, P. L., & GROSS, D. (1988). Children's understanding of real and apparent emo tion. In J. W. Astington, P. L. Harris, & D. R. Olson (Eds.), Developing theories of mind. New York: Cambridge University Press.

HARRIS, P. L„ OLTHOF, T„ & MEERUM TERWOGT, M. (1981). Children's knowledge of emotion. Journal of Child Psychiatry and Psychology, 22, 247-261.

HARRIS, P. L., OLTHOF, T., MEERUM TERWOGT, M„ & HARDMAN, C. E. (1987). Children's knowledge of the situations that provoke emotion. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 10, 319-343.

HARRIS, P. L., & SAARNI, C. (1989). Children's understanding of emotion: An introduction. In C. Saarni & P. L. Harris (Eds.), Children's understanding of emotion. New York:

Cambridge University Press.

HUBBARD, J. Α., COIE, J. D., & DODGE, K. A. (1993). The social behavior of popular and average status boys in a group of unfamiliar peers. Unpublished manuscript, Duke

University, Durham, NC.

IZARD, C. E. (1971). The face of emotion. New York: Appleton.

KATZ, L. F. & GOTTMAN, J. M. (1991). Marital discord and child outcomes: A social

psychophysiological approach. In J. Garber & K. A. Dodge (Eds.), The development of emotion regulation and dysregulation. New York: Cambridge University Press.

KAZDIN, A. E„ ESVELDT-DAWSON, K„ FRENCH, N. H„ & UNIS, A. S. (1987). Problem

solving skills training and relationship therapy in the treatment of antisocial child behavior. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55, 76-85.

KENDALL, P. C., RONAN, K. R., & EPPS, J. (in press). Aggression in children-adolescents:

Cognitive-behavioral treatment perspectives. In D. J. Pepler & K. H. Rubins (Eds.), Development and treatment of childhood aggression. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

KUHLEN, R. G., & LEE, B. j. (1943). Personality characteristics and social acceptability in adolescence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 34, 321-340.

LADD, G. W. (1983). Social networks of popular, average, and rejected children in school

settings. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 29, 283-307.

LADD, G. W., & MARS, K. T. (1986). Reliability and validity of preschoolers' perceptions of peer behavior. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 15, 16-25.

LEWIS, W. C., WOLMAN, R. N., & KING, M. (1972). the development of the language of emotions: II. Intentionality in the experience of affect. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 120, 303-316.




LOCHMAN, J. E., BURCH, P. R„ CURRY, J. F., & LAMPRON, L. Β. (1984). Treatment and generalization effects of cognitive-behavioral and goal-setting interventions with

aggressive boys. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 52, 915-916.

LOCHMAN, ). E„ WHITE, K. J., & WAYLAND, Κ. K. (1991). Cognitive-behavioral assess ment and treatment with aggressive children. In P. C. Kendall (Ed.), Child and adolescent

therapy: Cognitive-behavioral procedures. New York: Guilford.

MEERUM TERWOGT, M., KOOPS, W., OOSTERHOFF, T., & OLTHOF, T. (1986). Devel

opment in processing of multiple emotional situations. Journal of General Psychology, 113, 109-119.

MOOD, D. W., JOHNSON, J. E., & SHANTZ, C. U. (1978). Social comprehension and affect matching in young children. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 24, 63-66.

ODOM, R. D., & LEMOND, C. M. (1972). Developmental differences in the perception and production of facial expressions. Child Development, 43, 359-269.

PLUTCHIK, R. (1962). The emotions: Facts, theories, and a new model. New York: Random House.

PUTALLAZ, M. (1983). Predicting children's sociometric status from their behavior. Child


PUTALLAZ, M., & GOTTMAN, J. M. (1981). An interactional model for children's entry into peer groups. Child Development, 52, 986-994.

PUTALLAZ, M., & SHEPPARD, B. H. (1992). Conflict management and social competence. In C. U. Shantz & W. W. Hartup (Eds.), Conflict in child and adolescent development. New York: Cambridge University Press.

REICHENBACH, L., & MASTERS, J. C. (1983). Children's use of expressive and contextual cues in judgements of emotion. Child Development, 54, 993-1004.

RUBIN, K. H., & DANIELS-BEIRNESS, T. (1983). Concurrent and predictive correlates of sociometric status in kindergarten and grade one children. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 29, 337-351.

RUBIN, K. H., & MAIONI, T. L. (1975). Play preference and its relationship to egocentrism, popularity, and classification skills in preschoolers. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 21, 171 —

179.

RUSSELL, J. Α., & RIDGEWAY D. (1983). Dimensions underlying children's emotion con

cepts. Developmental Psychology, 19, 795-804.

SAARNI, C. (1979). Children's understanding of display rules for expressive behavior.

Developmental Psychology, 15, 424-429.

SAARNI, C. (1984). An observational study of children's attempts to monitor their expres sive behavior. Child Development, 55, 1504-1513.

SAARNI, C. (1987, April). Children's beliefs about parental expectations for emotional

expressive behavior management. Paper presented at the meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Baltimore, MD.

SARASON, B. R. (1981 ). The dimensions of social competence: Contributions from a variety of research areas. In J. D. Wine & M. D. Smye (Eds.), Social competence. New York: Guilford Press.

SCHWARTZ, R. M., & TRABASSO, T. (1984). Children's understanding of emotions. In C. E. Izard, J. Kagan, & R. B. Zajonc (Eds.), Emotion, cognition, and behavior. New York: Cambridge University Press.



MERRILL-PALMER QUARTERLY

SHIELDS, S. Α., & STERN, R. M. (1979). Emotion: The perception of bodily change. In P. Pliner, K. R. Blankstein, & ). M. Spigel (Eds.), Perception of emotion in self and others. Advances in the study of communication and affect. (Vol. 3). New York: Plenum Press.

SROUFE, L., SCHORK, E., MOTTI, E., LAWROSKI, N„ & LA FRENIERE, P. (1985). The role of affect in social competence. In C. E. Izard, J. Kagan, & R. B. Zajonc (Eds.), Emotion,

cognition, and behavior. New York: Cambridge University Press.

STEIN, N. L., & JEWETT, J. L. (1986). A conceptual analysis of the meaning of negative emotions: Implications for a theory of development. In C. E. Izard & P. Read (Eds.), Mea surement of emotion in infants and young children. New York: Cambridge University Press.

STEIN, N., & LEVINE, L. (1987). Thinking about feelings: The development and organi zation of emotional knowledge. In R. Snow & M. Farr (Eds.), Aptitude, learning, and instructions (Vol. 3). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

STEIN, N. L., & TRABASSO, T. (1989). Children's understanding of changing emotional states. In C. Saarni & P. L. Harris (Eds.), Children's understanding of emotion. New York: Cambridge University Press.

STOCKER, C., & DUNN, J. (1990). Sibling relationships in childhood: Links with friendships and peer relationships. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 8, 227-244.

THOMPSON, R. A. (1989). Causal attributions and children's emotional understanding. In C. Saarni & P. L. Harris (Eds.), Children's understanding of emotion. New York:

Cambridge University Press.

UNDERWOOD, M. K., COIE, J. D., & HERBSMAN, C. R. (1992). Display rules for anger and aggression in school-age children. Child Development, 63, 366-380.

WEINER, B„ GRAHAM, S., STERN, P., & LAWSON, M. E. (1982). Using affective cues to infer causal thoughts. Developmental Psychology, 18, 278-286.



Emotional Correlates of Social Competence in … · Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, Vol 40, No. /...

Documents

Transcript of Emotional Correlates of Social Competence in … · Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, Vol 40, No. /...