Emotion Regulation in Two-Year-Olds: Strategies and Emotional Expression in Four

Contexts
Author(s): Wendy S. Grolnick, Lisa J. Bridges and James P. Connell
Source: Child Development, Vol. 67, No. 3 (Jun., 1996), pp. 928-941
Published by: Wiley on behalf of the Society for Research in Child Development
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1131871
Accessed: 09-05-2016 06:03 UTC

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1131871?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

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

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Society for Research in Child Development, Wiley are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to Child Development

This content downloaded from 155.69.24.171 on Mon, 09 May 2016 06:03:01 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Emotion Regulation in Two-Year-Olds:
Strategies and Emotional Expression
in Four Contexts

Wendy S. Grolnick
Clark University

Lisa J. Bridges
University of California, Riverside

James P. Connell
Institute for Research and Reform in Education

GROLNICK, WENDY S.; BRIDGES, LISA J.; and CONNELL, JAMES P. Emotion Regulation in Two-Year-
Olds: Strategies and Emotional Expression in Four Contexts. CHILD DEVELOPMENT, 1996, 67,
928-941. A descriptive study of the modulation of negative emotion in the toddler period was
conducted by examining expressions of negative emotion and the strategies used to reduce or
change these expressions. 6 strategies were identified and evaluated in terms of their frequency
of use in different situations, relations with emotional expressiveness, and cross-situational con-
sistency. 37 2-year-olds were seen in 2 laboratory contexts (delay and separation) each with 2
variants. Emotion regulation strategies and emotional expressiveness were coded from video-
tapes of children's behavior in these 4 situations. Findings suggest that active engagement was
most commonly used and most negatively associated with child distress. Use of strategies varied
by context, and there was more cross-situational consistency in use of strategies that were more
negatively or positively associated with distress within a given context than in use of particular
strategies without consideration of their within-context significance.

The development of emotion regulation
has been recognized as a central component
of socioemotional development during the
infant-toddler period (Kopp, 1989; Tronick,
1989). Tronick (1989) noted that among the
goals that direct infant behaviors are those
for regulating emotions-experiencing posi-
tive ones and controlling negative ones. Fur-
ther, early experiences of emotion regula-
tion are important precursors of later
affective (Field, 1987; Kopp, 1989; Tronick,
1989) and personality development (Cole
& Kaslow, 1989; Thompson, Connell, &
Bridges, 1988). Despite current interest in
early emotion regulation, empirical work
with infants and toddlers remains scant. The
major goal of this study was to present de-
scriptive data on emotion regulation in 2-
year-olds.
Constructs relevant to emotion regula-
tion such as self-regulation, behavior regula-
tion, and self-control have been used to de-
scribe behaviors and thoughts that help
individuals deal with stressful or distressing
situations (Bridges & Grolnick, 1995). Such
capacities have been indexed in various
ways such as time to delay behavior during
waiting (Mischel, 1974) and responses to
fear-inducing stimuli (Rothbart, 1981) and
have been conceptualized as an aspect of the
situation (e.g., Mischel, 1973) as well as a
dimension of temperament (Rothbart &
Derryberry, 1981). We define emotion reg-
ulation as the set of processes involved
in initiating, maintaining, and modulating
emotional responsiveness, both negative
and positive. Kopp (1989), Rothbart (e.g.,
Rothbart & Posner, 1985), and Thompson
(1994) have offered similar perspectives. In
this study, we focus on the modulation of
negative emotion by examining expressions
of negative emotion and the strategies used
to reduce or change these expressions.
As indicated earlier, our examination fo-

This research was supported by a grant from the National Institute of Mental Health (ROI
MH 44449-03) to the three authors. Reprint requests should be sent to Wendy S. Grolnick,
Frances L. Hiatt School of Psychology, Clark University, 950 Main Street, Worcester, MA 01610.
[Child Development, 1996, 67, 928-941. @ 1996 by the Society for Research in Child Development, Inc.
All rights reserved. 0009-3920/96/6703-0029$01.00]

This content downloaded from 155.69.24.171 on Mon, 09 May 2016 06:03:01 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

cuses on expressions of negative emotion,
including both facial and vocal expressions.
Expressions of and experiences of emotion
are not synonymous, and experienced emo-
tion that is not expressed might also require
regulation and be relevant to a study of emo-
tion regulation. We expect, however, consis-
tent with differential emotions theory (Izard
& Malatesta, 1987) that, at age 2, agreement
between expressed and experienced emo-
tion would be quite high and focus only on
expressed emotion in this study.
Emotion regulation strategies are be-
haviors used to regulate emotional experi-
ence. Rudimentary strategies to modulate
arousal, such as looking away, are available
early in infancy (Fox, 1989; Gianino & Tron-
ick, 1988). Strategies presumably become
more complex with age as attentional, mem-
ory, and other cognitive processes become
more sophisticated (Kopp, 1982).
Two-year-olds were chosen for this
study because they were likely to exhibit
multiple emotion regulation strategies. By
the end of the second year, the beginnings of
effortful control emerge (Posner & Rothbart,
1980) with the onset of representational and
symbolic capacity (Piaget, 1952, 1954) and
with the new awareness of social expecta-
tions to keep control (Kopp, 1989). These
emerging capacities make it possible for the
child to use several different kinds of strate-
gies for regulating emotion (e.g., attentional,
symbolic), though the child may be limited
by the concreteness of his or her representa-
tional capacity (Kopp, 1982) and the limits
of sustained attention (Posner & Rothbart,
1980).
To date, few researchers have attempted
to examine specific behaviors hypothesized
to regulate emotion, though several studies
have examined relations between emotion
and attachment behaviors (e.g., Connell &
Thompson, 1986; Gaensbauer, Connell, &
Schultz, 1983,) and Mischel and his col-
leagues (e.g., Mischel, 1974) have examined
several behaviors that may be relevant to
emotion regulation, specifically those that
influence preschoolers' abilities to delay
gratification. In delineating emotion regula-
tion strategies in this study, we draw on
these bodies of work as well as that of re-
searchers specifically examining strategies
to modulate distress.
The first set of strategies are behaviors
that shift attention from arousing stimuli
(Derryberry & Rothbart, 1988; Fox, 1989).
Such attentional processes can be more or
This content downloaded from 155.69.24.171 on Mon, 09 May 2016 06:03:01 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Grolnick, Bridges, and Connell 929
less active and more or less sustained, rang-
ing from looking away (Fox, 1989) to sus-
tained toy play (Braungart & Stifter, 1991).
Mischel (1974) demonstrated that children
who are most able to delay are those who
use a variety of self-distraction techniques
(Mischel & Ebbeson, 1970; Mischel, Ebbe-
son, & Zeiss, 1972). In the one study that
looked directly at emotion-regulating behav-
iors within the infant-toddler period,
Braungart and Stifter (1991) differentiated
between toy play (engaged and sustained
behavior) and looking at objects and people
(less engaged behavior) and found that
greater distress was associated with less toy
play. In our study, we examine use of several
attention-reorienting strategies, including
visual and motor exploration, passive use of
objects, and active engagement with substi-
tute objects.
A second set of behaviors focused on
comfort or reassurance. Comfort behaviors
can be self-directed, including resting one's
head on the floor, stroking one's hair, thumb
sucking and using familiar or special objects
to obtain comfort (Klackenberg, 1949; Pass-
man & Weisberg, 1975). Comfort behavior
can also be other directed, such as seeking
proximity to and contact with caretakers
(e.g., Ainsworth & Wittig, 1969). These
other-directed behaviors have been linked
to distress by Connell and Thompson (1986),
Gaensbauer et al. (1983), and Thompson et
al. (1988). Their findings support the catego-
rization of these behaviors as potential emo-
tion regulation strategies.
Comfort behaviors can also be symbolic
or representational. In a delay situation,
such behavior might involve gamelike activ-
ity such as pretending to retrieve the desired
object (Piaget, 1962) or the use of language
to bring action under control and to inhibit
impulsive behavior (Vygotsky, 1986). To
date, use of verbalization to facilitate behav-
ior has mainly been examined in task situa-
tions and with older children (Berk, in press;
Flavell, 1966). In this study, we examine use
of verbal and representational strategies, for
example, within our separation situation,
verbal strategies might include repeating
"She'll be right back" or "I'm a big girl."
Finally, the distressed child can main-
tain or increase focus on the distressing stim-
ulus and attempt to alter a temporarily unre-
sponsive environment by, for example,
searching for the mother during separation.
Search for mother was correlated positively
with distress (Gaensbauer, Connell, &
 930 Child Development
Schultz, 1983), and Mischel (1974) demon-
strated that, when attention was directed to-
ward the goal, voluntary delay was dimin-
ished.
Based on this literature, we hypothe-
sized different relations between these strat-
egies and emotional distress. We thus con-
structed a continuum from the most
stimulus-bound strategies to the more ac-
tively reorienting strategies. The most stim-
ulus-bound strategies include maintaining
or increasing focus on a source of frustration
or distress. Given a temporarily unrespon-
sive environment, these strategies should be
positively associated with distress. On this
same continuum, comforting strategies, be-
cause they do not involve focus on the dis-
tressing stimulus, but also do not involve
strong, active reengagement with another as-
pect of the environment, should show inter-
mediate relations with distress. Finally,
strategies involving active reorientation of
attention and behavior are hypothesized to
be more negatively associated with distress.
It is important to clarify our view of
emotion regulation with respect to the child
and his or her caretakers. Similar to others
(Kopp, 1989; Rothbart & Posner, 1985;
Thompson, 1994), we view the growth of
emotion regulation as both an individually
based and a relational phenomenon. No
doubt, especially when the adult is not
asked to take a more passive role, the parent
aids the child in emotion regulation. Rudi-
mentary emotion regulation may involve be-
ing able to distract oneself only when such
opportunities are presented. Consistent with
our view, we included situations that did
and did not include an adult. Thus, we could
compare use of strategies in these different
situations.
The strategies and their relations with
emotional expressiveness are examined in
two contexts, separation and delay, each
with two variants. Each of the four situations
are mildly stressful for children, yet they
present different challenges and different
levels of adult support. In separation, the
child's emotion regulation cannot be sup-
ported by the presence of his or her primary
caregiver. Indeed, the absence of the mother
is the primary source of distress within this
setting. Two delay situations were used that
varied in the extent to which the mother was
asked to remain relatively passive or active
in interaction with the child, thus varying
the level of direct maternal involvement in
the child's emotion regulation.
This content downloaded from 155.69.24.171 on Mon, 09 May 2016 06:03:01 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
A second set of research questions con-
cerned the influence of context on emotional
regulatory processes. A first question was,
How do strategies children tend to use vary
by context? For example, in this sample of
2-year olds, the presence of a participatory
adult may make more active, reorienting
strategies more likely. Second, how do asso-
ciations between strategy use and emotional
expression differ in different contexts? For
example, attempting to gain physical com-
fort from the mother in a stressful situation
in which she is available may be negatively
associated with distress, but this same strat-
egy might be positively associated with dis-
tress when she is not participatory. Finally,
we asked whether there may also be
cross-contextual consistency of individuals
in their use of regulatory strategies. Such
consistency was addressed by assessing
whether children used the same strategies
across different situations and whether cer-
tain children tended to consistently use
strategies with similar associations with dis-
tress across the situations.
In summary, this descriptive study
should illuminate associations between par-
ticular emotion regulation strategies and dis-
tress within and across different situations,
as well as suggest contextual and individual
sources of variation in the use of these strat-
egies.
Method
Subjects
Subjects were 37 toddlers (20 boys, 17
girls) and their mothers. Subjects were first
seen within 2 weeks (+ or -) of their sec-
ond birthdays. A second visit took place ap-
proximately 1 month later. The mean age
was 24.2 months (SD = 1.4 weeks) at the
first visit and 25.2 months (SD = 1.7 weeks)
at the second visit. Mothers were recruited
through newspaper advertisements and
through records from prenatal exercise
classes including the due dates of the moth-
ers who attended. Two-thirds (67.6%) of the
children were firstborn. The mean age of the
mothers was 34.5 years. The sample was pre-
dominantly Caucasian and upper middle
class; 53% came from social class I on Hol-
lingshead's Two Factor Index (1975), 30%
from social class II, 13% from social class
III, and 3% from social class IV.
Overview of Design
All subject visits took place in the Child
Development Laboratory. In one session,
mothers and children were given a 10-min

free play warm-up and then participated in
two delay procedures. One of the proce-
dures for each subject was conducted with
an instructional set to the mother to be fairly
passive and the other without limitations on
her behavior. The two delay procedures
were separated by a 10-min play period.
In the other laboratory session, subjects
were given a free play warm-up period fol-
lowed by the separation procedure which in-
cluded a period of separation from mother
(child alone), followed by separation from
mother with a slightly familiar experimenter
(experimenter present). The order of the ses-
sions (delay and separation) was counterbal-
anced with subjects randomly assigned to
one of the two orders.
Delay Procedure
In each delay, the stimulus was placed
on a shelf within view but out of the child's
reach. The child was unable to obtain it be-
fore the delay period was over.
At the end of the free play, the experi-
menter came into the room and gathered all
but a few moderately interesting toys (e.g.,
a shape sorter, blocks, a soft ball, a small
doll). After these toys were placed in the
middle of the room, the experimenter asked
the mother to sit on a chair. The mother was
told that her child was going to be presented
with a situation in which he or she must wait
to have something, and she was asked not to
retrieve the object for the child. Following
this, the mother received one of the two sets
of guidelines according to assignment to the
parent-passive or -active condition. The ex-
perimenter then brought in one of two ob-
jects: an attractive gift or a plate of food. The
orders of the two episodes (parent-active,
parent-passive) and two desirable objects
(food, gift) were all counterbalanced yield-
ing four conditions (gift/passive, food/ac-
tive; food/active, gift/passive; gift/active,
food/passive; and food/passive, gift/active).
Procedure for Attractive Gift.-The gift
task was adapted from a procedure devel-
oped by Block and Block (1980; see also
Vaughn, Kopp, & Krakow, 1984). The experi-
menter brought a brightly wrapped present
into the room and let the child look closely
at it. After doing so, the experimenter said,
"Oh, I forgot something outside. I'm going
to put the present away until I get back.
When I get back you can have your present.
I'll be right back." The experimenter then
placed the gift on the shelf and left the room
for 6 min, after which she returned and gave
the gift to the child.
This content downloaded from 155.69.24.171 on Mon, 09 May 2016 06:03:01 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Grolnick, Bridges, and Connell 931
Procedure for Food Delay.-This proce-
dure is a modification of that used by
Golden, Montare, and Bridger (1977). The
experimenter showed the child a plate of
goldfish crackers and raisins (the mother was
asked before coming whether her child liked
or could eat these foods; all children liked
at least one of the foods). The experimenter
then ate a cracker in front of the child and
said, "Mmm, that tastes good. These are for
later. I need to do some things outside. I'm
going to put them away for a little while and
when I get back, you can have them. I'll be
right back." She then placed them on the
shelf and left for 3 min, after which she re-
turned, gave the child one raisin or cracker,
and then left for a second 3 min. After the
second 3 min, she returned and gave the
child the plate of snacks. Thus, this delay
situation also lasted for 6 min.
Instructions to parents: Passive and ac-
tive conditions.-In order to assess the
child's emotional expressiveness and emo-
tion regulation strategies under varying lev-
els of external support and assistance, the
food and gift delays were conducted under
two different conditions: parent-active or
parent-passive. In the parent-passive condi-
tion, the mother was asked to remain in the
chair and to not initiate interaction with the
child during the waiting period. She was,
however, told that she should feel free to
respond to the child's initiations when nec-
essary. In the parent-active condition, the
mother was asked to interact with the child
in any way she wanted. The only restriction
was that she should not retrieve the object.
Separation Procedure
Prior to coming to the laboratory, the
mother was asked to bring a "special object"
belonging to the child, such as a "security"
blanket, and one other favorite toy so that
the child would have it with him or her dur-
ing the separations. Upon coming to the lab-
oratory, the mother and child engaged in 10
min of free play in the lab playroom. After
2 min, the mother brought out the "special
object" which remained in the playroom for
the rest of the procedure. After another 2
min, a familiar experimenter joined the
mother and toddler for 3 min of play, after
which she left and the mother and toddler
continued playing. A tap on the one-way
mirror then signaled the parent to leave, tell-
ing her child that she would return shortly.
Upon exiting, the parent was shown to the
observation room where she could watch her
child. The child was alone for up to 6 min. If
932 Child Development
the child became extremely distressed, the
procedure was terminated early. After 6 min
(or earlier), the experimenter entered. This
period lasted up to 3 min. If the child be-
came upset, the experimenter was instructed
to engage the child in activity or try to soothe
the child. Otherwise, the experimenter took
a more responsive role. Finally, the mother
returned and the experimenter left.
Coding of Emotional Expression
Emotional expression in the four situa-
tions was coded in 5-sec intervals by two
independent raters. All strategy ratings were
done before emotional expression ratings so
that the ratings of the two would not be con-
founded. To further insure independence of
ratings, it was required that at least one of
the raters of emotion had not rated the sub-
ject for strategy use. Emotional expression
was coded using scales developed by
Thompson (Thompson & Lamb, 1984).
These scales assessed expressed affect from
positive to negative using two measures; fa-
cial expression, which ranged from 1 (bright
smile) to 4 (neutral attentive, receptive ex-
pression) to 8 (cryface), and vocalization,
which ranged from 1 (intense delight) to 4
(neutral vocalization) to 14 (hyperventilated
cry). During intervals in which the infant did
not present his or her face to the camera or
did not vocalize, affect was not coded. The
facial and vocal scales were then averaged
to form one score. Summary scores designed
to describe the intensity and topography of
children's emotional responses were then
created. These included the mean emotion
rating for each situation, the most negative
(highest) emotion reached and the most pos-
itive (lowest) emotion score. Latency to dis-
tress onset was computed as the number of
5-sec intervals before the first coding in the
negative range (greater than 4). Finally, la-
tency to peak distress was the number of in-
tervals before the child reached his or her
peak (or most negative) level of distress in
the situation.
Coding of Emotion Regulation Strategies
The child's emotion regulation strate-
gies were coded in the same 5-sec intervals
as was emotional expression for each of the
four situations. In each interval, the pres-
ence of six categories of strategy was coded
by two independent raters. Multiple strate-
gies within each interval were possible.
With one exception (other-directed comfort
seeking was not possible in the separation
alone) all categories were possible in all sit-
uations. The categories were as follows: Ac-
tive engagement with a substitute toy in-
volved sustained use of or interest in toys.
This category included active play alone or
with the parent (in the parent-active delay)
or the experimenter (experimenter-present
separation). It should be noted that, in order
for behaviors to be included in this category,
children must demonstrate engagement
with the toys. For example, if the mother
offers a game but the child does not engage
in it, the behavior is not coded in this cate-
gory. Passive use of objects and exploration
involved behaviors oriented to the environ-
ment without active task engagement. This
included looking at or fingering toys and ex-
ploring the room. These behaviors could
also be parent- or experimenter-related. Be-
cause of the pervasiveness of behaviors in
this category and subsequent problems in
obtaining reliability,' this code was only
given when it was the only behavior evident
within a segment. Symbolic self-soothing
behaviors were statements or activities indi-
cating the use of cognitive/symbolic ways to
deal with frustration. This included self-
directed statements such as "I'm a big girl"
or talking about the experimenter (e.g.,
"She'll be right back"). Physical self-
soothing included bodily directed behaviors
(e.g., thumb sucking, hair twisting) and us-
ing soft or familiar objects (e.g., hugging or
stroking a teddy bear or blanket) presumed
to be for comfort or security. Other-directed
included comfort-seeking behaviors such as
wanting to be held, touching parent's or ex-
perimenter's hair or clothing, reclining on
the parent's or experimenter's lap. These be-
haviors could be distal or proximal. Focus on
the delay object/search for parent involved
behaviors indicating that the child was fo-
cused on the delay object or, in separation,
the parent, without symbolic self-soothing
attempts. This may include asking about the
object (e.g., "When do I get my present?")
or attempts to retrieve the object or the par-

1 Initially the passive strategy was coded even if another strategy was coded in the interval.
We found that virtually every interval ended up including this code since the child was likely
to be engaging in this type of behavior when doing other things. For example, the child might
be holding a toy when searching for his mother or might glance up during active toy play.
Obtaining reliability in this case was difficult since pauses in action were perceived by some
raters as a passive strategy but not others. Given this, we elected to code passive use of objects
and exploration only when no other strategy was coded in the interval.

This content downloaded from 155.69.24.171 on Mon, 09 May 2016 06:03:01 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

ent (e.g., trying to climb up to get the object,
calling for assistance, trying to leave the
room).
Results
Reliability
Interrater reliability was computed as
Cohen's kappas (Cohen, 1960) for both strat-
egy and emotional expression ratings. In
each case, reliabilities are based on random
samples of 20 subjects. Statistics reflect
agreement between raters prior to discus-
sion. For emotion ratings, the kappa statistic
provides a conservative estimate of reliabil-
ity since exact agreement (controlling for
base rates) is required while the emotion
scale represents at least an ordinal scale.
Kappas for facial and vocal emotion, respec-
tively, were: parent-passive delay = .94, .85,
parent-active delay = .92, .77, child-alone
separation = .94, .89, and experimenter-
present separation = .95, .92. Kappas for
strategy codings were computed for each
strategy separately and across strategies for
the four situations. Mean kappas (across the
four situations) were: active engagement =
.74, passive use of objects = .69, symbolic
self-soothing = .70, physical self-soothing =
.85, other-directed = .86, and focus on delay
object/search = .81. Overall kappas were for
the four situations: parent-passive delay =
.81, parent-active delay = .78, child-alone
separation = .82, experimenter-present sep-
aration = .80.
Evaluating situations for arousal.-The
four situations were expected to be mildly
stressful for 2-year-olds and to require emo-
tion regulation. In order to address whether
this was true, three pieces of data were ex-
amined. First, means for emotional expres-
sion ratings (see Table 1) were in the nega-
tive range, though they varied from 4.08
(parent-active delay) to 5.75 (child-alone
separation). There were, as expected, large
individual differences as indicated by stan-
dard deviations varying from .83 to 1.9.
There were higher standard deviations for
the separations than for the delays.
While the mean emotion ratings provide
some information about distress, children
fluctuated from interval to interval in their
affect. The percentage of children in each
situation who expressed negative emotion
was thus also examined. Eighty-two percent
of children showed some negative affect (af-
fect ratings greater than 4) in the child-alone
separation, 56% in the experimenter-present
separation, 83% in the parent-passive delay,
This content downloaded from 155.69.24.171 on Mon, 09 May 2016 06:03:01 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Grolnick, Bridges, and Connell 933
and 82% in the parent-active delay. Thus,
in all situations the majority of children
showed some negative affect. Given the
level of negative affect displayed in our situ-
ations, they seem reasonably characterized
as mildly stressful.
A third piece of data concerns the per-
centage of children who indicated some in-
terest in or preoccupation with the frustrat-
ing situation (either the mother's absence in
the separations or the forbidden object in the
delays). This could be determined by com-
puting the percentage of children in each
situation who at some point focused on the
object (coding of "focus on delay object/
search"). For the child-alone separation, all
37 children focused on mother (i.e., engaged
in some search behavior) at least once, while
69% of children did so when with the experi-
menter. The figures for focus on delay object
were 100% for the parent-passive delay and
94% for the parent-active delay.
As indicated in the method section, epi-
sodes were cut short if the child showed ex-
cessive distress. The number of children
whose episodes were shortened were as fol-
lows: 0 for parent-active delay, 2 for parent-
passive delay, 19 for child-alone separation,
and 8 for experimenter-present separation.
Of the child-alone separations that were
shortened, most were in the 3-4-min range.
When evaluating strategy use, we utilized
the percentage of intervals in which various
strategies occurred, thus prorating these epi-
sodes.
Emotional expression.-The intensity
and topography indices of emotion were cor-
related, and, thus, principal component fac-
tor analyses were computed for the five emo-
tion indices (average emotion, most negative
[highest] emotion, latency to distress onset,
latency to peak distress onset, and most posi-
tive [lowest] emotion) for each situation to
determine whether these indices could be
combined. Factor analysis with emotion in-
dices such as those used in the present study
has been used in several previous studies
(e.g., Connell & Thompson, 1986; Thomp-
son et al., 1988). Results indicated one-factor
solutions (using the Scree test [Cattell,
1966]) for each of the four situations. Eigen-
values for the emotion factor for the four sit-
uations were: Parent-passive delay = 3.56,
parent-active delay = 3.34, child-alone sep-
aration = 3.88, experiment-present separa-
tion = 3.95. For each situation, factor load-
ings for all variables were above .53. Based
on these results, emotion variables were
 934 Child Development
TABLE 1

MEANS AND F VALUES FOR REPEATED-MEASURES ANOVAS WITH SITUATION AS GROUPING VARIABLE

Experimenter-
Child-Alone Present Parent-Active Parent-Passive
Separation Separation Delay Delay F(3, 33)
Emotion:

Emotion composite ... .73a .26ab -.82c -.23b 6.62**

SD ........................... 1.74 1.85 .79 1.04
Range ................... - 1.0-4.6 - 1.06-3.93 -2.05-1.68 - 1.16-3.53
Average emotion ...... 5.75a 5.24ab 4.08C 4.72b 8.34***
SD ........................... 1.84 1.9 .83 1.12
Range ................... 3.9-9.9 3.83-9.24 2.75-6.57 3.72-8.70
Strategies:
Active engagement ... 30.39a* 44.82b 44.20b 26.86a 6.03***
SD ........................... 26.92 35.71 24.38 20.20
Range ................... 0-91.99 0-94.59 0-89.04 0-76.54
Passive use of ob-
jects .................. 12.89 16.57 16.16 11.79 1.88
SD ........................... 15.22 16.65 13.14 8.90
Range ................... 0-50 0-57.14 0-53.42 0-31.42
Symbolic self-
soothing ............... 1.15b .09a 1.15b 1.87c 3.69*
SD ........................... 3.42 .46 2.19 4.10
Range ................... 0-17.65 0-2.56 0-6.49 0-19.40
Physical self-
soothing ............... 19.41 14.62 9.51 12.49 .78
SD ........................... 29.53 24.03 12.67 20.74
Range ................... 0-94 0-90.91 0-52.63 0-95.89

Other directed ........... ?11.08

SD ........................... 2.65a 11.81
7.79b 23.79C
19.11 17.00***

Range ...................... ? 0-57.14 0-46.74 0-91.67

Focus on delay ob-
ject/search ........... 33.73a 14.98b 20.51b 22.42b 2.70+
SD ........................... 34.67 24.90 19.37 20.53
Range ................... 0-100 0-77.77 0-82.43 0-74.16

NOTE.-Means not sharing the same subscript are significantly different at p < .05 level.
+ p < .10.
* p < .05.
** p < .01.
*** p < .001.

standardized and combined to create four
composite emotion scores. Alphas for the
four composite variables were as follows:
parent-passive delay = .90, parent-active
delay = .87, child-alone separation = .92,
and experimenter-present separation = .93.
Emotion regulation strategies.-In or-
der to determine whether the strategies
were used in at least some of the situations,
average percentages of intervals including
each of the six strategies were computed.
The average percent usage across situation
and ranges (in parentheses) for the four sepa-
rate situations were: active engagement,
36.54 (26.86-44.82), passive use of objects,
14.53, (11.79-16.57), symbolic self-soothing,
1.06 (.09-1.87), physical self-soothing, 14.01
(9.51-19.41), other-directed, 8.56 (2.65-
23.79), and focus on delay object/search,
22.93 (14.98-33.73). The results indicate
that all strategies were used in all situations,
though their use differed by situation (situa-
tional differences are discussed later).
Correlations among strategies within
each of the four situations indicated, for all
situations, negative relations between active
engagement and focus on delay object/
search, ranging from r = -.38, p < .05 to r
= -.64, p < .001. Other relations varied by
situation. For the parent-passive delay, use
of active engagement was negatively associ-
ated with other-directed behavior, r = -.45,
p < .01, and physical self-soothing was nega-
tively related to focus on delay object, r =
-.40, p < .01. For the parent-active delay
and experimenter-present separation situa-

This content downloaded from 155.69.24.171 on Mon, 09 May 2016 06:03:01 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Grolnick, Bridges, and Connell 935
TABLE 2

WITHIN-SITUATION CORRELATIONS BETWEEN STRATEGY USE AND EMOTIONAL EXPRESSIVENESS

SEPARATION DELAY

Experimenter Experimenter Parent Parent

Absent Present Active Passive

1. Active engagement ..................................... -.56*** -.84*** -.54*** -.27

2. Passive use of objects .................................... -.49** -.35* -.09 -.39*
3. Symbolic self-soothing ....................... -.10 -.19 -.02 -.22
4. Physical self-soothing ..................... -.004 .48** .25 .30*
5. Other directed ............................................... .31* .00 .15
6. Focus on frustration object/search for parent ... .63*** .63*** .47** .02

* p < .05.
** p < .01.
*** p < .001.

tions, active engagement was negatively as-
sociated with physical self-soothing, r =
-.49, p < .01 and r = -.65, p < .001, re-
spectively. Finally, for the child-alone sepa-
ration, there were negative relations be-
tween search for parent and both passive use
of objects, r = -.35, p < .05, and physical
self-soothing, r = -.48, p < .01.
object/search lowest (most positively associ-
ated with distress), though the possibility
that variations in the continuum might be
apparent in different contexts was consid-
ered. In order to address this hypothesis, re-
lations between strategies and emotional ex-
pressiveness within each situation were
examined.

Correlations between emotional expres-

Order and object effects.-To check for
siveness and strategy use within the four sit-
possible session order effects (separation vs.
uations are presented in Table 2. For three
delay first), ANOVAs were conducted for
situations (the two separations and parent-
each of the six strategies and the emotion
active delay), significant negative relations
composite for each of the four situations with
between active engagement and emotional
order as the grouping variable. Of the 28
expression indicate that children who were
analyses, only two F values were significant.
less upset were more likely to actively inter-
Results indicated that there was more sym-
act with objects than were those who were
bolic self-soothing, F = 4.79, p < .04, in the
more upset. Similarly, passive use of objects
child-alone separation when the separation
was first (M = .21) relative to when the delay
was negatively associated with distress
(though not as strongly as for active engage-
was first (M = .13). Second, there was a
ment) in three of the four situations. Level
higher proportion of active engagement with
of distress was positively correlated with fo-
objects in the parent-passive delay, F =
cus on the delay object/search in all but the
6.19, p < .02, when the delay was first (M =
parent-passive delay. Use of physical self-
51.1) relative to the separation (M = 30.3).
soothing was positively related to distress in
These results are likely to have occurred by
the experimenter-present separation and
chance so are not interpretable. Similar
ANOVAs conducted for order of parent con-
parent-passive delay situations. Finally,
other-directed behavior was positively asso-
dition (passive or active first) within the de-
ciated with distress only in the experi-
lay session revealed no significant effects on
menter-present separation.
strategies or emotion. Finally, ANOVAs to
determine whether delay object (gift vs.
Contextual Influences on Strategy Use and
food) elicited different emotion regulation
Emotional Expressiveness
strategies or greater distress indicated no To examine contextual differences in
significant effects.
emotional expression, a repeated-measures
Relations between Strategy Use and ANOVA was conducted for the emotion
Emotional Expressiveness composite. The grouping variables were sex
It was hypothesized that the six strate- of child (between subjects) and situation
gies could be placed along a continuum with (four situations; within subjects) and the in-
active engagement highest (most negatively teraction between sex of child and situation.
associated with distress) and focus on delay Sex of child was included because there is

This content downloaded from 155.69.24.171 on Mon, 09 May 2016 06:03:01 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 936 Child Development
some evidence that males and females may
differ in responses to frustration (Goldberg
& Lewis, 1969) and emotional expression
(Malatesta & Haviland, 1982). There was a
strong effect for situation, F(3, 33) = 6.62, p
< .002, but no effects for sex of child or the
interaction. Pairwise repeated-measure
ANOVAs indicated that children displayed
greater distress in the child-alone separation
than either the parent-active, F(1, 35) =
41.56, p < .001, or parent-passive, F(1, 35)
= 17.30, p < .001, delays. There was no sig-
nificant difference between distress in the
two separations. Children did exhibit
greater distress in the parent-passive rela-
tive to the parent-active delay, F(1, 35) =
4.04, p < .05, and in the experimenter-
present separation relative to the parent-
active delay, F(1, 35) = 16.40, p < .001. Be-
cause the means for the emotion composite
are not interpretable along the Thompson
scale, the means and statistics for mean emo-
tion (unstandardized) are also presented.
Statistics for mean emotion parallel those for
the emotion composite.
To examine contextual differences in
strategy use, a repeated-measures multivari-
ate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was per-
formed. The MANOVA examined five out of
the six strategies-other-directed was ex-
cluded from the analysis because it was only
a potential strategy in three of the situations.
Results of the MANOVA revealed a strong
main effect for situation, F(1, 35) = 31.77, p
< .001, but no significant sex of child or sex
of child x situation effects.
To follow up on the significant situation
effect uncovered in the MANOVA and to as-
sess situational differences in other-directed
behavior, repeated-measures ANOVAs were
conducted for each of the six strategies. Sig-
nificant situation effects were obtained for
three strategies (active engagement, other-
directed, and symbolic self-soothing) and a
marginally significant effect for one (focus
on delay object/search). Pairwise repeated-
measures ANOVAs for situation were con-
ducted for these four strategies (e.g., use of
active engagement in experimenter-present
separation and parent-active delay-six pos-
sible pairs of situations) (see Table 1). Re-
sults indicated that active engagement was
used more in the experimenter-present than
the child-alone separation, F(1, 35) = 4.27,
p < .05, and more in the parent-active than
the parent-passive delay, F(1, 35) = 11.29, p
< .01, suggesting that there was most active
engagement in situations where an adult
was available and participatory. Active en-
This content downloaded from 155.69.24.171 on Mon, 09 May 2016 06:03:01 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
gagement was also used more in the experi-
menter-present separation than the parent-
passive delay, F(1, 35) = 7.59, p < .01, and
in the parent-active delay relative to the
child-alone separation, F(1, 35) = 7.25, p <
.01. Symbolic self-soothing was used less in
the experimenter-present separation than in
the parent-passive delay, F(1, 35) = 7.14, p
< .01, or the parent-active delay, F(1, 35) =
8.59, p < .01, and more in the parent-passive
delay than in the child-alone separation, F(1,
35) = 4.08, p < .05, or the parent-active de-
lay, F(1, 35) = 4.68, p < .05. Other-directed
behavior was used more in the parent-
passive delay than in the parent-active de-
lay, F(1, 35) = 14.27, p < .001, or the experi-
menter-present separation, F(1, 35) = 33.08,
p < .001, and more in the parent-active delay
than in the experimenter-present separation,
F(1, 35) = 4.87, p < .05. Finally, focus on
delay object/search was used more in the
child-alone than in the experimenter-
present situation, F(1, 35) = 8.06, p < .01,
the parent-active delay, F(1, 35) = 4.79, p <
.05, or the parent-passive delay, F(1, 35) =
4.05, p < .05.
Cross-Situational Consistency of Strategies
and Emotional Expressiveness
We next examined whether individual
differences in strategy use and emotional ex-
pression were consistent across situation.
First, correlations were computed between
the proportions of intervals in which particu-
lar strategies were used in each of four situa-
tions. Second we created a strategy compos-
ite by weighting individual strategy scores
by their correlations with emotional ex-
pression within each situation and then
summing these weighted scores. These
weighted composite scores for each situation
were then correlated with each other.
Correlations between the same strate-
gies across situation (see Table 3) indicated
that there were significant correlations be-
tween strategies used in the two delays and
strategies used in the two separations, but
there was little consistency in strategy use
across the delay and separation situations.
Active engagement and other-directed be-
havior were, however, significantly corre-
lated across the experimenter-present sepa-
ration and parent-passive delay situations.
Relations between the weighted scores
composite indicated a similar pattern of as-
sociations. There were significant correla-
tions between use of more active, reorient-
ing strategies in the two separation
situations, r = .48, p < .01, and a positive
 . 0
? ?

I0I

? ~~4.4 ?,

oo c3
co

? * 0

C9a

z
CI I0
CY) 04

C a
0 ?9
++ + Q

W .4
z z -.
Z

z I

- - I 01 i

cd ?4 >1

on :>, .g I
Cd

S0 It-000
cd

H 3
. cd

0.
L01flJ~
o ,VOC
-o o

z
I I N c
* *
o - ")
0,10hI.J)
-'-- CC
cn -c 3 ~ ~ V3 U

* 0I + *
: iI t" if 0 1

0 l)
Cd

This content downloaded from 155.69.24.171 on Mon, 09 May 2016 06:03:01 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
938 Child Development
but nonsignificant correlation for the two de-
lay situations, r = .28, p < .11. There was
also a significant correlation between use of
more reorienting strategies in the parent-
passive delay and the experimenter-present
separation situations, r = .35, p < .05.
Correlations were also computed to ex-
amine individual differences in distress
across situation. Results indicated consis-
tency in distress expressed across the two
separation situations, r = .58, p < .001, and
across the two delay situations, r = .39, p <
.05, but there were no significant correla-
tions across the separation and delay situa-
tions.
Discussion
In this study, we present descriptive
data on emotional expression and emotion
regulation strategies, two components of
emotion regulation, in 2-year-olds. Descrip-
tive data are presented on (1) levels of emo-
tional expressiveness and strategy use in
four situations, (2) relations between strat-
egy use and emotional expressiveness, and
(3) the consistency of emotional expressive-
ness and strategy use across situations.
First, with regard to emotional expres-
sion, the data suggest strong individual dif-
ferences in responses to two separation and
two delay procedures. While overall the sit-
uations could be described as mildly stress-
ful given that the majority of children
showed some distress in each of the four sit-
uations, some children became extremely
upset and others less so. Interestingly, cross-
situational consistency was greatest for the
two separations which also elicited the
greatest distress. Such differential reactions
could be a function of temperament (Roth-
bart & Derryberry, 1981) or attachment rela-
tions reflecting the history of caretaker-child
interactions (Frodi & Thompson, 1985).
For emotion regulation strategies, re-
sults indicated that all six strategies ap-
peared in all situations. Across situations,
the most frequently used strategy was active
engagement with substitute objects. This
finding indicates that, by 2 years, children
are capable of reorienting their attention to-
ward other objects in their environments.
Such abilities may be facilitated by in-
creases in effortful control and representa-
tional capacities occurring around this age
(Piaget, 1962; Posner & Rothbart, 1980). It
should be emphasized that, for three of the
situations, active engagement occurred in
This content downloaded from 155.69.24.171 on Mon, 09 May 2016 06:03:01 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
the presence of an adult (either mother or
experimenter), and thus the adult may have
contributed to children being able to use
this strategy. The importance of adults for
active engagement in 2-year-olds is sup-
ported by that fact that it was used most
when an adult was available and participa-
tory (i.e., more in the parent-active delay
than the parent-passive delay and more in
the experimenter-present separation than in
the child-alone separation). It is likely that,
at age 2, the child is most able to become
engaged with alternate activities and sustain
self-distraction with the assistance of an
adult. Further studies might begin to disen-
tangle what the caregiver contributes to use
of particular strategies.
In contrast to active engagement, the
low use of symbolic self-soothing suggests
that, while children of this age may be capa-
ble of representing their experience, they
may not be able to use such capacities in
times of stress. Use of other strategies varied
by context. For example, children used the
most other-directed behavior in the parent-
passive delay. This may have been in part
due to the strangeness of a situation where
mother was present but inactive. However,
this situation is not atypical in the home in
that mothers often engage in activities while
their child is present but in which their child
cannot participate (such as cooking on the
stove). In fact, several mothers noted that
this "clingy" behavior was typical of such
situations at home. This result again high-
lights the relative dependence of 2-year-olds
on caretakers for emotion regulation.
Obtained relations between strategies
and emotional expression were as predicted
for the most part-children who used active
engagement were least distressed while
those who used focus on delay object/search
tended to be more highly distressed. We
caution that this study does not elucidate the
causal relations between strategy use and
emotional expressiveness. While our results
are consistent with the interpretation that
particular strategies, those that involve the
most reorientation away from the stressful
situation, are most effective in reducing dis-
tress, it is quite possible that, within a given
assessment, the intensity of the child's dis-
tress may promote or inhibit the deployment
of particular strategies. Additional studies
will be required to evaluate the causal links
between these aspects of emotion regulation
using sequential and lag analyses.

Our results also speak to the consistency
of individual differences in use of particular
strategies. In general, there was consistency
across the two delays and across the two sep-
arations in use of specific strategies but few
relations across the different contexts. There
were also positive relations between emo-
tional expression in the two delays and the
two separations but little consistency across
context. One interpretation of these findings
is that the delay situations may be more
likely to elicit anger whereas the separations
might be more likely to elicit sadness and/
or fear. It is possible that the regulation of
these emotions might be specific. In future
research, it would be interesting to consider
the regulation of conceptually discrete emo-
tions separately.
It is also to be expected, of course, that
two measures taken within the same assess-
ment on the same day would be more highly
associated with each other than would two
measures taken on different days. While it
would be optimal to include delays and sep-
arations within the same assessment, the
strain this would impose on the child makes
this infeasible. In addition, following sepa-
ration with delay would not only impose un-
due stress but would likely affect the child's
response. Due to these issues, we chose the
procedure that would result in the most
valid assessment and least unnecessary
stress. It is the case, however, that previous
research examining consistency in infant
emotional responsiveness using the Strange
Situation (i.e., the same context across multi-
ple assessments) has demonstrated consider-
able cross-time and cross-parent consistency
in emotional expression and social interac-
tive behaviors (e.g., Bridges & Connell,
1991; Connell & Thompson, 1986). Thus,
lack of correlation across context in this
study is likely to be due to contextual differ-
ences rather than lack of proximity in time
alone.
When considering the weighted scores
composites, consistency was somewhat
more evident across the two contextually dif-
ferent types of situation and less evident be-
tween the two delay situations. Specifically,
children who used strategies more nega-
tively related to distress in the delay where
the mother was passive also tended to use
such strategies in the separation where the
experimenter was available. Such cross-
contextual relations in use of more actively
reorienting strategies might represent
emerging personality characteristics. They
This content downloaded from 155.69.24.171 on Mon, 09 May 2016 06:03:01 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Grolnick, Bridges, and Connell 939
may also suggest that some children have
more contextual support for the use of these
strategies.
Although the results add to the litera-
ture in describing emotion regulation pro-
cesses in 2-year-olds, some key issues still
remain to be resolved. What are the causal
relations between emotional expressiveness
and strategy use? What about emotional reg-
ulation develops with age? Are certain strat-
egies being used more or less or do the effec-
tiveness and flexible use of the same
strategies change with the new demands and
supports that many children face? What are
the contextual supports that increase the fre-
quency of use of more active, attentional
strategies? Finally, what is the role of tem-
perament in individual differences in emo-
tion regulation? Our descriptive findings
may provide a start in beginning to tackle
these and other key issues in the develop-
ment of emotion regulation.
References
Ainsworth, M. D. S., & Wittig, M. (1969). Attach-
ment and exploratory behavior of one-year-
olds in a strange situation. In B. M. Foss (Ed.),
Determinants of infant behavior (Vol. 4, pp.
111-136). London: Methuen.
Berk, L. E. (in press). Children's private speech:
An overview of theory and the status of re-
search. In R. M. Diaz & L. E. Berk (Eds.),
Private speech: Interaction to self-regulation.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Block, J. H., & Block, J. (1980). The role of ego-
control and ego-resiliency in the organization
of behavior. In W. A. Collins (Ed.), Minnesota
Symposia on Child Psychology (Vol. 13).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Braungart, J. M., & Stifter, C. A. (1991). Regulation
of negative reactivity during the strange situa-
tion: Temperament and attachment in 12-
month-old infants. Infant Behavior and De-
velopment, 14, 349-364.
Bridges, L. J., & Connell, J. P. (1991). Consistency
and inconsistency in infant emotional and so-
cial interactive behavior across contexts and
caregivers. Infant Behavior and Develop-
ment, 14, 471-487.
Bridges, L. J., & Grolnick, W. S. (1995). The devel-
opment of emotional self-regulation in in-
fancy and early childhood. In N. Eisenberg
(Ed.), Review of personality and social psy-
chology (Vol. 15). New York: Sage.
Cattell, R. B. (1966). The scree test for the number
of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research,
1, 245-276.
940 Child Development
Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for
nominal scales. Educational and Psychologi-
cal Measurement, 20, 37-46.
Cole, P. M., & Kaslow, N. J. (1989). Interactional
and cognitive strategies for affect regulation:
Developmental perspectives on childhood
depression. In L. Alloy (Ed.), Cognitive pro-
cesses in depression (pp. 310-343). New
York: Guilford.
Connell, J. P., & Thompson, R. A. (1986). Emotion
and social interaction in the Strange Situa-
tion: Consistencies and asymmetric influ-
ences in the second year. Child Development,
57, 733-745.
Derryberry, D., & Rothbart, M. K. (1988). Arousal,
affect, and attention as components of temper-
ament. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 55, 958-966.
Field, T. (1987). Interaction and attachment in
normal and atypical infants. Journal of Con-
sulting and Clinical Psychology, 55, 853-859.
Flavell, J. (1966). Le langage priv6 (Private lan-
guage). Bulletin de Psychologie, 19, 698-701.
Fox, N. (1989). Psychophysiological correlates of
emotional reactivity in the first year of life.
Developmental Psychology, 25, 364-372.
Frodi, A., & Thompson, R. (1985). Infants' af-
fective responses in the Strange Situation: Ef-
fects of prematurity and quality of attachment.
Child Development, 56, 1280-1290.
Gaensbauer, T. J., Connell, J. P., & Schultz, L. A.
(1983). Emotion and attachment: Interrela-
tionships in a structured laboratory paradigm.
Developmental Psychology, 19, 815-831.
Gianino, A., & Tronick, E. Z. (1988). The mutual
regulation model: The infant's self and inter-
active regulation coping and defense. In
T. Field, P. McCabe, & N. Schneiderman
(Eds.), Stress and coping. Hillsdale, NJ: Erl-
baum.
Goldberg, S., & Lewis, M. (1969). Play behavior
in the year-old infant: Early sex differences.
Child Development, 41, 21-31.
Golden, M., Montare, A., & Bridger, W. H. (1977).
Verbal control of delay behavior in two-year-
old boys as a function of social class. Child
Development, 48, 1107-1111.
Hollingshead, A. B. (1975). Four-Factor Index of
Social Status. Unpublished manuscript, Yale
University.
Izard, C. E., & Malatesta, C. Z. (1987). Perspec-
tives on emotional development I: Differen-
tial emotions theory of early emotional devel-
opment. In J. D. Osofsky (Ed.), Handbook of
infant development (2d ed.). New York:
Wiley.
Klackenberg, G. (1949). Thumbsucking: Fre-
quency and etiology. Pediatrics, 4, 418-424.
Kopp, C. B. (1982). Antecedents of self-regulation:
This content downloaded from 155.69.24.171 on Mon, 09 May 2016 06:03:01 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
A developmental perspective. Develop-
mental Psychology, 18, 199-214.
Kopp, C. B. (1989). Regulation of distress and neg-
ative emotions: A developmental view. De-
velopmental Psychology, 25, 343-354.
Malatesta, C. Z., & Haviland, J. M. (1982). Learn-
ing display rules: The socialization of emo-
tion expression in infancy. Child Develop-
ment, 53, 991-1003.
Mischel, W. (1973). Toward a cognitive social
learning reconceptualization of personality.
Psychology Review, 80, 252-283.
Mischel, W. (1974). Processes in delay of gratifi-
cation. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Progress in ex-
perimental personality research (Vol. 3, pp.
249-292). New York: Academic.
Mischel, W., & Ebbesen, E. B. (1970). Attention
in delay of gratification. Journal of Personal-
ity and Social Psychology, 16, 329-337.
Mischel, W., Ebbesen, E. B., & Zeiss, A. (1972).
Cognitive and attentional mechanisms in de-
lay of gratification. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 21, 204-218.
Passman, R. H., & Weisberg, P. (1975). Mothers
and blankets as agents for promoting play and
exploration by young children in a novel en-
vironment: The effects of social and nonsocial
attachment objects. Developmental Psychol-
ogy, 11, 170-177.
Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in
children. New York: International Universi-
ties Press.
Piaget, J. (1954). The construction of reality in the
child. New York: Basic.
Piaget, J. (1962). Play, dreams and imitation in
childhood. New York: Norton.
Posner, M. I., & Rothbart, M. K. (1980). The devel-
opment of attentional mechanisms. Nebraska
Symposium on Motivation, 28, 1-52.
Rothbart, M. K. (1981). Measurement of tempera-
ment in infancy. Child Development, 52,
569-578.
Rothbart, M. K., & Derryberry, D. (1981). Devel-
opment of individual differences in tempera-
ment. In M. E. Lamb & A. L. Brown (Eds.),
Advances in developmental psychology (Vol.
1, 37-86). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Rothbart, M. K., & Posner, M. I. (1985). Tempera-
ment and the development of self-regulation.
In L. C. Hartlage & C. F. Telzrow (Eds.), The
neuropsychology of individual differences
(pp. 93-123). New York: Plenum.
Thompson, R. A. (1994). Emotion regulation: A
theme in search of definition. In N. Fox (Ed.),
The development of emotion regulation.
Monographs of the Society for Research in
Child Development, 59(2-3, Serial No. 240).
Thompson, R. A., Connell, J. P., & Bridges, L. J.
(1988). Temperament, emotion, and social in-
 Grolnick, Bridges, and Connell 941

teractive behavior in the Strange Situation: A communication in infants. American Psychol-

component process analysis of attachment
system functioning. Child Development, 59,
1102-1110.
Thompson, R. A., & Lamb, M. E. (1984). Assessing
qualitative dimensions of emotional respon-
siveness in infants: Separation reactions in
the strange situation. Infant Behavior and
Development, 7, 423-445.
Tronick, E. Z. (1989). Emotions and emotional
ogist, 44, 112-119.
Vaughn, B. E., Kopp, C. G., & Krakow, J. B. (1984).
The emergence and consolidation of self-
control from 18 to 30 months of age: Norma-
tive trends and individual differences. Child
Development, 55, 990-1004.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language. (2d
ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (Originally
published 1934)

This content downloaded from 155.69.24.171 on Mon, 09 May 2016 06:03:01 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms