Child Development, March/April 2017, Volume 88, Number 2, Pages 417–426

The title for this Special Section is Developmental Research and Translational
Science: Evidence-Based Interventions for At-Risk Youth and Families Edited by
Suniya S. Luthar and Nancy Eisenberg

Emotion Regulation, Coping, and Decision Making: Three Linked Skills for
Preventing Externalizing Problems in Adolescence
Kathryn L. Modecki and Nancy Guerra
Melanie J. Zimmer-Gembeck University of California, Irvine
Griffith University and Menzies Health Institute of
Queensland

Research on executive control during the teenage years points to shortfalls in emotion regulation, coping, and
decision making as three linked capabilities associated with youth’s externalizing behavior problems. Evidence
gleaned from a detailed review of the literature makes clear that improvement of all three capabilities is critical
to help young people better navigate challenges and prevent or reduce externalizing and related problems.
Moreover, interventions can successfully improve these three capabilities and have been found to produce
behavioral improvements with real-world significance. Examples of how successful interventions remediate
more than one of these capabilities are provided. Future directions in research and practice are also proposed
to move the field toward the development of more comprehensive programs for adolescents to foster their
integration.

In the United States and around the world, a signif-
icant proportion of adolescents engage in external-
izing behaviors, including aggression, substance
use, and delinquency (Bongers, Koot, Van Der
Ende, & Verhulst, 2004). Not only are these behav-
iors troubling at the time, they also may ensnare
youth in a maladaptive life trajectory of ever-esca-
lating problems and life failures. It is not surprising
that a wide range of programs have been devel-
oped to prevent externalizing behaviors before they
emerge or hasten their desistance during adoles-
cence by teaching young people skills to help them
successfully navigate away from antisocial engage-
ment and manage daily challenges (Wilson & Lip-
sey, 2007). What has been articulated less clearly is
Portions of this research were funded by a grant from the Aus-
tralian Institute of Criminology through the Criminology
Research Grants Program to Kathryn Modecki, Bonnie Barber,
and Wayne Osgood. The views expressed are the responsibility
of Kathryn L. Modecki and are not necessarily those of the AIC.
Portions of this research were also funded by an Australian
Research Council Discovery Award (DP130101868) to Melanie
Zimmer-Gembeck.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to
Kathryn L. Modecki, 176 Messines Ridge Road, Mt Gravatt,
Queensland, 4122 Australia. Electronic mail may be sent to
k.modecki@griffith.edu.au.
whether there are select “core skills” that are linked
together and underlie adolescent externalizing
behaviors that should be targeted directly in these
prevention and intervention programs.
Here, we propose three core skills that serve
complementary functions, so that programs that
work within the nexus of all three should signifi-
cantly prevent or reduce youths’ externalizing
behaviors and enhance their chances for success.
These skills are emotional regulation, coping, and
decision making. These skills vary among children
and adolescents, and all have been found to
improve up until at least the early to mid-20s.
Importantly, they are also skills that can be learned
and improved during childhood or adolescence
through coaching, instruction, and practice (Guerra,
Modecki, & Cunningham, 2014; Zimmer-Gembeck
& Skinner, 2011).
We define emotion regulation as an organizing
skill that scaffolds other psychological processes in
order to facilitate biological or social adjustment or
© 2017 The Authors
Child Development © 2017 Society for Research in Child Development, Inc.
All rights reserved. 0009-3920/2017/8802-0009
DOI: 10.1111/cdev.12734
418 Modecki, Zimmer-Gembeck, and Guerra

the attainment of personal goals (Eisenberg & Spin- Linkages Between Emotion Regulation, Coping,
rad, 2004). Stated otherwise, emotion regulation is and Decision-Making Skills
“the process by which [adolescents] influence which
Although much of the work on emotion regulation,
emotions they have, when they have them, and
coping, or decision making occurs independent
how they experience and express these emotions”
from the other two areas, there is considerable
(Gross, 1998, p. 275).
overlap between them. For example, all three are
We define coping as adolescents’ efforts to regu-
implicated in theories of adolescent brain develop-
late their emotion, cognitions, physiology, and
ment and psychopathology. Neurodevelopmental
behavior, as well as their situations and contexts,
models of adolescent problem behaviors point to
in reaction to stressful events or challenging cir-
EC deficits during adolescence (Luciana, 2013).
cumstances (Compas, Connor-Smith, Saltzman,
These deficits are undergirded by a not yet fully
Thomsen, & Wadsworth, 2001). This definition
functional cognitive control network, regulated by
highlights the inherent links between emotion regu-
the PFC and its underpinning neural systems. A
lation and coping because adolescents must regu-
range of processing demands are made on the PFC
late their emotions when facing stress or they will
as youth navigate social relationships, wrestle with
be limited in their abilities to implement plans or
strong internal arousal, and contend with heavy
strategies to cope. When emotional responses such
motivational approach drives (see Luciana, 2013).
as anger or sadness are peaking and unregulated,
Youth who engage in externalizing behaviors such
cognitive coping strategies such as cognitive reap-
as delinquency, aggression, and heavy risk taking
praisal and problem solving are needed but diffi-
impose even greater processing demands on their
cult for many adolescents to access (Compas et al.,
cognitive control system because they tend to be
2001).
dysregulated, and their high emotional reactivity
Effective decision making is defined as the capacity
can act as an ongoing source of internal stress. Con-
to anticipate real-world scenarios, pay attention to
sequently, their EC system must work harder to
relevant cues, consider perspectives, and make
cope with these inputs and create stasis. On top of
effective choices across varied situations and con-
this, youth with externalizing problems tend to cre-
texts, including stressful or challenging circum-
ate additional system pressures because they seek
stances (Guerra et al., 2014). It also draws on the
out novel situations that entail intensive processing
capacity for self-regulation (Eisenberg & Spinrad,
of social and emotional cues and unexpected stres-
2004; Zhou, Chen, & Main, 2012). As a result, com-
sors and also require decision making under condi-
petent decision making is underpinned by adaptive,
tions of uncertainty. Thus, relative to their higher
flexible, and coherent emotion regulation and cop-
functioning peers, they place greater demands on
ing skills that are matched to environmental
their executive systems.
demands. Although young people make a range of
Shortfalls in EC point to deficiencies in how
decisions, some good and others poor, here we use
youth process and direct emotional information,
the general term “decision making” to refer to deci-
make decisions when considering potential choices,
sion processes that are optimum given their circum-
and cope with overloads of emotional, social, and
stances, illustrate competence, and are context
cognitive information (Luciana, 2013). As a result,
appropriate.
youth with externalizing problems are less able to
These three skills—emotion regulation, coping,
effectively downregulate their emotional volatility
and decision making—fall within the more general
and cope with stressors, and tend to exhibit poor
concept of regulation of action (Skinner & Zimmer-
proactive responses and make bad decisions. Here,
Gembeck, 2007). They each contribute to successful
coping is seen not just as responses to situations or
management of daily life challenges and the avoid-
events that are overtly stressful, such as threats and
ance of excessive anger and externalizing behavior.
losses. Rather, coping includes overcoming chal-
They also overlap and represent aspects of a more
lenges that arise from difficulties with social and
general control process often described within
emotional contexts and the vagaries of adolescence.
frameworks of executive function or as executive
Coping as managing adverse social and emo-
control (EC; Zhou et al., 2012). EC is an “umbrella”
tional contexts also is at the heart of a prominent
function governed by the prefrontal cortex (PFC)
psychosocial framework for decision making, social
and its striatal connections. These functions are
information processing (SIP; Crick & Dodge, 1994),
associated with attention, working memory, self-
and extended SIP models (Lemerise & Arsenio,
organization, mental flexibility, planning, and con-
2000). Although SIP has been applied primarily to
trol of cognition and emotion (Luciana, 2013).

studying how social cognitions impact antisocial
decision making in children and adolescents,
implicitly, it is also a theory of stress and apprai-
sals, coping with hostile environments, and manag-
ing emotions like anger and fear that bias
adolescents’ interpretations of events. Particularly
within updated SIP models, “low road” or uncon-
scious emotions are described as having direct
access to decision-making channels, and emotion is
characterized as influencing social cognitions across
every SIP stage. Regulation of negative emotion is a
necessary component of good decision making
because negative emotions narrow adolescents’
repertoire of goals, cognitions, and possible behav-
ioral responses.
Prevention Programs Targeting Emotion
Regulation, Coping, and Decision-Making Skills
Just as these three skills have been studied indepen-
dently, prevention and intervention programs typi-
cally focus on one or two specific skills (such as
anger management or coping) or on life skills
broadly cast without clarifying core skills targeted,
their interrelationships, or links to behavioral out-
comes such as externalizing. Accordingly, we are
limited to highlighting illustrative programs that
target two or more of these skills although not
always as a complete package (and not always sta-
ted explicitly), often in combination with other
skills. Each of the programs provides solid evidence
of effectiveness for improving emotion regulation,
coping, or decision making and reducing externaliz-
ing, most often in the form of large-scale random-
ized controlled trials (RCTs).
The illustrative programs we describe work
with youth from middle childhood (an average
age of 7 or 8) through late adolescence (age 18).
Because the three target skills develop over time
across childhood and adolescence, a clear mandate
for prevention is to begin prior to the emergence
of adolescent externalizing problems such as delin-
quency and violence. Indeed, the majority of skill-
building programs with significant impact have
been implemented during the elementary and mid-
dle school years. There is less evidence for effec-
tiveness with adolescents (Wilson & Lipsey, 2007).
On the other hand, given that intervention effects
tend to erode over time and that skills continue to
develop during adolescence, there is a critical need
for innovative efforts to build key skills or to
boost key skills again during this developmental
stage.
Emotion Regulation, Coping, and Decision Making 419
These programs generally are implemented
within primary developmental contexts for youth,
most frequently families, schools, and communities.
They are offered as population-based or primary
prevention programs to enhance skills among all
participants or as targeted programs to address skill
deficits among those most at risk. In some cases,
skill building is accomplished directly via classroom
lessons or focused instruction for children and
youth. In other cases, key “agents of change” such
as parents learn techniques to promote skill
acquisition for their children. Where possible, we
provide effect sizes for illustrative programs, with
sizes of .2 typically referred to as small, .5 as
moderate, and .8 as large effects (Cohen, 1988). We
also provide cost data when available, as costs are
a key factor influencing implementation and sus-
tainability.
Parent and Family Programs
Overall, parenting programs have been found to
be effective in preventing or reducing youth exter-
nalizing behavior. For example, in a recent meta-
analysis, Burrus and colleagues (2012) found an
average effect risk ratio of .82 (estimated d = .24),
translating to an 18% decrease in problem behavior
relative to no or alternative treatment comparison
groups. Although parenting programs likely impact
adolescent behavior through a variety of mecha-
nisms, they clearly play a role in building social
and life skills. Parents who model and scaffold
skills should help facilitate improvements in their
children’s response to challenges and stressful
events.
Coping Power is one example of an indicated
program that targets highly aggressive children (in
Grades 5 and 6) and their caregivers to diminish
child externalizing behavior vis-a-vis improvements
in a range of skills that include emotion regulation,
coping, and decision making. Child components (34
weekly sessions delivered over a little more than
1 year) work to improve children’s social cognitive
processing. Results include a reduction in biased
attributions of others’ behavior, distorted percep-
tions, failure to compromise, and emotion-based,
nonverbal solutions. Parents also learn and practice
good childrearing skills via individual sessions and
home visits, ideally participating in 10 sessions.
Monthly individual sessions are also held with each
child in order to establish behavioral goals and
reinforce skill integration (Lochman & Wells, 2004).
In a RCT, boys participating in Coping Power had
significantly lower rates of covert delinquency
420 Modecki, Zimmer-Gembeck, and Guerra
relative to control youth (d = .42) 1 year postinter-
vention (Lochman & Wells, 2004).
Importantly, the process by which the Coping
Power intervention brings about change in youthful
externalizing includes modification of the three key
skills (or constructs closely related to these skills).
Results indicated significant intervention-induced
improvements in expectations for aggression (an
aspect of decision making), internal locus of control
for attaining positive outcomes (an aspect of cop-
ing), and perceptions of others, including children’s
ability to describe others’ complex feelings (which
can contribute to emotion regulation) among at-risk
boys. Furthermore, program-induced change in
these variables accounted for 7% of the variance in
boys’ delinquency outcomes 1 year later (Lochman
& Wells, 2002). However, the large portion of vari-
ance in subsequent externalizing that is not
explained through these processes points to a need
for improved construct measurement and perhaps
refinement of approaches to strengthen core skills,
particularly among those most at risk. Costs for
administering the Coping Power program are esti-
mated at roughly $560 per parent–child pair, per
the Blueprints for Healthy Youth Development ini-
tiative (http://blueprintsprograms.com). More ex-
tensive training is also available for optimal program
delivery and greater maintenance of effects.
The Family Bereavement Program (FBP) is a sec-
ond example of a family-based program considered
within the rubric of core-skill interventions that
leads to reductions in externalizing. The FBP is
intended to help children and adolescents (ages
8–16) overcome the loss of a parent through
improvements in coping (and we would argue,
emotion regulation and decision making). Specifi-
cally, the program is designed to facilitate youthful
responses to adversity and disruptions in their envi-
ronment.
FBP teaches these skills through a 12-session,
manualized, small-group-based program and draws
heavily on modeling and role play in individual
meetings and parent–child dyads. Children and
parents meet separately in small groups to learn
strategies for reducing children’s exposure to stress
and future negative events, and for increasing cop-
ing and decision-making skills. Parents and chil-
dren also have some joint sessions to practice skills,
and homework assignments are especially impor-
tant for their application.
In a RCT, FBP generated changes in positive cop-
ing (d = .30) and inhibition of emotional expression
(d = .49), among other skills. At the 11-month fol-
low-up, FBP generated increases in adaptive control
beliefs (d = .40), an aspect of emotion regulation
and coping, and for girls, increases in positive cop-
ing (d = .33) and generating problem solutions
(d = .36), a component of coping and decision mak-
ing. Girls tested in this follow-up also demonstrated
program-induced reductions in externalizing as
judged by parents (d = .30) and teachers (d = .28).
At the 6-year follow-up, both boys and girls in the
FBP demonstrated reductions in externalizing as
judged by composite parent–offspring report and
teacher report, respectively (d = .31, d = .59; Sandler
et al., 2010). Program youth also had higher cortisol
responses (d = .39), and higher cortisol was associ-
ated with fewer externalizing problems (Luecken
et al., 2010).
Changes in targeted skills also helped account
for program effects on girls’ externalizing
11 months later (Tein, Sandler, Ayers, & Wolchik,
2006). For example, pre- to postprogram decreases
in inhibition of emotional expression accounted for
19% of the variance in program effects for child-
report externalizing problems at the 11-month fol-
low-up. Examining program-induced changes at the
11-month follow-up on concurrent externalizing,
program-induced increases in positive coping (27%
of variance), and adaptive control beliefs (28% of
variance, an aspect of coping and decision making)
both led to reductions in girls’ externalizing. Thus,
at least among girls, improvements in these aspects
of emotion regulation, coping, and decision making
helped to generate meaningful reductions in exter-
nalizing. The estimated cost of the FBP in a natural
delivery setting is approximately $1,763 per family
or $653 per person (Foster, Porter, Ayers, Kaplan, &
Sandler, 2007).
As a third example of an effective family-based
program targeting the three core skills, Compas
et al. (2010, 2015) developed a family-based
8-week + 4-monthly booster sessions, cognitive-
behavioral intervention specifically focused on
improving children’s coping skills and adjustment.
Coping skills were defined broadly and included
skills such as acceptance, distraction, and positive
thinking that also can be considered components of
emotion regulation and decision making. Results
from a RCT revealed improvements in secondary
coping skills (accepting the stressor, engaging in
more positive thinking, and using cognitive reap-
praisal and distraction) among children and adoles-
cents (ages 9–15) and reductions in externalizing
behaviors (Compas et al., 2010). Specifically, at the
6-month follow-up, youth increased in a composite
parent–adolescent report measure of secondary cop-
ing comprised of acceptance (emotion regulation,

coping), use of positive distraction (emotion regula-
tion and coping), positive thinking (emotion regula-
tion, coping), and cognitive reappraisal (emotion
regulation, coping, decision making), among other
skills. Importantly, the intervention also generated
reductions in parent reports of youths’ externalizing
(d = .36) at the 1-year follow-up; and changes in
these secondary coping skills mediated the inter-
vention’s effect on externalizing (proportion of the
intervention effect accounted for d = .68; Compas
et al., 2010). Program-generated reductions in self-
reported externalizing were also found at the 2-year
follow-up (d = .28; Compas et al., 2015). Although
the intervention was designed with an eye toward
cost effectiveness, costs to deliver the program in
the “real world” have not yet been estimated (B. E.
Compas, personal communication, February 18,
2016).
School- and Community-Based Programs
Skill-building programs in schools and communi-
ties tend to focus on a range of discrete social and
emotional skills. In recent years, these have been
defined within the broad rubric of “social and emo-
tional learning” (SEL) programs. Although different
programs highlight different skills and there is no
universally agreed on set of core skills, overall these
programs have been effective in promoting skill
acquisition and reducing problem behaviors.
Indeed, in a recent meta-analysis, Durlak, Weiss-
berg, Dymnicki, Taylor, and Schellinger (2011)
found that universal SEL instruction generates posi-
tive outcomes, with pre- to posteffect sizes of
d = .57 for SEL skills (including cognitive, affective,
and social), d = .24 for positive social behaviors
(e.g., getting along with others), and d = .22 for
conduct problems. Most of these programs include
activities designed to improve emotion regulation
and decision making, and some address coping
skills by teaching children and youth how to deal
with challenging situations in daily life. In addition,
more targeted school- and community-based coping
interventions for select groups of children and
youth (e.g., bereavement) have been implemented
and have been shown to be effective in promoting
coping and related skills.
Promoting Alternative Thinking Strategies pro-
gram (PATHS; Greenberg, Kusche, Cook, &
Quamma, 1995) is one example of a comprehensive
school-based intervention that reduces children’s
externalizing behavior through targeted improve-
ments in emotion regulation, coping, and decision
making. PATHS program is delivered by teachers
Emotion Regulation, Coping, and Decision Making 421
across the school year via twice-weekly sessions
that last roughly 20–30 min. The PATHS model clo-
sely parallels our own construal of coping and sug-
gests that a child’s internal regulation and behavior
reflect his or her coping skills (Greenberg et al.,
1995). Within this framework, children’s coping, in
turn, is a function of emotion awareness, affective–
cognitive control, and social-cognitive acuity.
PATHS works to build and integrate children’s
emotion understanding, self-control, and problem-
solving skills.
An independent cluster RCT with third graders
found long-term effects for PATHS on children’s
SIP skills, all of which tap aspects of emotion regu-
lation, coping, and decision making. Specifically,
results show significant differences in linear growth
between PATHS youth relative to controls 1½ years
after the intervention, with PATHS youth reporting
reductions in aggressive social problem solving
(d = .27), hostile attribution biases (d = .27), and
aggressive interpersonal negotiation strategies
(d = .28; Crean & Johnson, 2013). Furthermore, in
a field RCT, normative youth in schools random-
ized to PATHS showed significant pre- to posttest
improvements in emotion and coping-related skills,
including children’s recognition that feelings change
(d = .16, an aspect of emotion and coping), discus-
sion of their own emotional experiences (d = .35, an
aspect of emotion and coping), and ability to recog-
nize emotion in others (d = .28, an aspect of emo-
tion, coping, and decision making; Greenberg et al.,
1995). Youth in the PATHS program also demon-
strated reductions in externalizing behavior 1 year
later, as judged by teachers (approximated
d = .31) relative to controls (Riggs, Greenberg,
Kusche, & Pentz, 2006). Importantly, an examina-
tion of the mediating processes that accounted for
this program effect showed that posttest inhibitory
control (measured via the Stroop test, again associ-
ated with all three of the core skills) mediated the
effect of PATHS on later externalizing (Riggs et al.,
2006). The Blueprints for Healthy Youth Develop-
ment initiative estimates 1-year costs for PATHS at
roughly $119.00 per student, assuming approxi-
mately 500 youth participants (http://blueprintspro
grams.com).
Life Skills Training (LST) is another universal
classroom-based program that shows wide evidence
of effectiveness. The curriculum is designed to teach
skills to help adolescents (Grades 7, 8, and 9) deal
with challenges they confront in their daily lives.
LST emphasizes instruction in generic personal and
social skills, including skills that we have argued
for here, such as increased personal control,
422 Modecki, Zimmer-Gembeck, and Guerra
adaptive coping tactics for managing stress and
anxiety, assertiveness, problem solving, and deci-
sion making (Botvin, 2000a).
The long-term effectiveness of LST has been
demonstrated across a number of problem behavior
outcomes. For instance, results from one large-scale
randomized block RCT showed that LST led to
reduced verbal aggression (estimated d = .39), phys-
ical aggression (estimated d = .38), fighting (esti-
mated d = .39), and delinquency (estimated d = .34)
in the previous year (Botvin, Griffin, & Nichols,
2006). In another large-scale randomized block
RCT, LST led to a 23% relative reduction in mari-
juana initiation and a 21% reduction in cigarette ini-
tiation 5½ years after program initiation.
Importantly, the mediators of these program effects
on substance use outcomes included assertiveness,
locus of control, social anxiety, decision making,
and problem solving, all of which relate to our core
skills and arguably help youth to think more strate-
gically across different scenarios (Botvin, 2000b).
Based on an estimated 600 students enrolled in
LST, the Blueprints for Healthy Youth Development
registry costs per student is approximately $17.00
(http://blueprintsprograms.com).
Program Design, Timing, and Significance
Notably, most of the successful interventions we
have described work with significant adults in the
lives of targeted children. For instance, family pro-
grams work with parents to address mutual build-
ing of skills. Often, teachers themselves deliver
programming with assistance from researchers or
consultants. Because these important adults are
refining skills they are trying to foster, they are
more likely to demonstrate continuity in how they
socialize children. For instance, the PATHS pro-
gram reports links between program outcomes and
teachers’ generalization of skills outside of the cur-
riculum (Conduct Problems Prevention Research
Group, 1999).
Indeed, without some attention to the circum-
stances in which youth live, interventions are unli-
kely to exert long-term effects. Some interventions
“pull out” youth from classes or their home lives,
in an effort to infuse them with a particular set of
skills, but fail to consider the contexts in which
youth reside or existing resources within those set-
tings. Simply injecting youth with a set of skills
only to introduce them back to an environment
with inadequate supports is less likely to lead to
long-term gains. Without some sort of context
change, whether an encouraging nonparental adult
who can sponsor their growth or a family life that
is capable of providing greater relational warmth,
programs are unlikely to tip the scales in youths’
favor.
Although change in important adults combined
with skill building in youth is the modal approach
underlying the successful interventions we have
described, it does not capture all of the programs
we have discussed. In some instances, effective
interventions such as SEL programs and LST use
project staff rather than teachers to deliver sessions
(Botvin, 2000a). Thus, for these interventions, posi-
tive effects cannot be attributed to change in impor-
tant adult relationships. Instead, the processes
targeted in these programs may perfectly corre-
spond with youths’ developmental needs, for
instance, by equipping them with personal attri-
butes to help negotiate the vicissitudes of puberty
and adolescence. For example, LST works to inocu-
late youth against antisocial norms that develop
during high school. It also works to improve their
resistance to negative peer influence—a powerful
driver of adolescent externalizing behavior. Simul-
taneously with these risk-reduction strategies, LST
bolsters personal competencies, including the ones
focused on here—emotion regulation, coping, and
decision making—better enabling youth to persist
in healthy development.
In fact, one notable pattern among the interven-
tion approaches we have described is that there is
less evidence for effectiveness once youth enter
high school (Wilson & Lipsey, 2007). As prevention
programs, it makes sense most are timed prior to
youths’ externalizing behavior involvement. But
there are also several potential benefits to interven-
ing later, during mid- to late adolescence. For
instance, effects of school-based intervention often
fail to endure when youth transition into new set-
tings (Eddy, Reid, & Fetrow, 2000). Thus, for inter-
ventions conducted during middle school, later
booster sessions may be necessary. Regardless,
interventions still need to target and integrate the
three core skills during high school, when EC cir-
cuitry undergoes major refinement.
Of course, an alternative interpretation of the
lack of strong program effects for adolescents is
that, with maturation in EC, development and inte-
gration of skills occurs regardless of intervention.
As a result of niche picking, informal mentoring, or
partnering, even at-risk youth may eventually up-
skill on their own. Indeed, many youth desist from
engaging in externalizing behaviors of their own
accord (Bongers et al., 2004). Yet, the economic and
social costs of relying on these factors as catalysts

for desistance are significant. For instance, in the
United States, costs of crime have been estimated at
between one and two trillion dollars per year (Lud-
wig, 2010), and the costs attributable to offending
among mid- to late adolescents are among the most
monetarily expensive (Piquero, Jennings, & Farring-
ton, 2013). As a result, intervention is still advisable,
even during late adolescence and developmental
research supports intervention during childhood
and adolescence as a strategic investment (Guerra
et al., 2014).
Recommendations for Effective Skill Targeting
Within Interventions
We have shown with illustrative examples that (a)
emotion regulation, coping, and decision making
are three core skills for healthy development that
also are linked to adolescent externalizing problems
and their precursors (e.g., early aggression); (b)
these skills can be modified through relatively low-
cost skill-building interventions within families,
schools, and communities; and (c) improvements in
these three skills portend short and sometimes
long-term prevention of externalizing and improve-
ments in behavior, although there are fewer empiri-
cal studies with adolescents. What is less clear from
the extant literature is how to integrate these skills
in a comprehensive and feasible manner, and speci-
fic strategies that foster the greatest level of skill
acquisition.
How can programs best integrate these three
skills in a manner that puts them at center stage,
promotes skill acquisition, and aligns with key
developmental tasks which apex during adoles-
cence? There is no consensus on how we might best
approach improvements in emotion regulation, cop-
ing, and decision making, but we offer five obser-
vations. First, elementary school programs that tie
personal skill building into strategies that boost
positive connections with teachers and peers may
be especially useful, as children’s self-concepts
about personal abilities and social competencies
crystalize during this time. Such whole-school
approaches, which build coping, emotion regula-
tion, and decision-making skills of teachers and
other school personnel, can work to improve the
concentration of positive reinforcements for proso-
cial behavior (Burrus & Community Preventive Ser-
vices Task Force, 2012). In this case, the whole of
the school, even students, can act as “treatment
agents” to help foster each other’s emotion regula-
tion, coping, and decision making (Eddy et al.,
Emotion Regulation, Coping, and Decision Making 423
2000). Ideally, these programs would bridge to fam-
ilies and boost parents’ ability to foster skills in
their offspring and nurture positive connections.
Second, although whole-school approaches that
also connect to parents seem to be best practice
during childhood, direct approaches to enhance
skills in emotion regulation, coping, and decision
making during adolescence are also desirable and
have the potential to be beneficial on their own.
During adolescence, neurobiological and psychoso-
cial readiness are coupled, and programs can capi-
talize on this convergence to build on youths’
improving capacity for abstract thinking and social
understanding, as well as their expanding access to
novel opportunities for practicing and integrating
skills. Because adolescence is a time of increasing
autonomy to make important life decisions, it may
be that a framework that addresses the dynamics
of adolescent decision making and highlights the
integral role of emotion regulation and coping (as
challenges and difficulties become more complex
during adolescence) would resonate with youth.
This could frame primary prevention efforts to help
all youth develop key “life” skills as they make
important decisions (both immediate and long-term)
as well as provide more intensive intervention for
those most at risk of externalizing problems. Indeed,
the programs we have discussed range from tar-
geted to universal, and although selected programs
will need to cover basic skill acquisition in addition
to skill integration, we believe a focus on the three
linked skills for adolescents is an effective approach
across the risk spectrum.
Across this spectrum, a framework for develop-
ing “life” skills works to cultivate adolescents’
strategic decision making, which hinges on regu-
lated emotion and positive coping. Existing deci-
sion-making programs with adolescents could shift
their focus to better emphasize emotion regulation
and coping as underpinning strategic decisions. In
expanded form, these programs may broaden their
translation across settings and contexts. As one
example, Viewpoints is a well-known program that
has been shown to improve decision-making skills
and invoke short-term reductions in externalizing
in the context of experimental intervention (Guerra
& Slaby, 1990). Given its effectiveness in improved
decision making, Viewpoints could be readily incor-
porated as a module within a broader “up-skilling”
program that integrates emotion regulation and
coping to guide creative and constructive problem
solving and positive behavior, more generally.
Although these skills typically are embedded in
decision-making and social problem-solving
424 Modecki, Zimmer-Gembeck, and Guerra
interventions, we believe they merit greater focus
and attention in terms of allotted time for instruc-
tion and skill-building.
Third, programs designed to stimulate strategic
thinking might ideally be embedded in novel,
active-learning frameworks for skill uptake. Embed-
ding programs in innovative experiential-learning
modalities can provide a rich context for youth to
“try out” different skills and work through chal-
lenges associated with novel settings and peer
dynamics. For example, strategic thinking is some-
times embedded in engaging activities such as
sports and music that emphasize more active-learn-
ing frameworks and often do not even identify key
skills targeted (Modecki, Barber, & Eccles, 2014).
Youth service and youth engagement activities, as
another example, operate, in part, by fostering
strategic thinking in service of broader life decisions
and goals (Larson & Angus, 2011). Leveraging these
activities as opportunities for youth to reflect on the
automaticity of their decisions under pressure and
use of emotion regulation and coping strategies in
response to setbacks could help bridge skill use to
other realms (Heller, Pollack, Ander, & Ludwig,
2013).
Fourth, the literature on emotion regulation
points to the positive benefits of cognitive reap-
praisal, problem solving, and acceptance but nega-
tive effects of emotional suppression, avoidance,
and rumination (Aldao, Nolen-Hoeksema, & Sch-
weizer, 2010). This means we should teach (and
help youth to practice) acknowledging and manag-
ing emotions rather than avoiding them. There is
little agreement on the best strategies to help youth
understand how to put coping strategies into
action, how to match the right coping responses to
a stressor, or how to feel efficacious and be flexible
in coping responses as applied to everyday life.
This suggests a need for future research to apply
and evaluate coping enhancement programs for
helping youth deal with normative stressors and
challenges, as well as extreme events.
Fifth and finally, programs that treat antisocial
decision making as a purely cognitive cost–benefit
analysis or that focus only on negative conse-
quences are unlikely to be effective because they
have little in common with the decision contexts
and processes teenagers face. Youth engage in
externalizing because these behaviors offer “a rush”
and boost social currency, but they also ameliorate
boredom and provide an escape valve from pres-
sures and worries (Modecki, 2009). This suggests
that in addition to encouraging youth to appropri-
ately channel their excitement seeking and
withstand negative peer influence, programs to
enhance healthy decision making should also draw
attention to the ways “acting out” is compelled by
boredom, anger, unregulated emotions, and ineffec-
tive coping with stress. Overall, interventions
should better address mechanisms by which chal-
lenges, not just major life events but also daily has-
sles, troubling peer, school, and family
environments, and emotion under- and overregula-
tion—and the chronicity of these challenges—con-
tribute to adolescent decision making.
Conclusion
We argue that improving adolescents emotion regu-
lation, coping, and decision making represent “best
bets” for preventing externalizing behavior and its
consequences. Young people who can effectively
and flexibly recognize and regulate their emotions,
who are able to process and respond to the per-
sonal and situational demands of adolescence effec-
tively, and who are planful and strategic in their
coping responses and in the way they make choices
have a host of tools for dealing adaptively with
stressors and challenges. Our premise is that the
combined effects of emotion regulation, coping, and
decision-making skills should be greater than the
sum of their parts. Each skill should enhance the
effects of the others in their capacity to shape ado-
lescents’ circumstances and behavior, so that youth
can better leverage their own strengths and their
social resources and transition to a healthy and pro-
ductive adulthood.
References
Aldao, A., Nolen-Hoeksema, S., & Schweizer, S. (2010).
Emotion-regulation strategies across psychopathology:
A meta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 30,
217–237. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2009.11.004
Bongers, I. L., Koot, H. M., Van Der Ende, J., & Verhulst,
F. C. (2004). Developmental trajectories of externalizing
behaviors in childhood and adolescence. Child Develop-
ment, 75, 1523–1537. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00755.
x
Botvin, G. J. (2000a). Preventing adolescent drug abuse
through Life Skills Training: Theory, evidence of effec-
tiveness, and implementation issues. In J. Crane (Ed),
Social programs that work (pp. 225–257). New York, NY,
US: Russell Sage Foundation.
Botvin, G. J. (2000b). Preventing drug abuse in schools:
Social and competence enhancement approaches target-
ing individual-level etiologic factors. Addictive Behaviors,
25, 887–897. doi:10.1016/S0306-4603(00)00119-2

Botvin, G. J., Griffin, K. W., & Nichols, T. D. (2006). Pre-
venting youth violence and delinquency through a uni-
versal school-based prevention approach. Prevention
science, 7(4), 403–408.
Burrus, B., Leeks, K. D., Sipe, T. A., Dolina, S., Soler, R.,
Elder, R., . . . & Achrekar, A. (2012). Person-to-person
interventions targeted to parents and other caregivers
to improve adolescent health: A community guide sys-
tematic review. American Journal of Preventive Medicine,
42, 316–326. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2011.12.001
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral
sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Compas, B. E., Champion, J. E., Forehand, R., Cole, D. A.,
Reeslund, K. L., Fear, J., . . . Roberts, L. (2010). Coping
and parenting: Mediators of 12-month outcomes of a
family group cognitive–behavioral preventive interven-
tion with families of depressed parents. Journal of Con-
sulting and Clinical Psychology, 78, 623–634. doi:10.1037/
a0020459
Compas, B. E., Connor-Smith, J. K., Saltzman, H., Thom-
sen, A. H., & Wadsworth, M. E. (2001). Coping with
stress during childhood and adolescence: Problems,
progress, and potential in theory and research. Psycho-
logical Bulletin, 127, 87–127. doi:10.1037//0033-2909.127.
1.87
Compas, B. E., Forehand, R., Thigpen, J., Hardcastle, E.,
Garai, E., McKee, L., & Sterba, S. (2015). Efficacy and
moderators of a family group cognitive–behavioral pre-
ventive intervention for children of parents with
depression. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,
83, 541–553. doi:10.1037/a0039053
Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. (1999).
Initial impact of the Fast Track prevention trial for con-
duct problems: II. Classroom effects. Journal of Consult-
ing and Clinical Psychology, 67, 648–657.
Crean, H. F., & Johnson, D. B. (2013). Promoting Alterna-
tive Thinking Strategies (PATHS) and elementary
school aged children’s aggression: Results from a clus-
ter randomized trial. American Journal of Community
Psychology, 52, 56–72. doi:10.1007/s10464-013-9576-4
Crick, N. R., & Dodge, K. A. (1994). A review and refor-
mulation of social information-processing mechanisms
in children’s social adjustment. Psychological Bulletin,
115, 74.
Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., Dymnicki, A. B., Taylor,
R. D., & Schellinger, K. B. (2011). The impact of
enhancing students’ social and emotional learning: A
meta-analysis of school-based universal interventions.
Child Development, 82, 405–432. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.
2010.01564.x
Eddy, J. M., Reid, J. B., & Fetrow, R. A. (2000). An ele-
mentary school-based prevention program targeting
modifiable antecedents of youth delinquency and vio-
lence: LIFT. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders,
8, 165–176. doi:10.1177/106342660000800304
Eisenberg, N., & Spinrad, T. L. (2004). Emotion-related
regulation: Sharpening the definition. Child Develop-
ment, 75, 334–339. doi:0009-3920/2004/7502-0003
Emotion Regulation, Coping, and Decision Making 425
Foster, E. M., Porter, M. M., Ayers, T. S., Kaplan, D. L., &
Sandler, I. (2007). Estimating the costs of preventive
interventions. Evaluation Review, 31, 261–286. doi:10.
1177/0193841X07299247
Greenberg, M. T., Kusche, C. A., Cook, E. T., & Quamma,
J. P. (1995). Promoting emotional competence in school-
aged children: The effects of the PATHS curriculum.
Development and Psychopathology, 7, 117–136. doi:10.
1017/S0954579400006374
Gross, J. J. (1998). The emerging field of emotion regulation:
An integrative review. Review of General Psychology, 2, 271.
Guerra, N., Modecki, K., & Cunningham, W. (2014). Devel-
oping social-emotional skills for the labor market: PRACTICE
model. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper (7123).
Guerra, N. G., & Slaby, R. G. (1990). Cognitive mediators
of aggression in adolescent offenders: II. Intervention.
Developmental Psychology, 26, 269–277.
Heller, S., Pollack, H. A., Ander, R., & Ludwig, J. (2013).
Preventing youth violence and dropout: A randomized field
experiment (No. w19014). Cambridge, MA: National
Bureau of Economic Research.
Larson, R. W., & Angus, R. M. (2011). Adolescents’ devel-
opment of skills for agency in youth programs:
Learning to think strategically. Child Development, 82,
277–294. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01555.x
Lemerise, E. A., & Arsenio, W. F. (2000). An integrated
model of emotion processes and cognition in social
information processing. Child Development, 71, 107–118.
doi:0009-3920/2000/7101-0013
Lochman, J. E., & Wells, K. C. (2002). Contextual social–
cognitive mediators and child outcome: A test of the
theoretical model in the Coping Power program. Devel-
opment and Psychopathology, 14, 945–967. doi:10.1017.
S0954579402004157
Lochman, J. E., & Wells, K. C. (2004). The Coping Power
program for preadolescent aggressive boys and their
parents: Outcome effects at the 1-year follow-up. Jour-
nal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72, 571–578.
doi:10.1037/0022-006X.72.4.571
Luciana, M. (2013). Adolescent brain development in nor-
mality and psychopathology. Development and Psy-
chopathology, 25, 1325–1345. doi:10.1017/
S0954579413000643
Ludwig, J. (2010). The costs of crime. Criminology & Public
Policy, 9, 307–311. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9133.2010.00628.x
Luecken, L. J., Hagan, M. J., Sandler, I. N., Tein, J. Y.,
Ayers, T. S., & Wolchik, S. A. (2010). Cortisol levels six-
years after participation in the Family Bereavement
Program. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 35, 785–789. doi:10.
1016/j.psyneuen.2009.11.002
Modecki, K. L. (2009). “It’s a rush”: Psychosocial content
of antisocial decision-making. Law and Human Behavior,
33, 183–193. doi:10.1007/s 10979-008-9150-z
Modecki, K. L., Barber, B. L., & Eccles, J. E. (2014). Binge
drinking trajectories across adolescence: Extra-curricular
activities are protective for youth with early pubertal
development. Journal of Adolescent Health, 54, 61–66.
doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2013.07.032
426 Modecki, Zimmer-Gembeck, and Guerra
Piquero, A. R., Jennings, W. G., & Farrington, D. (2013).
The monetary costs of crime to middle adulthood:
Findings from the Cambridge study in delinquent
development. Journal of Research in Crime and Delin-
quency, 50, 53–74. doi:10.1177/0022427811424505
Riggs, N. R., Greenberg, M. T., Kusche, C. A., & Pentz,
M. A. (2006). The mediational role of neurocognition in
the outcomes of a social-emotional prevention program
in elementary school students: Effects of PATHS cur-
riculum. Prevention Science, 7, 91–102. doi:10.1007/
s11121-005-0022-1
Sandler, I., Ayers, T. S., Tein, J. Y., Wolchik, S., Millsap,
R., Khoo, S. T., . . . Coxe, S. (2010). Six-year follow-up
of a preventive intervention for parentally bereaved
youths: A randomized controlled trial. Archives of Pedi-
atrics & Adolescent Medicine, 164, 907–914. doi:10.1001/
archpediatrics.2010.173
Skinner, E. A., & Zimmer-Gembeck, M. J. (2007). The
development of coping. Annual Review of Psychology, 58,
119–144. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085705
Tein, J. Y., Sandler, I. N., Ayers, T. S., & Wolchik, S. A.
(2006). Mediation of the effects of the Family Bereave-
ment Program on mental health problems of bereaved
children and adolescents. Prevention Science, 7, 179–195.
doi:10.1007/s11121-006-0037-2
Wilson, S. J., & Lipsey, M. W. (2007). School-based inter-
ventions for aggressive and disruptive behavior:
Update of a meta-analysis. American Journal of Preven-
tive Medicine., 33, doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2007.04.011
Zhou, Q., Chen, S. H., & Main, A. (2012). Commonalities
and differences in the research on children’s effortful
control and executive function: A call for an integrated
model of self-regulation. Child Development Perspectives,
6, 112–121. doi:10.1111/j.1750-8606.2011.00176.x
Zimmer-Gembeck, M. J., & Skinner, E. A. (2011). The
development of coping across childhood and adoles-
cence: An integrative review and critique of research.
International Journal of Behavioral Development, 35, 1–17.
doi:10.1177/0165025410384923