Antisocial Behavior 1
Running head: REGULATION, PEERS, AND ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR
Emotion Dysregulation, Peer Rejection, and the Development of Antisocial Behavior in
Adolescent Boys
Christopher J. Trentacosta
University of Pittsburgh Medical Center
Daniel S. Shaw
University of Pittsburgh
Christopher Trentacosta, Ph. D.
4107 Sennott Square
Pitt Mother-Child Project
210 S Bouquet Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15260
phone: 412-624-4535
email: [email protected]
Antisocial Behavior 2
Abstract
The present study examined relationships among emotion dysregulation, peer rejection, and
antisocial behavior in a sample of boys from low-income families. Following a developmental
psychopathology perspective, emotion dysregulation was measured in early childhood, peer
rejection was assessed during middle childhood, and self reports of antisocial behavior were
obtained during early adolescence. Structural equation modeling was utilized to examine
longitudinal relations among these constructs, with results suggesting associations between early
childhood emotion dysregulation and middle childhood peer rejection and between peer rejection
and antisocial behavior. Furthermore, indirect effects of early emotion dysregulation on
adolescent antisocial behavior were found through peer rejection. Results are discussed from a
developmental psychopathology perspective with implications for early prevention and
intervention.
Keywords: emotion dysregulation, peer rejection, antisocial behavior, delinquency,
developmental psychopathology
Acknowledgements: The research reported in this article was supported by a grant to the second
author from the National Institute of Mental Health (MH 50907). We thank the staff of the Pitt
Mother & Child Project and the study families for making the research possible.
Antisocial Behavior 3
Emotion Dysregulation, Peer Rejection, and the Development of Antisocial Behavior in
Adolescent Boys
Aggression and other forms of overt externalizing symptoms reach their peak between
ages two to three years. However, some children continue to show disruptive behavior problems
across childhood and, by early adolescence, begin to engage in violent offenses and other forms
of serious antisocial behavior (Coie & Dodge, 1998). Antisocial behavior during early
adolescence sometimes leads to arrest and incarceration later in adolescence and into adulthood.
More generally, early antisocial behavior can place adolescents at risk for mental health
problems, substance dependence, and work problems into adulthood (Moffitt, Caspi, Harrington,
& Milne, 2002). Due in part to the personal, economic, and social toll that antisocial behavior
takes on individuals and society, predictors of externalizing symptoms and more serious forms of
antisocial behavior have received extensive examination. The present study was designed to
examine predictors of early adolescent antisocial behavior from a developmental
psychopathology perspective.
The developmental psychopathology perspective suggests that deviations from normative
processes at earlier stages of development increase the likelihood of psychopathology later in
development (Sroufe, 1997). Furthermore, each developmental stage presents key tasks and
challenges. In early childhood, one key challenge is the attainment of emotional self-regulation
(Kopp, 1989). In middle childhood, developing and maintaining positive peer relationships
becomes a critical element of positive adaptation (Rubin, Bukowski, & Parker, 1998).
Supporting the developmental psychopathology perspective, difficulties with self-regulation and
peer relationships are predictive of a variety of psychosocial outcomes, including externalizing
problems in early and middle childhood (Eisenberg et al. 2001; Laird, Jordan, Dodge, Pettit, &
Antisocial Behavior 4
Bates, 2001) and antisocial behavior during adolescence (Coie & Dodge, 1998). However,
previous research has not simultaneously examined the influences of emotion dysregulation and
peer rejection during developmental periods when deviations may be most meaningful to later
adaptation. In the present study we considered how emotion dysregulation in early childhood and
peer rejection in middle childhood might lead to subsequent antisocial behavior during early
adolescence.
Emotion Dysregulation in Early Childhood
Soon after birth, infants are capable of reflexive forms of self-regulation (e.g., head
turning; Kopp, 1989). Across infancy and the early toddler years, the ability to utilize self-
regulatory techniques such as effortful control increases, but young toddlers sometimes rely on
caregivers in particularly stressful situations (Kochanska, Murray, & Harlan, 2000; Kopp, 1989).
As children move from toddlerhood to the preschool years, their reliance on caregiver assistance
decreases, and their relative proficiency with effortful control promotes adaptive regulation of
emotion (Denham, 1998; Kochanska et al., 2000). For example, when confronted with a
distressing event, young preschoolers are often able to actively distract themselves from the
distressing stimuli or focus on more pleasant aspects of the situation (Denham, 1998). By middle
and late childhood, purely cognitive means of coping predominate, but it is by the end of the
preschool period that children are first expected to gain mastery of basic behavioral self-
regulatory skills.
Supporting the importance of the development of emotional self-regulation during the
preschool period, children who are unable to satisfactorily regulate their emotions demonstrate
numerous problematic outcomes. Preschool children who utilized forms of venting or other poor
means of coping during emotionally challenging circumstances had lower concurrent levels of
Antisocial Behavior 5
social competence as rated by their teachers and peers (Denham et al., 2003). Similarly,
preschool children who either expressed no emotion or expressed exclusively negative emotions
while viewing videotaped vignettes demonstrated higher levels of externalizing behavior
problems than their peers both concurrently and at a first grade follow-up (Cole, Zahn-Waxler,
Fox, Usher, & Welsh, 1996).
There is particularly strong support for associations between assessments of children’s
dysregulation during frustrating and challenging situations and externalizing problems during
early and middle childhood. For example, when engaged in an anger-eliciting game, elementary
school children’s rough nonverbal behaviors predicted concurrent peer nominations of
aggression (Dearing et al., 2002), and their angry nonverbal behaviors and skin conductance
reactivity predicted concurrent teacher ratings of reactive aggression (Hubbard et al., 2002). In
the preschool period, boys, but not girls, who displayed more anger after experiencing a
disappointment had more concurrent externalizing behavior problems (Cole, Zahn-Waxler, &
Smith, 1994). Similarly, in an earlier report using data from the present study, a tendency to
focus on the desired object and less use of self-regulatory distraction during a frustration task at
age 3.5 was associated with teacher reports of externalizing problems three years later (Gilliom
et al., 2002).
Although the relations between emotion dysregulation and externalizing problems are
well-established, few studies have examined individual differences in emotional regulation in
early childhood as a predictor of externalizing psychopathology during early adolescence (but
see Moffitt & Caspi, 2001 for an example). Furthermore, past research has not examined the role
that school-age peer relationships may play in pathways leading from early emotion
dysregulation to antisocial behavior in adolescence. The present study was designed to fill this
Antisocial Behavior 6
gap by examining the role of peer status during middle childhood in relation to associations
between early emotion regulation and antisocial behavior during early adolescence.
Peer Rejection in Middle Childhood
Even in infancy, preferential social behavior can be observed toward peers, and as infants
become toddlers they direct a large amount of their social behavior toward a small number of
peers in a group (Howes, 1987). In preschool, children engage in sociodramatic play with friends
and prefer children with similar characteristics or interests. However, these friendships are
generally not very stable, and preschoolers’ conceptions of friendships tend to be rooted in a
specific activity occurring at a given moment (Rubin et al., 1998). It is not until middle
childhood that peer relationships are seen as relatively reciprocal and stable, and descriptions of
friendships more frequently involve shared feelings, values and loyalty (Rubin et al., 1998).
Thus, the majority of empirical research on peer relations, peer acceptance, and friendship has
been conducted during middle and late childhood. This sizable body of research demonstrates
consistent relations between peer acceptance, popularity, and friendships and positive outcomes
such as academic achievement and psychological adjustment (e.g., Wentzel & Caldwell, 1997).
Just as peer acceptance and friendship are markers of positive adjustment, peer rejection
is often an indicator of maladjustment and risk for later psychopathology. Peer rejection in
middle childhood can be particularly damaging. Although dominance hierarchies exist in early
childhood peer groups, children are generally unable to describe who is at the top or bottom of
the hierarchy (Rubin et al., 1998). In contrast, during middle childhood children are often acutely
aware of their status within the social group. Children who are rejected by peers are often
aggressive, but social withdrawal is also a relatively consistent correlate of peer rejection (Rubin
Antisocial Behavior 7
et al., 1998). Over time, rejected children are at greater risk for problems such as school drop out
and antisocial behavior (Ollendick, Weist, Borden, & Greene, 1992).
Because peer rejection is a consistent risk factor for a wide range of negative outcomes,
there is an extensive literature examining predictors of peer rejection. Previously examined
predictors include caregiver-child attachment, child temperament, parenting behaviors, and
social skills (Rubin et al., 1998). In the present study, we examined emotion dysregulation as a
predictor of peer rejection. Based on the extant literature (e.g., Eisenberg et al., 1995), children
who are better able to manage their emotions in distressing situations would be expected to more
likely master the social behaviors and skills necessary to promote effective social relationships.
Conversely, children who have difficulty managing their negative emotions would be more
likely to express their behavior in destructive ways such as aggression. In addition, the mere
presence of frequent displays of unregulated negative emotion may be upsetting and bothersome
to peers and lead to rejection (Maszk, Eisenberg, & Guthrie, 1999). In support of these
predictions, previous research has demonstrated positive concurrent relations between
constructive forms of regulation and sociometric status and negative concurrent relations
between aggressive forms of regulation and sociometric status during preschool, especially
among boys (Eisenberg et al., 1993). Longitudinal studies have also supported relations between
emotion dysregulation and peer status over short periods of time (e.g., Maszk et al., 1999), but
previous work has not examined these associations across early and middle childhood. Thus, in
the present study, emotion dysregulation in early childhood was expected to predict peer
rejection in middle childhood.
In turn, we expected peer rejection to be associated with antisocial behavior in early
adolescence. Not surprisingly, peer rejection is a consistent predictor of antisocial behavior, even
Antisocial Behavior 8
in longitudinal studies spanning many years (Coie & Dodge, 1998). More strikingly, many
studies show a unique effect of peer rejection on the development of aggression and antisocial
behavior into adolescence beyond the effect of earlier externalizing problems.
As described above, emotion dysregulation is also a consistent predictor of externalizing
problems in early and middle childhood, with fewer studies conducted on more serious forms of
antisocial activities during adolescence. In one such study (Moffitt & Caspi, 2001), difficult
temperament characterized by behavioral undercontrol, emotional lability, and impulsivity at age
3 was associated with higher levels of antisocial behavior in adolescence. However, this relation
was found only for children with “life-course persistent” forms of antisocial behavior (i.e.,
elevated levels of antisocial behavior in childhood as well as adolescence).
Following a developmental psychopathology perspective (Cicchetti, 2006), incompetence
in a developmentally-salient task in early childhood would be expected to lead to incompetence
in a developmentally-salient task of middle childhood, which would then predict incompetence
in early adolescence. We examined whether early emotion dysregulation predicted difficulties in
the social milieu in middle childhood. Because the formation of stable, positive relationships
with peers who share goals and values is a key task of middle childhood, peer rejection was
selected as the indicator of middle childhood incompetence. In turn, we examined whether peer
rejection during middle childhood predicted poor adaptation during early adolescence. Antisocial
behavior was selected as the indicator of poor early adolescent adaptation because young
adolescent males are often faced with peer pressure to commit delinquent acts, and early
involvement in antisocial behavior is a robust predictor of poor outcomes into adulthood (e.g.,
Moffitt et al., 2002). Particularly over a long period of study, early childhood incompetence
would not necessarily directly predict maladjustment in early adolescence but would set the stage
Antisocial Behavior 9
for developmental deviation leading to further maladjustment. Thus, we did not necessarily
expect emotion dysregulation in early childhood to directly predict antisocial behavior in early
adolescence, but we examined whether there were also direct relations between these constructs.
Method
Participants
Participants in the present study were 111 boys originally recruited into the Pittsburgh
Mother & Child Project (PMCP) through Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) programs in the
Pittsburgh metropolitan area (Shaw, Gilliom, Ingoldsby, & Nagin, 2003). Recruitment occurred
at WIC centers across two years, and boys were between 6 and 17 months old when their
families were initially approached to enter the study. The initial PMCP assessment occurred
when boys were 18 months old, and 310 boys completed this initial assessment out of 421
families initially approached to participate in the study. This initial sample was 51% European
American, 39% African American, .3% Hispanic, and 9% from other ethnicities. The mean
Hollingshead (1979) socioeconomic status was 23.32 (SD = 9.29), which represents the working
class nature of the PMCP sample.
PMCP follow-up assessments occurred regularly during childhood and into early
adolescence, with attrition being generally low throughout the 10.5 year duration of the study.
For example, data were available on 302 boys at the 24-month assessment (97%), 282 at the 42-
month assessment (91%), and 89% with assessments at ages 10, 11, or 12. During the 9th year of
the PMCP, participating boys were invited to attend a two-week summer camp. Due to the time
commitment needed to participate in the summer camp, 147 families from the original sample of
310 permitted their boys to attend the summer camp. Additionally, because original recruitment
Antisocial Behavior 10
of the sample took place over two years but the summer camp occurred during a single summer,
boys’ ages ranged from 8.2 to 10.7 years (M = 9.5, SD = .55) during the summer camp.
111 of the boys with self-report antisocial behavior data at age 12 also completed the age
3.5 and summer camp assessments. Boys with complete data were compared with boys who
were initially recruited into the PMCP but did not have complete data for the present study. T-
tests revealed no significant differences on maternal education, family income, and
socioeconomic status collected at 18 months or maternal reports of boys’ externalizing problems
at 24 and 42 months. Furthermore, there were no significant differences on the emotion
dysregulation, peer rejection, and antisocial behavior measures used in the present study.
Procedure and Measures
The PMCP included laboratory and/or home visits at assessments when boys were 1.5, 2,
3.5, 5, 5.5, 6, 8, 10, 11, and 12 years of age, and the summer camp was conducted during the
summer of 2000. For the present study, emotion dysregulation was measured at the age 3.5
assessment, peer rejection was measured on two occasions at the summer camp assessment, and
antisocial behavior was measured at the age 12 assessment.
Emotion dysregulation. Emotion dysregulation was measured during a laboratory visit
using the cookie task (Marvin, 1977). This task is intended to measure negative affect and
regulatory skill by requiring that the child wait for a desirable outcome while in an environment
lacking much stimulation. Boys were in a room that had been cleared of all toys while their
mothers completed a series of assessment measures. After finding out from the mother about the
child’s preference for three different cookies, the mother was asked to keep a clear bag
containing the cookie of choice in clear view of her child but outside of his reach. This procedure
Antisocial Behavior 11
lasted for three minutes at which point a research assistant signaled to the mother that she could
give the cookie to her child.
Emotion regulatory behaviors were coded from videotapes of the cookie task by trained
research assistants. A coding system was adapted from the work of Grolnick, Bridges, and
Connell (1996) where coders determined whether five behaviors were present or absent during a
series of eighteen 10-second intervals. The five codes, active distraction, passive waiting,
information gathering, physical comfort seeking, and focus on the delay object, were intended to
be exhaustive, such that coders were required to select one of the five codes for each interval (see
Gilliom et al., 2002 for more detail about the codes). Coders selected a single code for each
interval except when a boy engaged in another regulatory behavior while maintaining physical
contact with his mother. In this case, the boy received a code for two regulatory behaviors:
comfort seeking and the additional regulatory code.
For purposes of the present study, we focused on two codes, active distraction and focus
on the delay object, because these codes are the most consistent with theoretical
conceptualizations of emotion regulation. Active distraction, including purposeful attempts to
focus attention away from the delay object (e.g., exploring the room, singing, engaging in
fantasy play), indicates adaptive emotion regulation. Alternatively, focusing on the delay object
demonstrates poor coping with the situation and correlates with increased anger and frustration
(Gilliom et al., 2002). Secondly, in support of their predictive validity, these two regulatory
behaviors predicted teacher-rated externalizing problems at age 6 (Gilliom et al., 2002). Boys
who focused on the cookie during the task and utilized less active distraction demonstrated
higher rates of externalizing problems based on teacher reports. Although passive waiting also
was associated with later externalizing problems, this less active approach to coping with
Antisocial Behavior 12
frustration is less theoretically consistent with conceptions of emotion regulation and subsequent
adaptive behavior.
Peer rejection. Evaluations at the summer camp were conducted to examine the boys’
behavioral adjustment and included assessments of their peer relations. Boys attended one of
three sessions of the summer camp. Each session lasted for ten days across a two-week period
and consisted of four to five separate groups of 10-12 boys. Each group was managed by two
counselors who were college undergraduates trained in behavioral management techniques.
Camp groups were assigned so that each group was heterogeneous with respect to child age and
so that no more than two to three boys with elevated externalizing problems were in a single
camp group. In addition, boys were placed in camp groups that did not include boys whom they
had previously met. At the end of each week of camp, counselors completed behavioral rating
forms, and group members completed sociometric ratings and nominations. For the present
study, we used sociometric ratings and nominations from the second week of camp because
ratings and nominations from the first week were likely to be comparatively less reliable and
more unstable.
For the sociometric nomination procedure, boys completed an interview developed by
Coie and his colleagues (Coie, Dodge, & Coppotelli, 1982). In this method, boys were first asked
to name the boys in their camp group that they “like.” Then, they are asked to name the boys in
their camp group that they “don’t like very much.” From the nomination procedure, a social
preference score was calculated for each camp group member. The boy’s liked and disliked
nominations were standardized based on the other scores in the boy’s camp group. Then, the
boy’s standardized disliked score was subtracted from his standardized liked score creating a
Antisocial Behavior 13
social preference score. We calculated the inverse of the social preference score to obtain a
rejection nomination score where higher scores indicated greater rejection by peers.
Sociometric ratings are often used in conjunction with nomination procedures to identify
rejected children (e.g., Asher & Dodge, 1986). For the sociometric rating procedure in the
present study, boys were asked to use a three-point scale (2 = likes a lot, 1 = likes OK, 0 =
doesn’t like) to rate each member of their camp group. A mean sociometric rating was calculated
for each boy. We subtracted the mean sociometric rating from 2 to obtain a mean rejection rating
where higher scores indicated higher levels of peer rejection.
Self-Reported Delinquency (SRD). Youth completed the Self-Reported Delinquency
measure at age 12 (Elliot, Huizinga, & Ageton, 1985). Measures of delinquency relying on self-
report have good psychometric properties, with test-retest reliabilities ranging from .75 to .98
and internal consistency alphas from .65 to .92 (Krueger et al., 1994). The SRD is considered a
highly respected self-report assessment of delinquency with good psychometric properties. The
SRD assesses the context and frequency of offending and examines overt, covert, destructive,
and nondestructive offenses. Thirty three items pertain to the adolescent’s report of his own
involvement in antisocial activities.
For the present study, a composite score was created by summing 32 items pertaining to
the boy’s self-reported delinquent and antisocial acts. The item that assessed frequency of
sniffing glue was omitted from the composite score due to the large number of boys who did not
understand this item and the very low base rate of this behavior among boys who understood the
item. The composite score demonstrated good internal reliability (α = .83).
Antisocial Behavior 14
Results
Table 1 presents descriptive statistics for study variables on the 111 boys included in the
present study. Table 2 presents intercorrelations between the variables. Not surprisingly, the
indicators of emotion dyregulation, distraction and focus on the delay object, were negatively
correlated. Distraction was negatively correlated with the indicators of peer rejection but not with
later antisocial behavior, while focus on the delay object was not related to peer rejection or later
antisocial behavior. There was a significant positive correlation between the nomination and
rating indicators of peer rejection, and both indicators of peer rejection were positively correlated
with the antisocial behavior composite score.
Model Estimation
Structural equation models were examined with maximum likelihood estimation using
AMOS 5.0 (Arbuckle, 2003). The fit statistics for the models are presented in Table 3. Model 1
(see Figure 1) was created to examine developmental predictors of antisocial behavior. This
model included two early childhood measures, distraction and focus on the delay object, to create
an emotion dysregulation latent construct. Also, the model included two measures collected
during the camp, sociometric nominations and sociometric ratings, to create a peer rejection
latent construct. A path was included from the emotion dysregulation construct to the peer
rejection construct to test our hypothesis that a key indicator of maladjustment in early childhood
would predict a key indicator of maladjustment in middle childhood. A path was also included
from the peer rejection construct to the antisocial behavior composite score to test our hypothesis
that a key indicator of maladjustment in middle childhood would predict a key indicator of
maladjustment in early adolescence. Finally, a path was included from the emotion dysregulation
Antisocial Behavior 15
construct to the antisocial behavior composite score to test whether there would also be a
direction relation between these constructs.
Model fit for Model 1 was tested with multiple indices. The chi-square goodness of fit
index tests exact model fit, and a nonsignificant chi-square value supports model fit. There are
also a number of relative fit indices. The Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA)
is one such measure of relative fit, and RMSEA values below .06 support good model fit (Hu &
Bentler, 1999). Two other statistics, the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) and the Tucker-Lewis
Index (TLI) measure the absolute fit of the model in comparison to the absolute fit of an
independence model, and values above .95 for the CFI and TLI indicate good model fit (Hu &
Bentler, 1999). Model 1 demonstrated good model fit, with χ2 = 1.73, RMSEA = .00, CFI = 1.00,
and TLI =1.03.
The standardized coefficients for paths specified in Model 1 are presented in Figure 1.
Based on the path coefficients, Model 1 supported distraction and focus on the delay object as
elements of an emotion dysregulation latent construct and supported sociometric nominations
and ratings as elements of a peer rejection latent construct. The model also supported direct paths
from emotion dysregulation to peer rejection and from peer rejection to antisocial behavior.
However, the direct path from emotion dysregulation to antisocial behavior was nonsignficant.
To more closely examine the developmental prediction of emotion dysregulation on
antisocial behavior in Model 1, we evaluated the indirect effect of the emotion dysregulation
latent construct on antisocial behavior through the peer rejection latent construct. Two
approaches were selected to examine the indirect effect based on their power to detect effects
and appropriateness for relatively small longitudinal samples. The first approach, described by
Shrout and Bolger (2002), uses bootstrap methods. Following the procedures described by
Antisocial Behavior 16
Shrout and Bolger, 95% confidence intervals were estimated for Model 1 using bias-corrected
bootstrap sampling methods over 1,000 iterations. The confidence intervals (lower limit = -.001
and upper limit =.388) for the indirect effect of emotion dysregulation on antisocial behavior
through peer rejection overlapped with zero. The statistical significance of the indirect effect
with the bootstrap method was marginally significant (p =.06). The second approach, described
by MacKinnon and colleagues (see MacKinnon, Lockwood, & Williams, 2004), involves the
construction of asymmetric confidence intervals because the distribution of the indirect effect
rarely conforms to a normal distribution. The Prodclin program (MacKinnon, Fritz, Williams, &
Lockwood, in press) was utilized to estimate asymmetric confidence intervals for Model 1.
Based on this approach, the 95 % confidence intervals did not overlap with zero (lower limit
=.008 and upper limit = .252). Thus, the asymmetric method supported the indirect effect of
emotion dysregulation on antisocial behavior through peer rejection.
Although Model 1 demonstrated good model fit, the nonsignificant path from emotion
dysregulation to antisocial behavior suggested that a more parsimonious model might provide a
comparable or better fit. Thus, the path from emotion dysegulation to antisocial behavior was
deleted. The resulting model, Model 2 (see Figure 2), also demonstrated good model fit, with χ2
= 1.81, RMSEA = .00, CFI = 1.00, and TLI =1.04. Based on the nonsignificant chi-square
difference test (∆χ² = .08, ∆df = 1, p > .05), Model 2 did not significantly improve model fit. All
paths in Model 2 were significant. In sum, Model 2 supports emotion dysregulation as a
predictor of peer rejection and peer rejection as a predictor of antisocial behavior.
Using the same bootstrapping and asymmetric confidence interval procedures described
above, we estimated the indirect effect of the emotion dysregulation latent construct on antisocial
behavior through the peer rejection latent construct for Model 2. The confidence intervals with
Antisocial Behavior 17
the bootstrap method (lower limit =.008 and upper limit = .220) did not overlap with zero,
producing a statistically significant indirect effect (p <.05). Based on the asymmetric confidence
interval approach, the 95 % confidence intervals did not overlap with zero (lower limit =.013 and
upper limit =.256). Thus, for Model 2 both methods supported the indirect effect of the emotion
dysregulation latent construct on antisocial behavior through the peer rejection latent construct.
Discussion
The present findings support a developmental psychopathology approach to
understanding the emergence of antisocial behavior in early adolescence. Specifically, a key
developmental deviation during early childhood, emotion dysregulation, predicted a
developmental deviation in middle childhood. In turn, the middle childhood developmental
deviation, rejection by peers, predicted the emergence of antisocial behavior in early
adolescence. Furthermore, statistical tests of indirect effects were generally supported. The
indirect effects suggest that although emotion dysregulation in early childhood does not directly
predict antisocial behavior in early adolescence, dysregulation has an indirect association with
antisocial behavior through its prediction of peer rejection.
Boys who had difficulty utilizing active distraction and tended to focus on the distressing
situation during early childhood were more likely to be rejected by their peers in middle
childhood. Not only does this finding support a developmental psychopathology perspective, but
it also supports the consistent relations previously found between aspects of emotional
competence and children’s social adjustment (e.g., Denham et al., 2003; Mostow, Izard, Fine, &
Trentacosta, 2002). Effective management of emotions has been associated with positive social
relationships whereas emotion dysregulation has been related to negative, conflictual
relationships with peers. The current finding is also consistent with preventive efforts that focus
Antisocial Behavior 18
on helping at-risk young children learn to manage and utilize emotions effectively, which has
been shown to promote appropriate social adaptation throughout childhood (Izard, 2002).
In addition to being predicted by early childhood emotion dysregulation, peer rejection
during a summer camp was associated with later antisocial behavior in early adolescence. As
found in previous research (see Coie & Dodge, 1998), peer relationships have been associated
with young adolescents’ involvement in delinquent behavior. Of particular note from the present
study, peer rejection was measured while boys attended a summer camp. By design, boys had
very little previous contact with the other boys in their camp groups. As a result, our results
provide particularly strong evidence of the importance of peer rejection during middle childhood
as a predictor of antisocial behavior because the boys did not have a history of negative
relationships with their peers at camp. Also, as boys presumably had little contact with their
fellow campers following the completion of camp, the longitudinal prediction to antisocial
behavior can be more purely attributed to peer rejection rather than a history of negative
relationships with these peers, peer group contagion, or other peer group factors also associated
with antisocial behavior.
Notably, emotion dysregulation during early childhood was not directly related to
antisocial behavior in early adolescence. There are multiple explanations for the non-significant
relation between these constructs. The time span between the emotion dysregulation
measurement and the antisocial behavior outcome measure was 8.5 years. Previous findings from
the Pitt Mother & Child Project (Gilliom et al., 2002) and other research groups (e.g., Cole et al.,
1994) support concurrent and short longitudinal relations between emotion regulation and
externalizing behavior problems. Nonetheless, a longitudinal study of 8.5 years, covering the late
preschool and school-age periods, leaves a tremendous amount of room for other ‘third
Antisocial Behavior 19
variables,’ proximate to children’s environments, to exert a closer influence on antisocial
behavior in early adolescence. In the present study, peer rejection in middle childhood was
selected as one such variable based on its developmental salience in middle childhood; peer
rejection during middle childhood was found to increase the likelihood of antisocial behavior
during early adolescence.
It is also possible that emotion dysregulation at age 3.5 was not directly related to
antisocial behavior during early adolescence because our measure of antisocial behavior tapped
primarily covert forms of delinquency such as lying and stealing in addition to more overt forms
of delinquency such as physical aggression. Previous research supports a consistent relation
between emotion dysregulation and physical aggression in younger children (e.g., Hubbard et al.,
2002), but fewer studies have linked early measures of emotion dysregulation to covert forms of
antisocial behavior during adolescence (but see Moffitt & Caspi, 2001). Future research is
needed that assesses children’s emotion regulation skills more thoroughly and in middle
childhood, as one would not necessarily expect strong associations between a three minute
assessment of emotion regulation and reports of antisocial behavior conducted 8.5 years later.
Alternatively, the measure of emotion dysregulation utilized in the current study, which
tapped boys’ ability to actively distract themselves versus focus on distressing aspects of the
situation may be more predictive of subsequent internalizing problems, such as symptoms of
anxiety and depression. Consistent with this notion, theory and research on the development of
anxiety and depression often focus on a tendency to attend to positive versus negative aspects of
the situation (Kovacs & Devlin, 1998; Silk, Shaw, Forbes, Lane, & Kovacs, 2006). However,
future research is needed to validate such relationships between early difficulties in emotion
regulation and adolescent-age internalizing problems.
Antisocial Behavior 20
Limitations
There are a few notable limitations of the present study. First, the sample was restricted
to boys recruited from lower income families in a single urban area of the United States.
Different results may have been obtained had the sample included females, children from a wider
variety of socioeconomic backgrounds, or different geographic regions of the US (e.g., rural,
suburban). For example, the relations between emotion dysregulation and peer rejection may
have differed in a sample that included girls. Also, because the summer camp only included
study participants, our measure of peer rejection did not include girls’ perspectives. Keeping this
limitation in mind, our sample was selected because children from lower socioeconomic groups
are at greater risk of developing behavior problems, and boys are particularly at risk for the
development of delinquent behavior such as lying, stealing, and early drug use.
Another limitation was the use of a single respondent to measure each construct.
Although the study includes independent structured observations, peer ratings and nominations,
and self reports, a single approach was used to measure each construct. Our study could have
been strengthened with a multi-method, multi-rater approach to measuring study constructs. For
example, parent or teacher perspectives could have been added to measurements of any of the
constructs. Also, our measurement of emotion dysregulation was coded entirely based on the
child’s behavior. The use of observation methods and coding schemes that can simultaneously
account for maternal regulatory behavior may have also been beneficial because previous
research suggests that parental reactions to children’s negative emotions contributes to the
development of their behavior problems (e.g., Snyder, Stoolmiller, Wilson, & Yamamoto, 2003).
Lastly, in keeping with our developmental psychopathology perspective, we measured
each construct at one time point. We selected the measurement timing to coincide with
Antisocial Behavior 21
respective “critical periods” for the development of emotional self-regulation and healthy peer
relationships based on previous theory and research. It would be also be interesting to examine
whether stability or change in these constructs also predicts relevant outcomes. For example, as
noted above, emotion dysregulation may persist into middle childhood, and it may be these
forms of emotion dysregulation that predicts rejection by peers and the subsequent emergence of
antisocial behavior. Similarly, boys with a history of emotion dysregulation may have had
unregulated emotional outbursts during the course of summer camp that contributed to their
social rejection.
Implications
Our results support early intervention to prevent behavior problems. Programs should
include components that address adaptive self-regulation of emotion during early childhood (see
Izard, 2002). Successful programs may not only reduce immediate behavior concerns, but they
may also help to prevent later social difficulties for children who develop adequate emotion
regulation skills. Early childhood prevention programs that address children’s understanding and
management of emotions exist, and some of these programs have specifically evaluated emotion
regulation skills following program implementation with positive results (e.g., Izard, King,
Trentacosta, & Laurenceau, 2006). Future preventive intervention research should examine
outcomes longitudinally to determine whether changes in emotion regulatory abilities prevent the
emergence of difficulties with peers in middle childhood.
Similarly, programs to promote peer relationships and prevent behavior problems in
middle childhood should consider child emotion regulation as one factor that may contribute to
peer rejection. In addition to instruction in social skills and other cognitive-behavioral
techniques, children with social difficulties may also need assistance with adaptively managing
Antisocial Behavior 22
their emotions in social contexts. Furthermore, inclusive social environments that successfully
reduce the negative sequelae of peer rejection may decrease the likelihood that young
adolescents will engage in antisocial behavior.
Antisocial Behavior 23
References
Arbuckle, J. L. (2003). AMOS 5.0 users' guide. Chicago: Smallwaters.
Asher, S. R., & Dodge, K. A. (1986). Identifying children who are rejected by their peers.
Developmental Psychology, 22, 444-449.
Cicchetti, D. (2006). Development and psychopathology. In D. Cicchetti & D. Cohen (Eds.),
Developmental psychopathology, 2nd Ed.: Vol. 1 Theory and Method. Hoboken, NJ: John
Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Coie, J. D., & Dodge, K. A. (1998). Aggression and antisocial behavior. In W. Damon & N.
Eisenberg (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Social, emotional, and personality
development (Vol. 3, pp. 779-862). New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Coie, J. D., Dodge, K. A., & Copottelli, H. (1982). Dimensions and types of social status: A
cross-age perspective. Developmental Psychology, 18, 557-571.
Cole, P. M., Zahn-Waxler, C., Fox, N. A., Usher, B. A., & Welsh, J. D. (1996). Individual
differences in emotion regulation and behavior problems in preschool children. Journal
of Abnormal Psychology, 105, 518-529.
Cole, P. M., Zahn-Waxler, C., & Smith, K. D. (1994). Expressive control during a
disappointment: Variations related to preschoolers' behavior problems. Developmental
Psychology, 30, 835-846.
Dearing, K. F., Hubbard, J. A., Ramsden, S. R., Parker, E. H., Relyea, N., Smithmyer, C. H., et
al. (2002). Children's self-reports about anger regulation: Direct and indirect links to
social preference and aggression. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 48, 308-336.
Denham, S. A. (1998). Emotional development in young children. New York: The Guilford
Press.
Antisocial Behavior 24
Denham, S. A., Blair, K. A., DeMulder, E., Levitas, J., Sawyer, K., Auerbach-Major, S., et al.
(2003). Preschool emotional competence: Pathway to social competence? Child
Development, 74, 238-256.
Eisenberg, N., Cumberland, A., Spinrad, T. L., Fabes, R. A., Shepard, S. A., Reiser, M., et al.
(2001). The relations of regulation and emotionality to children's externalizing and
internalizing problem behavior. Child Development, 72, 1112-1134.
Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Bernzweig, J., Karbon, M., Poulin, R., & Hanish, L. (1993). The
relations of emotionality and regulation to preschoolers' social skills and sociometric
status. Child Development, 64, 1418-1438.
Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Murphy, B., Maszk, P., Smith, M., & Karbon, M. (1995). The role
of emotionality and regulation in children's social functioning: A longitudinal study.
Child Development, 66, 109-128.
Elliott, D. S., Huizinga, D., & Ageton, S. S. (1985). Explaining delinquency and drug use.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hubbard, J. A., Smithmyer, C. M., Ramsden, S. R., Parker, E. H., Flanagan, K. D., Dearing, K.
F., et al. (2002). Observational, physiological, and self-report measures of children's
anger: Relations to reactive versus proactive aggression. Child Development, 73, 1101-
1118.
Gilliom, M., Shaw, D. S., Beck, J. E., Schonberg, M. A., & Lukon, J. L. (2002). Anger
regulation in disadvantaged preschool boys: Strategies, antecedents, and the development
of self-control. Developmental Psychology, 38, 222-235.
Grolnick, W. S., Bridges, L. J., & Connell, J. P. (1996). Emotion regulation in 2-year-olds:
Strategies and emotional expression in four contexts. Child Development, 67, 928-941.
Antisocial Behavior 25
Howes, C. (1987). Social competence with peers in young children: Developmental sequences.
Developmental Review, 7, 252-272.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:
Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55.
Izard, C. E. (2002). Translating emotion theory and research into preventive interventions.
Psychological Bulletin, 128, 796-824.
Izard, C. E., King, K. A., Trentacosta, C. J., & Laurenceau, J. P. (2006). Increasing emotion
knowledge and emotion regulation and decreasing behavior problems and
psychopathology. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Kochanska, G., Murray, K., & Harlan, E. (2000). Effortful control in early childhood: Continuity
and change, antecedents, and implications for social development. Developmental
Psychology, 36, 220-232.
Kopp, C. B. (1989). Regulation of distress and negative emotions: A developmental view.
Developmental Psychology, 25(3), 343-354.
Kovacs, M. & Devlin, B (1998). Internalizing disorders in childhood. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 39, 47-63.
Krueger, R. F., Schmutte, P. S., Caspi, A., Moffitt, T. E., Campbell, K., & Silva, P. A. (1994).
Personality traits are linked to crime among men and women: Evidence from a birth
cohort. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 103, 328-338.
Laird, R. D., Jordan, K. Y., Dodge, K. A., Pettit, G. S., & Bates, J. E. (2001). Peer rejection in
childhood, involvement with antisocial peers in early adolescence, and the development
of externalizing behavior problems. Development and Psychopathology, 13, 337-354.
Antisocial Behavior 26
MacKinnon, D. P., Fritz, M.S., Williams, J., & Lockwood, C. M. (in press). Distribution of the
product confidence limits for the indirect effect program PRODCLIN. Behavioral
Research Methods.
MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., & Williams, J. (2004). Confidence limits for the indirect
effect: Distribution of the product and resampling methods. Multivariate Behavioral
Research, 39, 99-128.
Marvin, R. S. (1977). An ecological-cognitive model for the attenuation of mother-infant
attachment behavior. In T. M. Alloway, L. Krames & P. Pliner (Eds.), Advances in the
study of communication and affect: Vol. 3 The development of social attachments (pp. 25-
60). New York: Plenum.
Maszk, P., Eisenberg, N., & Guthrie, I. K. (1999). Relations of children's social status to their
emotionality and regulation: A short-term longitudinal study. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly,
45, 468-492.
Moffitt, T. E., & Caspi, A. (2001). Childhood predictors differentiate life-course persistent and
adolescence-limited antisocial pathways among males and females. Development and
Psychopathology, 13, 355-375.
Moffitt, T. E., Caspi, A., Harrington, H., & Milne, B. J. (2002). Males on the life-course-
persistent and adolescence-limited antisocial pathways: Follow-up at age 26 years.
Development and Psychopathology, 14, 179-207.
Mostow, A. J., Izard, C. E., Fine, S. E., & Trentacosta, C. J. (2002). Modeling emotional,
cognitive, and behavioral predictors of peer acceptance. Child Development, 73, 1775-
1787.
Antisocial Behavior 27
Ollendick, T. H., Weist, M. D., Borden, M. C., & Greene, R. W. (1992). Sociometric status and
academic, behavioral, and psychological adjustment: A five-year longitudinal study.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 60, 80-87.
Rubin, K. H., Bukowski, W., & Parker, J. G. (1998). Peer interactions, relationships, and groups.
In W. Damon & N. Eisenberg (Eds.), Handbook of Child Psychology, 5th Ed.: Vol 3
Social, emotional, and personality development (pp. 619-700). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley
& Sons.
Shaw, D.S., Gilliom, M., Ingoldsby, E.M., & Nagin, D (2003). Trajectories leading to school-age
conduct problems. Developmental Psychology, 39, 189-200.
Shrout, P. E. & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New
procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7, 422-445.
Silk, J. S., Shaw, D. S., Forbes, E. E., Lane, T. L., & Kovacs, M. (2006). Maternal depression
and child internalizing: The moderating role of child emotion regulation. Journal of
Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 35, 116-126.
Snyder, J., Stoolmiller, M., Wilson, M., & Yamamoto, M. (2003). Child anger regulation,
parental responses to children's anger displays, and early child antisocial behavior. Social
Development, 12, 335-360.
Sroufe, L. A. (1997). Psychopathology as an outcome of development. Development and
Psychopathology, 9, 251-268.
Wentzell, K. R., & Caldwell, K. (1997). Friendships, peer acceptance, and group membership:
Relations to academic achievement in middle school. Child Development, 68, 1198-1209.
Antisocial Behavior 28
Table 1
Means and Standard Deviations for Study Variables
Variable Mean SD
Dysregulation: Distraction 10.40 5.31
Dysregulation: Focus 4.83 4.75
Rejection: Nominations .11 1.77
Rejection: Ratings .83 .46
Antisocial Composite Score 3.59 3.51
________________________________________________________________________
Antisocial Behavior 29
Table 2
Intercorrelations Among Variables
1 2 3 4
1. Dysregulation: Distraction
2. Dysregulation: Focus -.51**
3. Rejection: Nominations -.26** .18
4. Rejection: Ratings -.24* .12 .74**
5. Antisocial Composite Score -.09 .12 .21* .24*
______________________________________________________________________________
*p < .05. **p < .01
Antisocial Behavior 30
Table 3
Fit Statistics for Structural Equation Models
________________________________________________________________________
Model χ2 RMSEA CFI TLI
________________________________________________________________________
Model 1 1.73 .000 1.00 1.03
Model 2 1.81 .000 1.00 1.04
________________________________________________________________________
Antisocial Behavior 31
Figure Captions Figure 1. Model 1: Initial model of relations between emotion dysregulation, peer rejection, and
antisocial behavior.
Figure 2. Model 2: Final model of relations between emotion dysregulation, peer rejection, and
antisocial behavior.
Antisocial Behavior 32
Figure 1
*p < .05.
.03
.25*
-.89
Sociometric Sociometric Nomination Rating
.87 .86
.32*
Antisocial Behavior
Peer Rejection
Distraction
Emotion Dysregulation
Focus .57
Antisocial Behavior 33
Figure 2
*p < .05.
.26*
-.91
Sociometric Sociometric Nomination Rating
.87 .86
.32*
Antisocial Behavior
Peer Rejection
Distraction
Emotion Dysregulation
Focus .56