Personality and Individual Differences 52 (2012) 616–621

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Personality and Individual Differences

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

Emotion regulation strategy use in children and adolescents: The explanatory

roles of personality and attachment
Daniel Gresham, Eleonora Gullone ⇑
School of Psychology and Psychiatry, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC 3800, Australia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Emotion Regulation (ER) is a fundamental aspect of healthy psychological functioning. A sample of 682
Received 23 June 2011 children and adolescents aged between 10 and 18 years, participated in this study, which examined
Received in revised form 2 December 2011 the roles of the Five-Factor Model (FFM) of personality and parental attachment in the use of the ER strat-
Accepted 6 December 2011
egies of Reappraisal and Suppression. Higher scores on Extraversion and Openness predicted more Reap-
Available online 9 January 2012
praisal use, while higher scores on all FFM variables predicted less Suppression use, with the exception of
Neuroticism which was positively related to Suppression use. Regarding attachment, higher Communica-
Keywords:
tion predicted more Reappraisal and less Suppression use while higher Alienation predicted less Reap-
Emotion regulation
Reappraisal
praisal and more Suppression use. The current findings contribute to our understanding of factors
Suppression underlying the use of specific ER strategies.
Personality Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Attachment

1. Introduction Tonge, 2010). Gross (1998) process-oriented model is of relevance

as it provides a detailed framework through which to conceptual-
Functional regulation of emotions is of considerable importance ise ER.
for the etiology, expression, and course of psychological disorders This model proposes that the generation of emotions occurs
(Cole, Michel, & Teti, 1994; Gross & Munoz, 1995; Southam-Gerow over time, thus ER strategies can be categorised on the basis of
& Kendall, 2002). In contrast, poor Emotion Regulation (ER) is their temporal location along the emotion generative process. At
implicated in more than half of the axis I, and all of the axis II dis- the broadest level, strategies are classified as antecedent-focussed
orders, included in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental referring to those strategies that are employed before an emotional
Disorders (Gross & Levenson, 1993). Despite this, there is a paucity response has become fully activated, or response-focussed, referring
of research examining ER during the later childhood and adoles- to those adopted after an emotional response has already been
cent years with most research being focussed on the periods of in- generated.
fancy, early childhood, or adulthood (Gross, 1998; Thompson, Two ER strategies have been operationalised among the many
1994). Given that adolescence represents one of the peak risk peri- proposed in the model. They are Cognitive Reappraisal (CR), an
ods for the development of psychopathology (Betts, Gullone, & antecedent-focused strategy which involves reinterpreting an
Allen, 2009; Lewinsohn, Joiner, & Rohde, 2001), further examina- emotion eliciting event in order to change its emotional impact
tion of ER during this period is warranted. and Expressive Suppression (ES) which is a response-focused strat-
ER involves extrinsic and intrinsic processes responsible for man- egy that involves actively inhibiting the observable expression of
aging one’s emotions toward goal accomplishment (Thompson, emotional experience (Gross & Thompson, 2007). These two strat-
1994) and include the manipulation of both positive and negative egies have been related to various psychological outcomes.
emotions. Processes aimed not only at reducing the intensity and Noting that there may be situations where these findings do not
frequency of an emotional response, but also at generating and sus- apply, studies among young adults have found CR to be a healthy,
taining an emotional response (Cole et al., 1994). adaptive strategy while ES has been found to be predictive of
The few studies that have examined ER during late childhood poorer mental health (John & Gross, 2004). Reappraisers, for exam-
and adolescence have not been based on a sound theoretical ple are more likely to deal with stressful situations by reinterpret-
framework, with few exceptions (e.g. Gullone, Hughes, King, & ing the situation proactively. They consequently experienced and
expressed more positive affect and less negative affect, and re-
ported greater self-esteem and life satisfaction compared to infre-
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +61 3 9905 5374; fax: +61 3 9905 3948. quent users of CR (Gross & John, 2003). In contrast, suppressors
E-mail address: [email protected] (E. Gullone). expressed less positive affect and less negative affect compared

0191-8869/$ - see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.paid.2011.12.016
 D. Gresham, E. Gullone / Personality and Individual Differences 52 (2012) 616–621 617

to non-suppressors. Importantly, they experienced more negative that their emotion signals will only be attended to selectively or
affect and less positive affect, and reported lower self-esteem unpredictably. Consequently, they show impairment in affective
and life satisfaction compared to individuals who rarely use ES communication and are likely to develop maladaptive ER strategies
(Gross & John, 2003). such as minimisation or exaggeration (Cassidy, 1994).
Regarding gender and age differences in use of CR and ES, re- Previous research examined the relationship between ER and
search has consistently found that males report greater use of ES the quality of attachment in an adolescent sample (Biesecker,
than females, while CR has not been found to differ by gender 2001). Based on the Inventory for Parent and Peer Attachment
(Flynn, Hollenstein, & Mackey, 2010; Gross & John, 2003; Gullone (IPPA) (Armsden & Greenburg, 1987), it was demonstrated that
et al., 2010). Regarding age differences, in a sample of 9–15 year higher levels of Trust and Communication, and lower levels of
olds, Gullone et al. (2010) found that older children reported less Alienation predicted the use of more adaptive ER, while lower lev-
use of both CR and ES than younger children. els of Trust and Communication, and higher levels of Alienation,
This study is concerned with examining the individual differ- predicted the use of maladaptive ER (Biesecker, 2001).
ences and interpersonal correlates that are associated with ER The aim of the current study was to examine the predictive
strategy use during the childhood and adolescent years. Such roles of the FFM personality traits and the quality of attachment
understanding has important implications for an individual’s affec- for the use of CR and ES in late childhood and adolescence. Follow-
tive experiences and interpersonal functioning. Two constructs ing examination of gender and age differences, we tested the
that are of particular importance for the development of ER include hypotheses that:
personality and attachment (Cassidy, 1994; John & Gross, 2004;
Southam-Gerow & Kendall, 2002).  Higher levels of Extraversion, Openness, Agreeableness, and
Of note, efforts to regulate one’s emotions early in life have been Conscientiousness, and lower levels of Neuroticism would pre-
proposed to be influenced by individual differences in tempera- dict greater use of CR, while lower levels of Extraversion, Open-
ment (Rothbart, Ahadi, & Evans, 2000; Southam-Gerow & Kendall, ness, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness would predict
2002). In a study of 9–12 year old children, Jaffe, Gullone, and greater use of ES.
Hughes (2010) found temperamental-based dimensions to be asso-  Higher levels of Trust and Communication, and lower levels of
ciated with the use of CR and ES. Specifically, children with a lower Alienation, would predict greater use of CR, while lower levels
tendency to experience positive mood and to respond flexibly to of Trust and Communication, and higher levels of Alienation
changes in their environment were more likely to use the ES strat- would predict greater use of ES.
egy to regulate their emotions. A weaker tendency to approach no-
vel objects, persons, or situations, predicted ES use while a stronger 2. Method
tendency predicted CR use (Jaffe et al., 2010).
Temperamental tendencies predict the development of distinct 2.1. Participants
personality traits (Caspi, 1998). Of relevance, the FFM of personal-
ity provides a comprehensive representation of personality struc- The sample comprised 306 males and 376 females aged be-
ture (Graziano & Ward, 1992) and several authors have reported tween 10 and 18 years (M = 13.56 years, SD = 2.30), who were
associations between the FFM traits and specific ER strategies drawn from the sample of a larger longitudinal study (Gullone
(Hasking et al., 2010; John & Gross, 2004; Wang, Shi, & Li, 2009). et al., 2010). Participants were recruited either through their
In young adults, Extraversion has been associated with greater ES respective schools in Victoria, Australia, or through having previ-
use, and lower levels of Neuroticism with greater CR use (Gross ously participated in the longitudinal study. The sample was bro-
& John, 2003; Wang et al., 2009). Wang et al. (2009) reported a po- ken down into three age-groups (1. 268 10–12 years; 2. 232 13–
sitive relationship between Extraversion and CR. Less Extraverted 15 years; 3. 182 16–18 years), for examination of developmental
individuals are more likely to feel self-conscious in social situations differences.
and consequently may use ES to distance themselves from poten-
tial rejection. In contrast, individuals higher in Extraversion, and 2.2. Measures
lower in Neuroticism, are less likely to feel overwhelmed by nega-
tive affect, affording them greater opportunity to reappraise a 2.2.1. Emotion regulation
stressful situation (Gross & John, 2003). A revised version of the 10-item Emotion Regulation Question-
A recent study carried out by Hasking et al. (2010) with adoles- naire (Gross & John, 2003) was used to assess the use of two ER
cents investigated the importance of the FFM traits and ER for self- strategies; Cognitive Reappraisal and Expressive Suppression. The
injury. They found small to moderate relationships between all of ERQ for Children and Adolescents (ERQ-CA) was used to optimise
the five FFM traits and ER strategies, with the exception of Neurot- completion by children and adolescents (Gullone & Taffe, in press).
icism. These traits were positively related to CR and negatively re- The items are responded to on a 5-point Likert response scale rang-
lated to ES. Importantly, Hasking et al. (2010) found these ing ‘‘strongly disagree’’ to ‘‘strongly agree’’. Gullone and Taffe (in
relationships to be larger for adolescents compared to those re- press) reported good internal consistency for the ERQ-CA strategies
ported in previous research with adult samples. (i.e. CR scale: alpha coefficients ranged from .82 to .86; ES scale, the
While intrinsic factors such as personality undoubtedly influ- alpha coefficients ranged from .69 to .79. Sound convergent and
ence ER strategy use, extrinsic factors also play an important role construct validity for the ERQ-CA was also reported (Gullone, in
(Southam-Gerow & Kendall, 2002). An important extrinsic factor press).
is the parent–child attachment bond (Bowlby, 1969; Calkins & Hill,
2007). According to attachment theorists, an infant’s expression 2.2.2. Personality
and ER develop from the strategies used to maintain the attach- The traits of the FFM of Personality were assessed with the Big-
ment relationship (Bretherton, 1985; Cassidy, 1994). Five Questionnaire for Children (BFQ-C; Barbaranelli, Caprara, Raba-
Securely attached children develop the expectation that their sca, & Pastorelli, 2003), a 65-item self-report measure for children.
emotion signals will be attended to sensitively and predictably. Con- Items are rated on a 5-point Likert scale from ‘‘almost never’’ to ‘‘al-
sequently, they openly express their emotions and are able to man- most always’’. In the current study minor revisions in item wording
age them flexibly depending upon their environment (Cassidy, were made to the BFQ-C to enhance comprehension by an Austra-
1994). In contrast, insecurely attached infants develop expectations lian sample (e.g. ‘‘I have a great deal of fantasy’’ was changed to ‘‘I
618 D. Gresham, E. Gullone / Personality and Individual Differences 52 (2012) 616–621

often daydream or fantasise’’). Traits scale internal consistencies with the ER strategies as the dependent variables showed a signif-
range from a = .80 for Conscientiousness to .99 for Emotional Insta- icant main effect only for sex (F(2,675) = 9.20, p < .001). Univariate
bility (Barbaranelli et al., 2003). Moderate convergent validity with analyses revealed that ES differed significantly by sex
academic achievement, internalising and externalising behaviour (F(1,676) = 17.69, p < .001) with males being more likely to use this
has also been reported for the BFQ-C (Barbaranelli et al., 2003). strategy compared to females.
To align terminology with previous research, the ‘‘Emotional
Instability’’ factor will be referred to as Neuroticism, the ‘‘Intel- 3.3. Correlations
lect/Openness’’ factor will be referred to as Openness, and the ‘‘En-
ergy/Extraversion’’ factor will be referred to as Extraversion. Pearson’s Product Moment correlation analyses assessed the in-
ter-correlations between the ER, FFM and attachment variables. As
2.2.3. Attachment shown in Table 1, the overall pattern of inter-correlations is consis-
The IPPA (Armsden & Greenburg, 1987) was used to measure tent with previous research and the hypothesised relationships
adolescents’ perceptions of the affective and cognitive dimensions with the exception that a non-significant relationship was found
of relationships with parents based on the three IPPA dimensions between Openness and ES.
of: degree of mutual Trust, quality of Communication, and extent
of Alienation. 3.4. Multiple regression analyses
A revised version of the IPPA for children (IPPA-R; Gullone &
Robinson, 2005) was used to enhance completion by a younger To examine the prediction of CR scores from the FFM and
sample. Revisions included simplification of wording (e.g. ‘‘I feel attachment variables, a hierarchical multiple regression analysis
my parents are successful as parents’’ was changed to ‘‘My parents was performed and the regression model was found to be signifi-
are good parents’’) as well as shortening the Likert scale to three- cant (F(10,671) = 12.84, p < .001). The independent variables ex-
points. Adequate to good internal consistency was reported for plained 15% of the variation in CR. Entered at step one, age (as a
each of the subscales (Parent form a = .78 Trust, .82 Communica- continuous variable) and sex (male = 0 and female = 1) were not
tion, and .79 Alienation by Gullone and Robinson (2005). Adequate significant predictors. Entered at step two, the FFM variables to-
convergent validity was also reported, with moderate correlations gether were found to explain 14.9% of the variance in CR (F change
between the factors of the IPPA-R and the Coopersmith Self-esteem
(5674) = 23.63, p < .001). Entered at step 3, the attachment variables
Inventory (Coopersmith, 1981), as well as with the factors of the together explained a further significant 1.1% of the variance in CR
Parental Bonding Instrument (Parker, Tupling, & Brown, 1979). (F change (3671) = 2.90, p < .05). Table 2 shows that each of Extraver-
sion (ß = .09), Openness (ß = .15) and Communication (ß = .13)
2.3. Procedure made a significant unique contribution to CR.
To examine the prediction of ES scores from FFM and attach-
Approvals were obtained from the university ethics committee, ment variables, a second hierarchical multiple regression analysis
the Department of Education, and the Catholic Education Office. was performed. The model was significant (F(10,671) = 20.87,
Explanatory statements and consent forms were mailed to parents p < .001) with entry of all independent variables explaining around
of children who had previously participated in the longitudinal one quarter of the variation in ES. Age and sex, entered as step one
study. A number of new schools were also contacted. Consenting explained 2.5% of the variance in ES (F change (2,679) = 9.71,
parents whose children also gave consent were included in the p < .001). FFM variables, entered at step two explained a further
study. Questionnaires were completed at school in a group setting significant 14.9% of variance in ES use (F change (5,674) = 24.44,
or individually at home. p < .001). Attachment variables, entered at step three also reached
significance and explained a further 6% of variance in ES (F change
3. Results (3,671) = 17.67, p < .001).
As shown in Table 2, Sex ( ß = .16), Extraversion (ß = .26),
3.1. Data screening Agreeableness (ß = .12), Conscientiousness (ß = .15), Neuroticism
(ß = .10), Openness (ß = .10), Communication (ß = .20), and Alien-
Examination of missing data revealed that 1.7% of total data ation (ß = .15) were found to make significant unique contributions
were missing. Participants with more than 5% missing data from to ES. As can be seen, although Conscientiousness did not make a
any one measure were excluded from subsequent analyses. Data significant unique contribution when entered in step two of the
for participants with less than 5% missing from any one measure analysis, following the entry of attachment variables in step three
were imputed using the ‘Expectation Maximisation (EM)’ method. its contribution became significant.
Variable scores in excess of ±3.29 were deemed to be outliers and
were removed. Overall, 30 participants deemed to have excess 4. Discussion
missing data and 12 participants identified as outliers were re-
moved reducing the sample size from 724 to 682. The main aim of this study was to examine the roles of the FFM
The Extraversion, Trust and Communication variables were personality traits and parental attachment in the use of two spe-
negatively skewed, and the Alienation variable was positively cific ER strategies. We also aimed to replicate previously reported
skewed. Considering the large sample size, the multiple regression age and gender trends for the two ER strategies. Overall, the results
analyses were deemed to be robust to these normality violations. were supportive of our predictions.
The previously reported finding of a gender difference in the use
3.2. Descriptive statistics of ES was supported (Gullone et al., 2010; John & Gross, 2004) with
boys reporting greater use of ES compared to girls. However, in
Means and standard deviations for the study variables were cal- contrast to our prediction, no significant age differences were
culated for the total sample, as well as each age-group and sex. found. Previous research by Gullone and colleagues (2010) report-
Descriptive statistics are presented in Table 1 which shows that ing a significant age difference was based on a predominantly
males reported higher ES scores, as well as lower Agreeableness younger sample aged 9–15 years. Gullone and colleagues also
and Conscientiousness scores compared to females. A MANOVA found that stability was more characteristic at an older age. It
 D. Gresham, E. Gullone / Personality and Individual Differences 52 (2012) 616–621 619

(n = 182) M(SD)
may therefore be that the older sample in the current study diluted
any significant age effects of the younger participants in the
sample.

49.28(6.34)
44.42(7.48)

46.93(6.56)

25.79(3.98)
21.52(4.03)

49.80(6.46)

32.02(6.53)

20.26(4.31)
10.47(3.05)

9.92(2.65)
16–18 yrs

Regarding relationships with the FFM factors, higher levels of

Extraversion and Openness predicted greater use of CR suggesting
that individuals with a greater tendency to behave more asser-
(n = 232) M(SD)

tively and confidently, and those who exhibit a greater creativity

and breadth of interests, are more likely to use the ER strategy of
21.35(3.71)

48.99(5.85)

32.23(7.36)
46.62(6.52)

25.96(3.75)
49.66(6.30)
45.27(7.40)
10.65(2.90)

20.01(4.25)
9.91(2.72)
13–15 yrs

CR. The present finding is consistent with previous research dem-

onstrating that children with a tendency to approach novel stimuli
are more likely to employ flexible and adaptive ER strategies (Jaffe
et al., 2010).
(n = 268) M(SD)

The FFM factor of Openness is characterised by a higher accep-

21.73(3.82)

47.23(8.28)

48.21(6.32)

27.35(3.14)
50.35(5.66)
50.54(7.65)

22.08(3.54)
10.40(2.73)

30.00(7.97)

8.74(2.36)
10–12 yrs

tance of new ideas and interests, and more creativity. It seems rea-
sonable to propose that such individuals may possess a greater
ability to successfully redefine, or reinterpret a stressful situation,
as opposed to becoming overwhelmed by it, hence scoring higher
(n = 376) M(SD)

on CR.
21.51(3.73)

49.65(5.95)

46.62(7.75)
31.37(7.58)
47.23(6.42)
51.70(6.48)

26.27(3.80)
20.82(4.31)
10.08(2.88)

9.60(2.74)

While the bivariate results for the relationships between Agree-

Females

ableness, Conscientiousness, and Neuroticism in the current study

were in line with previous research (Hasking et al., 2010; Wang
et al., 2009), these variables did not predict CR use in the multivar-
(n = 306) M(SD)

iate analysis perhaps due to their significant correlations and

21.59(3.98)

49.85(5.99)

44.82(7.88)
31.22(7.32)
47.44(6.57)

26.69(3.45)
11.03(2.79)

47.70(6.73)

20.98(3.86)
9.27(2.47)

shared variance with other more strongly associated traits.

Support was found for the hypothesis that higher levels of Com-
Males

munication would predict CR use. This finding is consistent with

previous research demonstrating that caregiver-child communica-
(N = 682) M(SD)

tion plays an important role in emotion attribution and emotion

21.55(3.84)

49.74(5.94)

45.81(7.86)

47.33(6.48)

26.46(3.66)
49.90(6.89)

31.30(7.46)

20.89(4.11)
10.50(2.88)

9.45(2.62)

coaching. As communication between caregiver and child in-

Overall

creases, so does the mother’s ability to correctly identify her child’s

emotion and provide appropriate emotion coaching (Waters et al.,
2010). While neither Trust nor Alienation predicted the use of CR in
Correlations, means, and standard deviations for all emotion regulation, personality, and parental attachment variables.

0.77

the multivariate analysis, significant bivariate relationships consis-

10

tent with previous research were found. Considering the shared

0.66**
0.61

variance between FFM factors and attachment variables, it can be

argued that Trust and Alienation significantly predict CR, albeit
9

to a lesser extent than is true for Communication. The findings also

0.78**
0.69**
0.62

indicated that they are not unique predictors once variance ex-
plained by FFM traits is taken into account.
8

When examining relationships between the FFM factors and ES

0.23**
0.31**
0.21**
0.76

use, as expected, the results showed that lower levels of Extraver-

7

sion, Openness, and Agreeableness predicted greater use of ES. The

0.25**

**

0.27**
0.44**

finding related to Extraversion is consistent with previous research

0.28
0.86

among young adults (Gross & John, 2003; Wang et al., 2009). Also,
6

the finding related to Openness is consistent with the conceptuali-

0.42**
0.63**

**

0.39**
0.35**

sation of emotion dysregulation as being characterised by rigidity,

0.88

0.34

and a lack of breadth and flexibility in response to environmental

5

demands (Cole et al., 1994; Gross & Munoz, 1995). Children and
0.65**
0.42**
0.52**

0.36**
**

0.30**

adolescents whose interests and ways of perceiving the world

0.87

0.30

are more conservative may be more likely to adopt rigid, less adap-
4

tive ER strategies such as ES.

0.46**
0.37**
0.27**

**

0.32**
0.25**
0.40**
0.78

0.23

The current finding that Neuroticism was predictive of greater

ES has not been previously reported. However, it is reasonable to
3

expect that individuals who have a tendency to feel anxious,

0.33**
0.28**
0.13**
0.23**

**

0.32**
0.31**
0.74

0.25
0.07

depressive, discontent, or angry, and who tend to become over-

whelmed by their emotions, are more likely to attempt to actively
2

inhibit their display of emotions, perhaps in an attempt to suppress

0.12**

0.27**

0.31**
0.22**
0.32**

**

0.25**
0.21**
0.30**
0.84

0.18

the emotions themselves.

1

Regarding relations between ER and attachment, as predicted,

5. Conscientiousness

the current findings indicated that lower levels of Communication

p < .01 (two tailed).
Parental attachment

9. Communication
Emotion regulation

and higher levels of Alienation predicted greater use of ES. These

4. Agreeableness
3. Extraversion

6. Neuroticism
2. Suppression
1. Reappraisal

10. Alienation

findings are somewhat consistent with research that has demon-

7. Openness
Personality

strated significant relationships between Trust, Communication,

8. Trust

and Alienation, and maladaptive ER (Biesecker, 2001). They are

Table 1

also consistent with previous research by Waters et al. (2010)

which showed that caregiver-child Communication plays an
**
620 D. Gresham, E. Gullone / Personality and Individual Differences 52 (2012) 616–621

Table 2
Hierarchical multiple regression analysis for FFM and attachment variables used to predict Cognitive Reappraisal and Expressive Suppression (N = 682).

Variable Reappraisal B SE B ß t Suppression B SE B ß t

Age 0.04 0.06 0.02 0.61 0.04 0.05 0.03 0.85
Sex 0.07 0.3 0.01 0.22 0.96 0.22 0.17 4.36**
R = .03 R = .17
Adjusted R2 = .01 Adjusted R2 = .03
R2 change = .01 R2 change = .03
Step 2
Age 0.05 0.06 0.03 0.75 0.01 0.04 0.01 0.27
Sex 0.33 0.3 0.04 1.11 0.8 0.22 0.14 3.63**
Extraversion 0.07 0.03 0.11 2.62** 0.14 0.02 0.3 7.28**
Agreeableness 0.05 0.03 0.09 1.65 0.06 0.02 0.15 2.73**
Conscientiousness 0.05 0.03 0.1 1.79 0.03 0.02 0.09 1.79
Neuroticism 0.04 0.02 0.07 1.79 0.06 0.02 0.15 3.84**
Openness 0.09 0.03 0.15 3.19** 0.04 0.02 0.1 2.09*
R = .39 R = .42
Adjusted R2 = .14 Adjusted R2 = .17
R2 change = .15 R2 change = .14
Step 3
Age 0.07 0.06 0.04 1.2 0.05 0.04 0.04 1.07
Sex 0.29 0.3 0.04 0.97 0.92 0.21 0.16 4.32**
Extraversion 0.06 0.03 0.09 2.14* 0.12 0.02 0.26 6.42**
Agreeableness 0.04 0.03 0.08 1.46 0.05 0.02 0.12 2.23*
Conscientiousness 0.04 0.03 0.08 1.42 0.06 0.02 0.15 2.9**
Neuroticism 0.03 0.02 0.06 1.28 0.04 0.02 0.1 2.41*
Openness 0.09 0.03 0.15 3.11** 0.04 0.02 0.1 2.17*
Trust 0.08 0.06 0.08 1.25 0.03 0.05 0.04 0.74
Communication 0.12 0.06 0.13 2.1* 0.14 0.04 0.2 3.52**
Alienation 0.09 0.08 0.06 1.06 0.16 0.06 0.15 2.85**
R = .40 R = .49
Adjusted R2 = .15 Adjusted R2 = .23
R2 change = .01 R2 change = .06
*
p < .05.
**
p < .01 (one tailed).

important role in a parent’s emotion attribution and emotion by predominantly predispositional factors such as personality, but
coaching of a child. also by interactions with caregivers. Such knowledge can inform
Although our hypothesis that lower Trust would be predictive the development of intervention programs aiming to promote psy-
of greater ES use was supported through a significant bivariate chological adjustment and well-being.
relationship, the multivariate analysis was not supportive. This
may be because entry of the attachment variables followed that References
of the FFM factors which were predominantly significantly predic-
tive thereby reducing the remaining variance available to the Armsden, G. C., & Greenburg, M. T. (1987). The Inventory of Parent and Peer
attachment variables. Despite this, however, Trust appears to be Attachment: Individual differences and their relationship to psychological well-
being in adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 16(5), 1987.
a less significant predictor of ES use when compared to Communi- Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G. V., Rabasca, A., & Pastorelli, C. (2003). A questionnaire
cation and Alienation. for measuring the Big Five in late childhood. Personality and Individual
While this study makes a significant contribution to ER research Differences, 34, 645–664.
Betts, J., Gullone, E., & Allen, J. S. (2009). An examination of emotion regulation,
during the child and adolescent developmental periods, a number temperament, and parenting style as potential predictors of adolescent
of limitations need acknowledgement. First, we only examined the depression risk status: A correlational study. British Journal of Developmental
ER strategies of CR and ES given that they are the only two thus far Psychology, 27(2), 473–485.
Biesecker, G. E. (2001). Attachment to parents and peers and emotion regulation in
to have been operationalised within the Gross (1998) model. middle adolescence (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest
Although these two strategies effectively illustrate the broad tem- Dissertations and Theses database (ATT 3017380).
poral dichotomy within Gross (1998) framework (antecedent/re- Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss (Vol. I. Attachment). London: Hogarth Press.
Bretherton, I. (1985). Attachment theory: Retrospect and prospect. Monographs of
sponse), they are but two of a myriad of potential ER strategies.
the Society for Research in Child Development, 50(1/2), 3–35.
Also, the current results are based solely on self-report. While Calkins, S. D., & Hill, A. (Eds.). (2007). Caregiver influences on emerging emotion
self-report tools tap into valuable internal information not avail- regulation: Biological and environmental transactions in early development. New
York: The Guildford Press.
able from the reports of other informants, future research should
Caspi, A. (Ed.). (1998). Personality across the life course (5th ed. Vol. 3. Social,
build on this by adopting a multi-method approach. Future re- emotional, and personality development). New York: Wiley.
search should also consider the assessment of other commonly Cassidy, J. (1994). Emotion regulation: Influences of attachment relationships.
used ER strategies to attempt a more comprehensive examination Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 59, 228–249.
Cole, P. M., Michel, M. K., & Teti, L. O. (1994). The development of emotion
of the development of ER strategy use. regulation and dysregulation: A clinical perspective. Monographs of the Society
Notwithstanding these limitations, the current findings make a for Research in Child Development, 59(2–3), 73–100.
significant contribution to the area by demonstrating that specific Coopersmith, S. (1981). Self-esteem inventories. Palo Alto CA: Psychologists Press
[Consulting].
FFM traits and dimensions of attachment are predictive of CR and Flynn, J. J., Hollenstein, T., & Mackey, A. (2010). The effect of suppressing and not
ES use in older children and adolescents. It is important to note accepting emotions on depressive symptoms: Is suppression different for men
that the attachment variables contributed to ER after controlling and women? Personality and Individual Differences, 49, 582–586.
Graziano, W. G., & Ward, D. (1992). Probing the Big Five in adolescence. Personality
for personality. Such findings provide evidence that the way in and adjustment during a developmental transition. Journal of Personality, 60,
which individuals manage their emotions is not solely determined 425–439.
 D. Gresham, E. Gullone / Personality and Individual Differences 52 (2012) 616–621 621

Gross, J. J. (1998). The emerging field of emotion regulation: An integrative view. strategies in late childhood. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 31(1),
Review of General Psychology, 2(3), 271–299. 47–59.
Gross, J. J., & John, O. P. (2003). Individual differences in two emotion regulation John, O. P., & Gross, J. J. (2004). Healthy and unhealthy emotion regulation:
processes: Implications for affect, relationships, and well-being. Journal of Personality processes, individual differences, and life span development. Journal
Personality and Social Psychology, 85(2), 348–362. of Personality, 72(6), 1301–1333.
Gross, J. J., & Levenson, R. W. (1993). Emotional suppression: Physiology, self-report, Lewinsohn, P. M., Joiner, T. E. J., & Rohde, P. (2001). Evaluation of cognitive
and expressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(6), diathesis-stress models in predicting major depressive disorder in adolescents.
970–986. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 110(2), 203–215.
Gross, J. J., & Munoz, R. F. (1995). Emotion regulation and mental health. Clinical Parker, G., Tupling, H., & Brown, L. B. (1979). A parental bonding instrument. British
Psychology: Science and Practice, 2(2), 151–164. Journal of Medical Psychology, 52, 1–10.
Gross, J. J., & Thompson, R. A. (2007). Emotion regulation: Conceptual foundations. Rothbart, M. K., Ahadi, S. A., & Evans, D. E. (2000). Temperament and personality:
In J. J. Gross (Ed.), Handbook of emotion regulation. New York: The Guildford Origins and outcomes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(1),
Press. 122–135.
Gullone, E., Hughes, E. K., King, N. J., & Tonge, B. (2010). The normative development Southam-Gerow, M. A., & Kendall, P. C. (2002). Emotion regulation and
of emotion regulation strategy use in children and adolescents: A 2-year follow- understanding: Implications for child psychopathology and therapy. Clinical
up study. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 51, 567–674. Psychology Review, 22, 189–222.
Gullone, E., & Robinson, K. (2005). The inventory of parent and peer attachment – Thompson, R. A. (1994). Emotion regulation: A theme in search of definition.
Revised (IPPA-R) for children: A psychometric investigation. Clinical Psychology Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 59, 25–52.
and Psychotherapy, 12, 67–79. Wang, L., Shi, Z., & Li, H. (2009). Neuroticism, extraversion, emotion regulation,
Gullone, E. & Taffe, J. (in press). The Emotion Regulation Questionnaire for Children negative affect and positive affect: The mediating roles of reappraisal and
and Adolescents (ERQ-CA): A psychometric evaluation. Psychological suppression. Social Behavior and Personality, 37(2), 193–194.
Assessment. doi: 10.1037/a0025777. Waters, S. F., Virmani, E. A., Thompson, R. A., Meyer, S., Raikes, A., & Jochem, R.
Hasking, P. A., Coric, S. J., Swannell, S., Martin, G., Thompson, H. K., & Frost, A. D. J. (2010). Emotion regulation and attachment: Unpacking two constructs and
(2010). Emotion regulation and coping as moderators in the relationship their association. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 32,
between personality and self-injury. Journal of Adolescence, 33, 767–773. 37–47.
Jaffe, M., Gullone, E., & Hughes, E. K. (2010). The roles of temperamental dispositions
and perceived parenting behaviours in the use of two emotion regulation