Accelerating the development of emotion competence in …

Accelerating the development of emotioncompetence in Head Start children: Effectson adaptive and maladaptive behavior

CARROLLE. IZARD,aKRISTENA. KING,aCHRISTOPHER J. TRENTACOSTA,b

JUDITH K. MORGAN,a JEAN-PHILIPPE LAURENCEAU,a

E. STEPHANIE KRAUTHAMER-EWING,a AND KRISTY J. FINLONa

aUniversity of Delaware; and bUniversity of Pittsburgh

Abstract

Separate studies of rural and urban Head Start systems tested the hypothesis that an emotion-based prevention program(EBP) would accelerate the development of emotion and social competence and decrease agonistic behavior and potentialprecursors of psychopathology. In both studies, Head Start centers were randomly assigned to treatment and control/comparison group conditions. In Study 1 (rural community), results of hierarchical linear modeling analyses showed thatcompared to the control condition (Head Start as usual), EBP produced greater increases in emotion knowledge andemotion regulation and greater decreases in children’s negative emotion expressions, aggression, anxious/depressedbehavior, and negative peer and adult interactions. In Study 2 (inner city), compared to the established prevention programI Can Problem Solve, EBP led to greater increases in emotion knowledge, emotion regulation, positive emotionexpression, and social competence. In Study 2, emotion knowledge mediated the effects of EBP on emotion regulation,and emotion competence (an aggregate of emotion knowledge and emotion regulation) mediated the effects of EBPon social competence.

Darwin (1872/1998) conceived the emotionsas inherently adaptive and as powerful influ-ences on both mental processes and overtbehavior. In his famous treatise on emotionexpressions, he advocated eloquently for the

nurturance of emotions and emotion communi-cation in early development. Darwin’s counselseems quite congruent with findings on paren-tal socialization, positive emotion interactions,emotion education (tutoring and coaching),and the development of emotion competencein middle-class families in the United States(Eisenberg, Cumberland, & Spinrad, 1998;Gottman, Katz, & Hooven, 1997). The benefitsof following Darwin’s counsel also accrue toethnic minorities where poverty occurs at a dis-proportionately higher rate. Most ethnic minor-ity children who receive adequate parental careand social support develop effective emotionregulatory skills as reflected in individual andsocial functioning (Garner & Spears, 2000;Raver, 1996). Scores on measures of emotionknowledge and emotion regulation in childrenof low-incomefamilies tend tobedistributedovera relatively wide range. Yet, a disproportionately

Address correspondence and reprint requests to: CarrollIzard, Department of Psychology, University of Delaware,Newark, DE 19716; E-mail: [email protected].

We are especially appreciative of the support and encour-agement ofMargaret Feerick and RebeccaDelCarmenWig-gins. We thank Jacinta Bush and Debbie Simon, and theteachers, Family Service Workers, parents, and childrenof the collaborating Head Start systems. Their cooperationmade this research possible. Thanks to Brian Ackerman,Eric Youngstrom, Jennifer Kogos, David Schultz, SarahFine, Allison Mostow, and Jan Campbell Wharton for theircontributions to the research that led to the EmotionsCourse, and to Fran Haskins and Jenny Anderson for helpwith many aspects of this research. This research was sup-ported by NICHD Grant 1-R03-HD043036-01 and NIMHGrant 1-R21-MH068443-01A1.

Development and Psychopathology 20 (2008), 369–397Copyright # 2008 Cambridge University PressPrinted in the United States of AmericaDOI: 10.1017/S0954579408000175

369

high percentage of them have low emotion com-petence and are at risk for the development ofmaladaptive behavior patterns (Ackerman,Brown, & Izard, 2004; Denham et al., 2003;Izard, Trentacosta, King, & Mostow, 2004).

The relatively sparse data on emotion sociali-zation in low-income families present a trouble-somepicture of emotion expressionbetweenadultand child (Cutting & Dunn, 1999; Garcı́a Coll &Garrido, 2000; Garner & Estep, 2001; Garner,Jones, Gaddy, & Rennie, 1997). For a substantialpercentage of low-income families, the harshenvironment created by poverty provides feweroccasions for positive emotion interactions inthe family, andmay result in relativelymore occa-sions for anger expression and negative interac-tions (Ackerman, Izard, Schoff, Youngstrom, &Kogos, 1999; Miller & Olson, 2000; Shaw, Von-dra, Hommerding, Keenan, & Dunn, 1994).

The stress induced by an impoverished andthreatening environment may be experienced asnegative emotions that are poorly regulated andthus not utilized constructively (McLloyd, 1998;Shaw et al., 1998). These negative emotions,which include anger and frustration as well asanxious and depressed mood, may increase thelikelihoodofharshparenting, includingaggressionor physical punishment (Ackerman et al., 1999;Deater-Deckard & Dodge, 1997; Fine, Trenta-costa, Izard, Mostow, & Campbell, 2004). As aresult, these children may have less opportunitythan children of middle-class families to engagein emotion discourse, a process that promotesemotion knowledge and emotion regulation (Cut-ting&Dunn, 1999;Harris, 1999).Thus, the stressassociated with poverty and its cofactors (e.g.,parents’ education level and frequent changes inresidence and relationships) probably contributesto children’s relatively poor emotion knowledgeand emotion regulation and increases the risk ofdeveloping maladaptive behavior patterns (Ack-erman et al., 2004; Raver, 2004; Shaw et al.,1998). The evidence suggests that an emotion fo-cused intervention with an emphasis on emotionknowledge and emotion regulation may meet acritical need in low income communities.

Emotion Knowledge

Findings from more than 3 decades of researchmake a strong case for a significant relation

between emotion knowledge and other aspectsof emotion development. Four early studiesshowed that measures of different aspects ofchildren’s understanding of emotion interre-lated, suggesting a coherent construct (Izard,1971). These studies also showed that indicesof emotion knowledge related positively toboth social and academic competence and thatemotion knowledge was influenced adverselyby socioeconomic level but not by ethnicity.

Since these early studies, extensive researchhas shown that emotion knowledge relatedpositively to adaptive behavioral outcomes andnegatively to maladaptive outcomes (for re-views, see Denham, 1998; Denham & Burton,2003; Halberstadt, Denham, & Dunsmore,2001; Izard, 2002). For example, emotionknowledge in former Head Start first graderspredicted internalizing behavior in late child-hood (Fine, Izard, Mostow, Trentacosta, &Ackerman, 2003). Emotion knowledge in aprimarily White middle-class sample at age 3predicted anger and aggression at ages 4 and5 (Denham et al., 2002). Emotion knowledgealso played a role in mediating the effects oftrait emotionality on aggressive behavior(Schultz, Izard, & Bear, 2004). In addition,emotion knowledge in Head Start mediatedthe effect of verbal ability on teacher ratingsof academic competence (Izard et al., 2001;cf. Trentacosta, Izard, Mostow, & Fine, 2006).

Several studies revealed a relation betweenemotion knowledge and peer acceptance,widely acknowledged as critical to children’ssense of well being, interpersonal transactions,and the developmental task of making andkeeping friends (Denham, McKinley, Cou-choud, & Holt, 1990; Edwards, Manstead, &MacDonald, 1984; Garner, Jones, & Miner,1994; Hartup, 1992; Hubbard & Coie, 1994;Smith, 2001; Walden & Field, 1990). A laterstudy showed that emotion knowledge pre-dicted social skills, which in turn, mediatedthe effects of emotion knowledge on peer ac-ceptance (Mostow, Izard, Fine, & Trentacosta,2002). A number of other researchers showedthat emotion knowledge relates to social judg-ment, social skills, and the development ofsocial competence (Cicchetti, Ackerman, &Izard, 1995; Denham et al., 2003; Garner,1996; Izard, Schultz, Fine, Youngstrom, &

C. E. Izard et al.370

Ackerman, 2000; Miller & Olson, 2000; No-wicki & Duke, 1994; Rogosch, Cicchetti, &Aber, 1995).

Emotion Regulation

Some researchers see emotion knowledge as acorrelate or determinant of emotion regulationand argue that both of these related constructscontribute to the growth of emotion and socialcompetence (Arsenio, Cooperman, & Lover,2000; Halberstadt et al., 2001; Hubbard &Coie, 1994; Izard, 1971, 2002; Miller, Gouley,Seifer, Dickson, & Shields, 2004). In any case,extensive research depicts a central role foremotion regulation in various aspects of socialfunctioning, ranging from anger expressionand aggression to empathy, sympathy, andprosocial behavior (Cole, Martin, & Dennis,2004; Eisenberg, 2001; Eisenberg & Fabes,1998; Fantuzzo, Bulotsky-Shearer, Fusco, &McWayne, 2005; Raver, 2004).

Defining emotion regulation

Experts agree that we do not have consensus ona definition of emotion regulation (see Coleet al., 2004, and the commentaries on theirarticle). For purposes of the present study, weconceptualize emotion regulation in the con-text of other causal processes—emotionality/temperament or emotion traits, emotion infor-mation processing, cognitive ability, and emo-tion knowledge. We see all of these processesas codeterminants of perception, thought, andovert behavior. Within this context of multiplecausal processes, emotion regulation operatesas a key factor in preventing emotion arousalfrom disrupting or overwhelming cognitiveand action systems. These emotion regulatoryprocesses facilitate the use of cognitive and ac-tion systems in responding effectively to chal-lenges and opportunities. Because emotion isfrequently a key factor in motivating cognitionand action (Ekman & Davidson, 1994; Izard,1977; Tomkins, 1962, 1963), emotion regula-tion is critical in increasing the utilization, oreffective use of emotion motivation, in socialand person–environment transactions (Izard,2002). Emotion utilization may be viewed asthe optimal mode of emotion regulation, which

in turn, enhances emotion utilization. Thesetwo sets of related processes influence eachother reciprocally to enhance the developmentof adaptive behavior patterns. In this frame-work, emotion regulation is realized and in-dexed largely in terms of emotion utilization,or emotion-motivated and self-regulated cogni-tion and action, in response to opportunities andchallenging events and situations (cf. Coleet al., 2004; Schultz et al., 2004).

Emotion regulation and emotion competence

Emotion regulation affects individual and socialfunctioning across socioeconomic and culturalpopulations. In low-income primarily AfricanAmerican children, aggressive or socially nega-tive behavior early in the first semester of HeadStart classrooms reflected emotion dysregula-tion. This maladaptive behavior was thought topredict greater emotional lability at the end ofthe school year (Fantuzzo et al., 2005). Evenbrief bouts of high level emotion dysregulationpredicted teacher-rated classroom adjustmentand peer conflict (Miller et al., 2004). Emotionregulation, as well as language ability and tem-perament factors, contributed differentially topeer-play competence in the classroom (Men-dez, Fantuzzo, & Cicchetti, 2002).

Evidence suggests that emotion regulationplays a key role in managing anger and reduc-ing aggression during periods of early devel-opment (Gilliom, Shaw, Beck, Schonberg, &Lukon, 2002). Aggressive behavior may emergeas a transient part of normative behavior intoddlers’ strivings for autonomy. However, ifthe aggressive behavior does not subside andbecomes characteristic of the toddler, it willlikely remain a stable characteristic of care-giver–child interactions (Keenan & Shaw,1994). Moreover, it will arise in peer interac-tions during ages 2–5 years (Cummings, Ian-notti, & Zahn-Waxler, 1989) and characterizechildren with externalizing problems or con-duct disorder in middle childhood (Keenan,2000; O’Leary, Slep, & Reid, 1999). Un-checked development of aggression may leadto psychological disorders, more commonlyin boys than in girls (Crick, Casas, & Mosher,1997; Ostrov &Keating, 2004; Owens & Shaw,2003; Shaw et al., 1998).

Accelerating development of emotion competence 371

For children of middle-income families,emotion regulation in terms of ability to facethe problem and cope actively with emotion-eliciting situations had a beneficial effect onpreschoolers’ social behavior (Blair, Denham,Kochanoff, & Whipple, 2004). Emotion dysre-gulation in conjunction with lack of maternalguidance and control during a teaching taskpredicted children’s shy and reticent behavior(Rubin, Cheah, & Fox, 2001). Low regulationof positive emotion and exuberance, togetherwith high anger emotionality in preschool, pre-dicted externalizing behavior at age 8 years.Fear regulation, together with high fear emo-tionality, predicted internalizing behavior (Ry-dell, Berlin, & Bohlin, 2003). Emotion regula-tion in preschool contributed to both concurrentand kindergarten social competence, as indexedby peer ratings of likeability and teacher ratingsof social skills (Denham et al., 2003). Similarly,in a study with a largely European Americansample, findings suggested that emotion regula-tion and emotion knowledge made unique con-tributions to children’s emotion competencewith peers (Keane & Calkins, 2004; Lindsey& Colwell, 2003).

The foregoing summary as well as more ex-tensive reviews of relations among emotionknowledge, emotion regulation, and behavioraloutcomes suggest that emotion knowledge con-tributes to the development of emotion regula-tion. The evidence also suggests that emotioncompetence defined in terms of both emotionknowledge and emotion regulation should pro-mote an increase in self-regulated expressiveand overt behavior and a decrease in maladap-tive behavior (Denham & Burton, 2003; Izard,2002; Raver, 2004; Southam-Gerow & Ken-dall, 2002).

Accelerating the Development of EmotionKnowledge and Emotion Regulation

Contemporary research, like the classic obser-vations of Darwin, supports the idea of trans-lating findings and implications from basicresearch on emotion knowledge and emotionregulation into preventive interventions. Thisprocess requires the translation of findingsfrom empirical research on these major compo-nents of emotion competence into substantive

material and techniques that can be understood,learned, and practiced by young children. It alsorequires formulating and testing hypotheses re-lating to intervention-induced changes acrossmultiple heterogeneous measures representingemotion knowledge and emotion regulationand their behavioral correlates (Izard, 2002;Raver, 2004). Such translational and relatedintervention research has special relevance foryoung children whose emotion developmentis more likely to have been slowed by the ef-fects of poverty and its cofactors (Ackermanet al., 2004; Cutting & Dunn, 1999; Izardet al., 2001; McLloyd, 1998; Raver & Spag-nola, 2002). Both translational and interventionevaluation research seem critical to our under-standing of the development and integrationof emotion knowledge and emotion regulationinto adaptive behavior.

The challenge of accelerating or enhancingthe development of emotion knowledge andemotion regulation has been a concern of re-searchers for more than two decades. In an exten-sive review of this topic, Denham and Burton(2003) identified four programs that have pro-ven successful in enhancing the developmentof one or more aspects of preschool children’semotion or social functioning and reducingmaladaptive behavior. The four programs areSocial–Emotional Intervention for At-Risk 4-Year Olds (Denham&Burton, 1996), PreschoolPATHS—Promoting Alternative ThinkingStrategies (Domitrovich, Cortes, & Greenberg,2002), Second Step Preschool/Kindergarten(McMahon, Washburn, Felix, Yakin, & Chil-drey, 2000), and The Incredible Years (Webster-Stratton, Reid, & Hammond, 2001). Sometypes of successful interventions not coveredin the Denham and Burton (2003) review tar-geted specific negative behavior, diagnostic cate-gories, or disabilities (e.g., anxiety disorders ininhibited preschool children; Rapee, Kennedy,Ingram, Edwards, & Sweeney, 2005; challeng-ing behavior; Conroy, Durlap, Clarke, & Alter,2005).

Since Denham and Burton’s (2003) reviewidentifying four successful teacher-imple-mented interventions, other researchers havevalidated what they describe as a resilience-basedprevention program that aims to achieve bothrisk reduction and enhancement of protective


factors (Lynch, Geller, & Schmidt, 2004). Thisprogram (“Al’s Pals”) has content that overlapswith the other four validated programs as well assome distinctive content relating to drug abuseand health practices. In addition, a parentingprogram that focused on emotion coachingshowed parallel changes in young children’s de-creased emotion negativity and difficult behav-iors (Havighurst, Harley, & Prior, 2004). Allof these programs have a substantial componentfocusing on aspects of emotion development,particularly emotion knowledge and emotionregulation, along with components focusingon social skills, problem solving, and conflictresolution.

In developing the foregoing programs, theauthors took advantage of program contentand techniques from a variety of theoreticalframeworks—social–cognitive, cognitive–behav-ioral, psychoanalytic, attachment, and emotiontheories (for a review, see Denham & Burton,2003). The researchers who developed theseprograms have realized considerable successin addressing the pressing social problem of de-velopmental delay in emotion and social com-petence, and some have succeeded in reducingaggression in young children at risk (Denham&Burton, 1996; McMahon et al., 2000).

Because several successful preventive inter-ventions for preschool children at risk alreadyexist, the purpose of the present study was notsimply to validate another one. A central goalwas to develop an effective intervention withina single theoretical framework to facilitate thesearch for causal processes in behavior change.A prevention program that makes all its sub-stantive content and techniques consistentwith a single theory should offer some advan-tages in explaining treatment effects and the fac-tors involved in the development of adaptivebehavior. Current preventive interventions thataddress anger expression, aggression, disrup-tive and withdrawal behavior in young childrenhave not greatly increased our understanding offactors that contribute to behavior changes inthese domains (Denham & Burton, 2003; Ha-vighurst, 2003; Izard, 2002). Although effec-tive as prevention programs, their eclecticapproaches make them less effective in relatingcausal processes in treatment-induced behaviorchanges to particular theoretical principles and

theory-based techniques (Gennetian, Bos, &Morris, 2002; Robins, 1992).

Conceptual Framework for Emotion-BasedPrevention Program (EBP) and theExplication of Treatment Effects

EBP shares common ground with the success-ful programs that we identified above. Forexample, all the programs have componentsdesigned to increase emotion knowledge andemotion regulation. EBP is distinct in that allits substance and techniques derive from emo-tion theory.

EBP is an emotion-based treatment for ac-celerating emotion competence and decreasingmaladaptive behavior that stems from differen-tial emotions theory (Izard, 2001a, 2002) andfollows the tradition of Darwin (1872/1998)and Tomkins (1962, 1963). It emphasizes theinherently adaptive functions of emotions andrecognizes that poor understanding and regula-tion of emotions may put children on a trajec-tory toward psychopathology. In keeping withkey tenets of the underlying theory, the centralgoal of EBP is to increase young children’sability to understand and regulate emotions, uti-lize modulated emotions, and reduce maladap-tive behavior. It makes no use of the extrinsicreward characteristic of some behavioral andcognitive–behavioral programs (see Bear, Web-ster-Stratton, Furlong, & Rhee, 2000, for a re-view of some of these interventions). Rather,EBP depends on the intrinsic rewards thatderive from increased emotion competenceand decreased maladaptive behavior (Izard,2002).

On the basis of differential emotions theoryand the relevant empirical research, we posit adynamic relation between emotion knowledge,emotion regulation, and behavioral outcomes.They influence each other in a nonlinear fash-ion. Inadequate emotion knowledge that causesmisperception of another child’s neutral expres-sions as signs of anger may lead to emotiondysregulation, conflict, and aggressive behav-ior (Schultz et al., 2004). Frequent aggressivebehavior may lead to traitlike changes in emo-tion thresholds that lead to increased emotiondysregulation (Izard, 1977) and peer rejection(Hubbard & Coie, 1994; Hubbard et al., 2002).


Moreover, an aggressor’s dysregulated angerwill tend to create a traitlike bias in perceptualand cognitive processes that degrade emotioninformation processing and impede the acquisi-tion of accurate or ecologically valid emotionknowledge (Denham et al., 2002; Izard et al.,2001; Lemerise & Arsenio, 2000; Schultzet al., 2004). An anger perception bias couldcontribute to the perpetuation of the maladap-tive emotion–cognition–behavior cycle.

A similar maladaptive interaction amongemotion knowledge, emotion regulation, andbehavioral outcomes can also occur in relationto emotions associated with internalizing prob-lems. Failure of peers and adults to detect andrespond appropriately to a child’s signs of sad-ness and shyness may exacerbate the child’swithdrawal behavior and increase the likelihoodthat the child will develop depression (Fineet al., 2003). Therefore, we expected that inter-vention-induced increases in emotion knowl-edge and emotion regulation would representa gain in emotion competence that leads to adecrease in maladaptive behavior.

Testing the Effects of EBP

We examined the effects of EBP on Head Startchildren in both a rural/small town (Study 1)and an inner-city setting (Study 2). Althoughthe two studies have central features in com-mon, the second was not designed as an exactreplication of the first. For the second study,we used feedback from discussions with teach-ers to adapt EBP for use in an inner-city setting.The feedback from inner-city Head Start teach-ers and our experience from study 1 led to somechanges in EBP, particularly in the EmotionsCourse (EC) component. In addition, the find-ings from Study 1 and differences in resourcesavailable for each study led to a change in somemeasures for Study 2.

Study 1

In implementing EBP in the rural/small townHead Start system, practical matters necessita-ted devoting 1 year to program developmentand teacher training and a second year to a pre-liminary trial of EBP prior to initiating Study1. Teacher training to administer the EC consis-

ted of only one 2-hr session because of the verytight schedule for all aspects of staff training atthe beginning of the school year in the collabo-rating Head Start system. Thus, we conceivedthe first implementation (2001–2002 academicyear) as a learn by doing training experience forthe teachers. We got quite positive and helpfulqualitative feedback from teachers and supervi-sory staff in response to this first implementa-tion of EBP. A preliminary trial (2002–2003)showed that the experimental treatment signifi-cantly increased children’s emotion knowledgeand decreased teachers’ ratings of negativeemotion expressions (Izard et al., 2004).

For Study 1, the first comprehensive trial ofEBP (2003–2004), we made three hypotheses.We hypothesized that EBP would increaseemotion knowledge (Hypothesis 1), increaseemotion regulation (Hypothesis 2), and in-crease adaptive social behavior and decreasemaladaptive behavior that might include pre-cursors of psychopathology (Hypothesis 3).Last, we examined teachers’ experience, theirfidelity in implementing EBP, parent participa-tion, child age, and child gender as possiblemoderators of treatment effects.

Method

Design. The research plan was a cluster random-ized design. Because random assignment ofclassrooms would very likely result in a mixof treatment and control group teachers in thesame center, and hence a high risk of contami-nation across conditions, randomization was bycenter. Six Head Start centers were randomlyassigned to treatment (EBP) and control(Head Start as usual) groups. The number ofclasses in these centers ranged from one tofour. Altogether there were 16 (9 EBP, 7 con-trol) classrooms in the six participating HeadStart centers.

Participants. The participants came from a col-laborating Head Start system that serves smalltowns and the surrounding rural areas of twocounties in a mid-Atlantic state. Six of theseven centers in these counties participatedin the project. The seventh center was notincluded in the randomized design because ithad just opened and was staffed with one


teacher that had former training and experiencein administering the EC component of EBP andone that did not. The Head Start administrationagreed to make EBP part of the overall curricu-lum in treatment classrooms. Within the nineEBP/treatment and seven control classrooms,participation in the pre- and post-EBP assess-ments ranged from about 50 to 100% of thechildren, depending on the number of parentswho gave informed consent for this phase ofthe project. The resulting sample included 191children ages 2.93–5.03 years (M¼ 3.89 years,SD ¼ 0.55); 100 were boys. Parent-reportedethnicity indicated that there were 66 AfricanAmerican children, 82 Caucasian, 26 Biracial,2 Asian, and 1Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (14 par-ents did not report their child’s ethnic identity);21 of the 191 children were Hispanic.

Families moving and children leaving HeadStart resulted in a final sample of 179 childrenat pretest and 146 children at posttest. Resultsof t tests revealed no mean differences betweenchildren in the final sample and those who hadincomplete data at posttest. Because some chil-dren attend Head Start for 2 years, 18 childrenreceived the treatment as 3-year-olds in 2002–2003 and again as 4-year-olds in 2003–2004.The 18 children who had the course twicewere significantly older than the other childrenin Study 1 at pretest, t (178) ¼ 4.68, p , .01.There were no mean differences on the pretestor posttest measures between the 18 childrenwho had the course twice and those of thesame age who had it only once (ts ¼ .01–1.60, ps ¼ .12–.99), so all children wereretained in the analyses.

Experimental treatment: EBP. The experimen-tal treatment, EBP, consisted of three compo-nents: (a) the EC conducted by Head Startteachers, (b) biweekly observations of EC les-sons and consultations with teachers by the au-thors, and (c) parent involvement consisting ofweekly messages about the emotion lessonsand four monthly meetings for discussions ofthe EC content and techniques.

Description of EBP. In developing EBP, wefollowed what some have described as the firstprinciple of primary prevention (Bond & Hauf,2004). We made all the substance and tech-

niques of the experimental intervention congru-ent with the underlying theory and relevantempirical research. EC materials include twomanuals for teachers: one that presents the con-ceptual framework and another that details 20lessons, each with three to five parts (Izard,2001b; Izard, Fine, Mostow, Trentacosta, &Campbell, 2002). The lessons focus mainlyon joy/happiness, sadness, anger, and fear.They also introduce the emotion of interest asthe one that drives learning and explorationand contempt as the emotional behavior thatmakes someone feel left out.

Part 1 of each lesson begins with the teacherand assistant teacher doing a puppet show thatillustrates the gist of the lesson. The rest of thelesson consists of interactive games relating toaspects of the emotions.

During the EBP lesson, children are fre-quently given the opportunity to label orname emotion expressions depicted on posters.They compare the expressions of different emo-tions and they compare different intensities ofeach of the individual emotions. The teacheralso gives the children the opportunity andsome coaching in drawing expressions of theemotions, and encoding the expressions forclassmates to see. A central aim of these exer-cises is to increase skills in decoding emotionsignals or recognizing emotion expressions.

During another part of the lessons in eachemotion category, the teacher asks the childrenif they would like to tell the class what causesthem to feel the emotion featured in the lesson(e.g., “What makes you feel sad?”). Thisgame aims to help children learn about event–emotion relations, individual differences inemotionality and emotion responding, and tolay a foundation for the development of empa-thy.

Each lesson ends with the interactive readingof an emotion storybook that, like the puppetshow, provides children the opportunity to ex-perience mild emotions vicariously. Teachersare trained to try to capitalize on the ongoingemotion feeling/motivation experienced bythe children in these and other EC game-likeactivities, thereby helping the children to lockin learned labels for emotion feeling statesand expressions and enhance discourse aboutemotions and their functions in a safe and


supportive environment. The underlying as-sumption is that increasing children’s abilityto understand and articulate their feeling statesor emotion experiences will increase their con-scious control of them.

The lessons contain several specific tech-niques for regulating emotions in self and others.We attempted to make each one of them a con-structive activity that could be motivated by thechild’s own modulated emotion. For example, alesson devoted to helping a friend who is sad in-cludes coaching on recognizing another child’ssadness, empathy, and using the vicarious emo-tion experience as part of the motivation forhelping behavior such as comforting and offer-ing to play.

In developing EBP, wemade the assumptionthat emotion regulation enables emotion utiliza-tion, or effective use of modulated emotionfeelings. Thus, a central feature of EBP is itsemphasis on increasing children’s ability toregulate emotion by harnessing its inherentlyadaptive motivational component for construc-tive behavior. An example is the hold tight tech-nique. It teaches a child that on sensing conflictand anger arousal he or she should (a) hug him-self or herself or hold tight to something soft(pillow), (b) take three deep breaths and countthem, (c) use words to negotiate, and (d) playfair. Step 1 is designed to decrease the energyof emotion arousal by using some of it in a be-nign activity. Step 2 further decreases physio-logical arousal and engages the mind by focusinginterest in the benign mental operations ofattending to one’s breaths and counting them.Steps 3 and 4 are intended to utilize the modu-lated emotion motivation in constructive inter-personal negotiation and interaction. Thus, thehold tight technique teaches the child to reduceanger arousal (by using energy to hold ontosomething soft or hugging oneself and takingdeep breaths), engage cognitive processes incounting the deep breaths, and to capitalize onthe modulated emotion motivation by usingwords to negotiate.

Comparison of the hold tight techniquewith the widely used turtle technique for angermanagement (Denham & Burton, 1996; Green-berg & Kusche, 1993, 1998; Robin, Schneider,& Dolnick, 1976; Schneider, 1974) highlightssome similarities and key differences between

EBP and other successful preventive interven-tion programs for young children. Both tech-niques are designed to reduce arousal, but onlyhold tight facilitates the reduction by immedi-ately using some of the energy and muscle ten-sion generated by anger arousal. Both tech-niques use deep breathing as a means of tensionreduction (probably via decreasing sympatheticnervous system activity), but only hold tightemphasizes the value of quickly harnessingsome of the energy of anger arousal to negotiateand resolve the anger-eliciting situation. Theturtle technique encourages children to with-draw from the situation until they are com-pletely calm. In contrast, the hold tight techniqueencourages expression of the emotion feelingas part of Step 3 (using words and emotioncommunication to negotiate or resolve the prob-lem). Thus, hold tight exemplifies not only atechnique for emotion regulation but also onethat facilitates emotion utilization or effectiveuse of emotion, a key feature of EBP.

EBP includes dialogues to assist teachers inemotion tutoring and coaching with a child ex-periencing dysregulation. It provides weeklymessages to parents requesting that they interactwith their children in away that rehearses some-thing the children had learned about emotionsthat week. (For more detail on EBP and theunderlying differential emotions theory, seeIzard, 2002, and Izard et al., 2002.)

Conducting EBP. Before initial data collec-tion, we waited about 3 weeks for the childrento accommodate to Head Start. Then, the teach-ers completed pretreatment ratings of the chil-dren, research assistants administered assess-ments to children individually, and additionalresearch assistants conducted structured obser-vations. After the pretesting, the teachers ad-ministered the 20-week EC, sent home theweekly messages to parents, and participatedin biweekly fidelity checks or fidelity checksplus consultations with the authors. Postinter-vention teacher ratings, assessments, and obser-vations followed completion of the treatment.

Biweekly observations and consultationswith emotion course teachers. Every 2 weeksone of the authors observed each of the treat-ment group teachers conduct an EC lesson


and completed a form assessing treatment fi-delity. This form covered fidelity to the tech-niques and lesson content of the Emotion LessonManual and fidelity to the conceptual frame-work of EBP. Four of the nine treatment class-rooms were randomly selected for additionalteacher consultation sessions subsequent tolesson observations. In treatment classroomswhere this additional teacher consultation wasconducted, the biweekly observation and con-sultation served as a means of reinforcing thecentral theoretical premises. These premises re-late to the adaptiveness of emotions and thebenefits that accrue to children from under-standing and regulating emotions and utilizingmodulated emotion motivation effectively. Itsometimes afforded the opportunity to observeand provide feedback on a teacher’s effort to doemotion coaching with a child who was experi-encing emotion arousal that was beginning torun out of control. We also discussed with theteachers their work in emotion tutoring andcoaching during the past 2 weeks. Finally, wereviewed the several emotion tutoring andcoaching techniques that are described in theEmotion Lesson Manual for use when a childexhibits intense and unregulated emotion.Because no significant differences between thetreatment groups were found at posttest, thenine treatment classrooms were combined forall analyses.

Parent involvement in EBP.We attempted toinvolve parents in two ways. First, over the20-week period of implementation of the pro-gram we sent all parents in the treatment groupa weekly message, one for each of the 20 EClessons. Each message summarized the lessonof the week or highlighted a key aspect of it.It also requested that the parent complete andreturn to the Head Start center (via her child)a brief parent–child lesson-related activity thatrequires a response from her child. For example,the message for Lesson 5 tells the parent to askthe child: “What can you do to help a child whois sad?” After the response to the first question,the parent asks: “If you were sad, what wouldyou like a friend to do for you?” For Lesson6, the parent asks the child to draw a mad faceand then asks the child “What does the madface say?”

Second, we had four meetings at Head Startcenters for parents in the treatment group. Be-cause our meetings had to follow meetings reg-ularly scheduled for parents by the Head Startadministration, our time was limited to about30 min. Our meetings, like the regular HeadStart parent meetings, were typically poorly at-tended. Although Head Start provided refresh-ments, and we added a small incentive of $10for parents on the nights we met with them,less than one-third of them attended. With theexception of two meetings at one of the centers,we had only 4–10 parents (out of a possible30–60) at each meeting.

In the time we had with the few parents whoattended, we discussed the content of EBP toincrease understanding of what their childrenwere learning about emotions at Head Start.We also illustrated techniques that we hadtaught teachers to use to help children under-stand, regulate, and utilize emotions. We talkedabout the weekly parent messages and notedthat they provided a brief summary of each ofthe Emotion Course lessons. Finally, we dis-cussed how doing the brief emotion-related par-ent–child activity described in the parent mes-sage would help their children learn aboutemotions and how to talk to them about theirfeelings. We sometimes got permission to usea parent-completed description of an emotion-related activity to stimulate discussion.

Child measures. Preintervention data on thechildren were collected from late Septemberto early November 2003 and postinterventiondata were collected from April to May 2004by specially trained undergraduate research as-sistants who were blind to treatment condition.On different days and in separate sessions, theseassistants gave each child two tests: a measureof verbal ability (administered only at pretest)and a measure of emotion knowledge. Immedi-ately following the emotion knowledge mea-sure, the research assistant rated the child’sattention during testing.

Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test—ThirdEdition (PPVT-III). The PPVT-III (Dunn &Dunn, 1997) provided a measure of receptivevocabulary and an estimate of cognitive ability.Each page of the PPVT-III test booklet has four


pictures on it. The research assistant says awordand asks the child to point to the picture thatrepresents that word. The PPVT-III (a ¼ .94)correlated .91 with a measure of general in-telligence in children (Dunn & Dunn, 1997).

Emotion matching task (EMT). The EMT(Izard, Haskins, Schultz, Trentacosta, & King2003) measured four relatively distinct facetsof emotion knowledge relating to the (a) recog-nition of emotion expressions, (b) production ofexpression labels, (c) matching of expressionsand examiner-verbalized expression labels,and (d) articulation of the causes of joy, sad-ness, anger, and fear expressions. Each of the48 items on the EMT requires a response to aquestion relating to a standardized facial ex-pression photograph of one of these four basicemotions. For the EMT total score, a ¼ .82and .86, respectively, at the two time points ofthe study. Correlations of EMT (total score)with widely used measures of children’s emo-tion knowledge attest to its construct validity.In a sample of 59 middle-class preschoolers,the correlations of EMT with the Kusche Emo-tional Interview (Kusche, 1984) was .70 andwith Denham’s (1986) Puppet Interview .75(Morgan, Izard, King, Diaz, & Trentacosta,2005). EMTwas specially developed for multi-ethnic low-income populations. Unlike similarmeasures, it is based primarily on ethnicallydiverse and well-standardized emotion expres-sion photographs. Moreover, it makes less de-mand on cognitive ability than measures usedmore frequently with children from middle-income families.

Guide to the Assessment of Test SessionBehavior (GATSB). Immediately following theEMT, the research assistant rated the child’sattention during testing by completing theInattentiveness scale of the GATSB (Glut-ting & Oakland, 1991). Only the seven itemsthat were applicable to the testing of pre-schoolers were used (a ¼ .87 at pretest, a ¼.82 at posttest).

Teacher measures.

The Emotion Regulation Checklist (ERC).The ERC (Shields & Cicchetti, 1997) was

used to measure children’s emotion regulationabilities. To maintain emotion regulation as aconstruct independent of emotion knowledge,we removed two items from the scale thatconcern emotion knowledge. The remaining22 4-point Likert scale items relate to eitheremotion regulation skills (7 items, a ¼ .82 atpretest, a ¼ .72 at posttest) or lability/negativeemotionality (15 items, a ¼ .88 at pretest,a ¼ .90 at posttest).

The Emotion Expression Ratings Scale(EERS). Frequency of emotion expressionswas rated using the seven-item EERS (Izard,2000). On the EERS, teachers used a 7-pointLikert scale to rate the frequency with whicheach child expressed the positive emotions ofinterest and joy (a ¼ .80 at pretest, a ¼ .81 atposttest) and the negative emotions of sadness,anger, fear, shame, and guilt (a¼ .69 at pretest,a ¼ .51 at posttest).

The Caregiver–Teacher Report Form(C-TRF). The C-TRF Aggressive BehaviorScale (a ¼ .96 at pre- and posttest) and Anx-ious/Depressed Scale (a ¼ .71 at pretest, a¼ .70 at posttest) were used to assess symptomsof externalizing and internalizing behavior(Achenbach & Rescorla, 2000). The C-TRF isa standardized measure with well-establishedreliability and validity. Teachers read a briefdescription of a behavior or characteristic andrated how true this was of the child on a 3-pointLikert scale.

The Preschool Competence Questionnaire(PCQ). The PCQ (a ¼ .96 at pretest, a ¼ .95at posttest; Olson, 1984) was included as a briefmeasure of preschoolers’ social competence.The 20 items of the PCQ assess positive peerinteractions, social cooperativeness, and learn-ing ability.

Independent observer measure. Six under-graduate research assistants who were keptblind to treatment condition were trained onthe use of a structured observation system.Research assistants were provided with oraland written instructions for making observa-tions of behaviors and emotion expressionsand a detailed explanation of all observation


categories. Training was complete when theresearch assistant reached an average of at least85% agreement with one of the authors overthree consecutive 8-min observation sessionswith no session having less than 80% agree-ment. Each observation data-collection periodlasted 8 min. Observers listened with ear-phones to cassettes that beeped at 15-s inter-vals for 8 min. The observation categoriesconsisted of children’s interactions with others,parallel play, solitary behavior, and emotionexpressions (happiness, sadness, and anger).Coders recorded each behavioral event at themoment of the beep and the predominantemotion expression across the preceding 15-sinterval.

Because of time limitations, we randomlyselected half of the children in each classroomfor observation. Each of these children was ob-served during three free-play periods on sepa-rate days across at least 2 weeks of a 5-week pe-riod both pre- and postintervention. Because ofthe low base rate of many of the separate expres-sions and actions observed, like-valenced emo-

tion expressions and actions toward peers andteachers were totaled to form one index for pos-itive behavior and positive emotion expressionsand one for negative behavior and negativeemotion expressions. Across the 6 weeks ofpretest observations, approximately 15% of ob-servations were double coded to verify that re-liability across coders remained at or above85% agreement.

Results

Table 1 presents the means and standard devia-tions and Table 2 presents the intercorrelationsfor all variables in the study. The magnitudeof the correlations among cognitive ability,emotion regulation, and emotion knowledgeare consistent with previous findings fromlow-income populations. The analyses for 3of the 10 outcome variables (one index of emo-tion regulation, social competence, and positiveemotion expression) were rendered invalid be-cause their means differed significantly acrosstreatment and control groups at pretest.

Table 1. Study 1: Means and standard deviations of all variables

Variable

Pretest Posttest

EBP Control EBP Control

M SD M SD M SD M SD

PPVT-III 85.43 14.23 88.00 15.14Emotion knowledge 19.14 6.89 19.37 7.36 28.21 8.20 25.06 7.50ER: emotion regulationa 20.61 3.86 22.71 3.33 21.92 3.66 22.22 3.84ER: lability/neg. emotionality 23.75 6.68 23.52 6.67 22.08 5.91 25.70 9.78Social competencea 37.58 11.08 41.94 10.22 42.25 11.39 45.57 11.58Positive emotion expressiona 8.61 1.85 9.28 1.66 9.09 1.86 10.53 1.58Observations: positive 41.09 18.68 45.25 17.82 60.97 16.71 69.00 30.35Aggressive behavior 6.64 8.99 5.57 8.29 4.44 7.50 8.68 10.85Anxious/depressed behavior 2.25 2.48 1.85 1.76 1.45 1.88 2.45 2.37Negative emotion expression 7.49 2.87 7.74 2.47 6.63 2.34 7.77 2.00Observations: negative 4.93 6.87 4.04 4.11 2.03 2.57 4.37 3.76

Note: EBP, Emotion Based Prevention Program; PPVT-III, Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test—III score; Emotion knowl-edge, emotion matching task score; ER: emotion regulation, Emotion Regulation Checklist (ERC) Emotion RegulationScale score; ER: lability/neg. emotionality, ERC Lability/Negative Emotionality Scale score; social competence, Pre-school Competence Questionnaire score; positive emotion expression, Emotion Expression Ratings Scale (EERS) PositiveScale score; Observations: positive, aggregate of independent observers’ ratings of children’s positive interactions withpeers, positive interactions with adults, and happy expressions; aggressive behavior, Caregiver–Teacher Report Form(C-TRF) Aggressive Behavior Scale score; anxious/depressed behavior, C-TRF Anxious/Depressed Behavior Scale score;negative emotion expression, EERS Negative Scale score; observations: negative, aggregate of independent observers’ratings of children’s negative interactions with peers, negative interactions with adults, anger expressions, and sad express-ions.aSignificant difference between groups in pretest means.


Table 2. Study 1: Intercorrelations among outcome measures at pretest, verbal ability, and age

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1. Emot. knowledge — .24** 2.12 .34** .30** .27* 2.02 2.12 2.11 2.30* .55** .43**2. ER: emot. reg. — 2.48** .70** .73** .16 2.29** 2.48** 2.23** 2.30* .22** .17*3. ER: lab./neg. — 2.68** 2.35** .11 .84** .33** .30** .41** 2.11 2.20*4. Social competence — .65** .18* 2.62** 2.32** 2.28** 2.38** .39** .27**5. Positive emotion expression — .19 2.34** 2.45** 2.29** 2.34** .21** .25**6. Observations: positive — .08 2.14 .05 2.05 .22 .167. Aggressive behavior — .25** .41** .50** 2.10 2.088. Anxious/depressed behavior — .31** .20 2.07 2.129. Negative emotion expression — .19 2.00 2.1210. Observations: negative — 2.08 2.30*11. Age — .1312. PPVT-III

Note: Emot. knowledge, emotion matching task score; ER: emot. reg., Emotion Regulation Checklist (ERC) Emotion Regulation Scale score: ER: lab./neg. Emotionality, ERC Lability/Negative Emo-tionality Scale score; social competence, Preschool Competence Questionnaire score; positive emotion expression, Emotion Expression Ratings Scale (EERS) Positive Scale score; observations: positive,aggregate of independent observers’ ratings of children’s positive interactions with peers, positive interactions with adults, and happy expressions; aggressive behavior, caregiver–Teacher Report Form (C-TRF) Aggressive Behavior Scale score; anxious/depressed behavior, C-TRF Anxious/Depressed Behavior Scale score; negative emotion expression, EERS Negative Scale score; observations: negative,aggregate of independent observers’ ratings of children’s negative interactions with peers, negative interactions with adults, anger expressions, and sad expressions; age, child age at pretest; PPVT-III,Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test—Third Edition score at pretest.*p , .05. **p , .01.

380

Primary analyses of treatment effectiveness.When examining intervention effects in educa-tional settings, the nesting of children in class-rooms and classrooms in schools can lead tobiased standard errors. The bias is usually inthe direction of reduced standard errors (Mur-ray, 1998) and can lead to inflated estimatesof treatment effects and increased Type I errors.We therefore performed the primary data anal-ysis using hierarchical linear modeling (HLM;Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002). HLM providescorrect standard errors for tests of inferencethat take into account interdependence in thedata because of clustering. Because someHead Start centers had only one classroomand there were too few centers altogether(N ¼ 6) to expect stable estimates of varianceat the center level, we performed two-levelanalyses with children represented at Level 1and classrooms at Level 2.

We estimated seven models in HLM, onefocused on each of the main outcome variablesexcept for the three that had significant meandifferences across treatment conditions at pre-test (Cohen & Cohen, 1983, p. 380). In eachtwo-level model predicting an outcome vari-able, Level 1 represented individual children(within-class variance) and Level 2 representedclassrooms (between-class variance). Beforeestimating each model, we correlated each out-come variable with its pretest score and the po-tential confounding variables (potential covari-ates) of age, gender, PPVT-III score, and theirinteractions with treatment. Potential covariatesthat had significant correlations ( p, .05) wereincluded in the final models. The model pre-dicting EMT scores also included researchassistants’ ratings of children on the GATSBinattention scale. All predictor variables excepttreatment and gender of child were grand-mean centered. We entered treatment at Level2 as a dummy-coded variable (1 ¼ treatment,0 ¼ control).

Table 3 provides estimates for the final HLMmodels across the seven outcome variables thathad comparable means at pretest. The primaryanalyses failed to support Hypothesis 1 in thatthe increase in emotion knowledge for the EBPgroup as a whole did not differ significantlyfrom that of the control group. However, becauseage approached significance and accounted for

30% of the variance in EMT scores, we con-ducted an additional HLM analysis to determinewhether EBP affected emotion knowledge in thesubset of childrenwhowere at least 4 years old atpretest. This analysis of the effect of EBP onemotion knowledge was significant, t (14) ¼2.28, p , .05, Cohen d ¼ .75, providing partialsupport for Hypothesis 1.

A statistically significant EBP effect ( p ,.05) for the teacher-rated emotion regulation scaleof lability/negative emotionality provided par-tial support for Hypothesis 2. The analyses sup-portedHypothesis 3 by showing that EBP signif-icantly decreased aggressive behavior, anxious/depressed behavior, and negative emotion ex-pression and independent observers’ recordsof negative behaviors and emotions. The resultsdid not show significant effects of EBP on pos-itive or adaptive behavior.

To further examine the prediction of Hy-pothesis 3 that EBP would decrease possibleprecursors of psychopathology, we used chi-square analyses to test changes in C-TRF clas-sifications from pre- to posttest in treatmentand control classrooms. Only children whoremained in Head Start through posttest wereincluded in these analyses. EBP decreased thenumber of children with C-TRF scores at bor-derline or above clinical cutoff on the aggres-sive behavior or anxious/depressed behaviorscales from 15% (14 children) to 9% (8 chil-dren). In contrast, the number of children inthese categories tripled in the control group,increasing from 7% (4 children) to 22% (12children). The differences in frequencies ofchildren with abnormal C-TRF scores betweengroups was not significant at pretest, x 2 (1,N¼149) ¼ 1.90, p , .10, but was significant atposttest, x 2 (1, N ¼ 149) ¼ 5.29, p , .05.

Analyses for potential moderators of treat-ment/EBP effects. Teacher experience (num-ber of years) in teaching EBP and teacher fi-delity to the EBP manual were explored aspossible moderators of treatment effects. Theprimary models were rerun for children in theEBP group with the addition of each of theseprospective moderators. Fidelity to the EBPmanual predicted larger gains in emotionknowledge, t (7) ¼ 2.75, p , .05. Parent par-ticipation, indexed by return of completed


parent messages to teachers, was not a signifi-cant moderator of outcomes. Child gender andchild age did not moderate treatment outcomesother than emotion knowledge, as describedabove.

DiscussionThe data only partially supported the generalhypothesis. The results showed that EBP accel-erated the development of emotion knowledgeand emotion regulation for only some of the

Table 3. Study 1: Primary hierarchical linear modeling analyses

Fixed Effect Coefficient t df Cohen d

Emotion knowledgeIntercept 26.26 24.29** 14EBP treatment 2.14 1.69 14Age 0.01 1.85† 15Verbal ability 0.06 1.60 15Time 1 emotion knowledge 0.36 3.38** 15GATSB inattention 20.45 21.68 15

ER: lability/negative emotionalityIntercept 25.42 32.84** 14EBP treatment 23.26 23.39** 14 .45Verbal ability 0.08 1.66 15Time 1 lability/negative emotionality 0.92 4.49** 15

Observations: positiveIntercept 68.81 12.49** 14EBP treatment 27.63 21.14 14Time 1 observations: positive 0.33 1.70 15

Aggressive behaviorIntercept 7.45 7.11** 14EBP treatment 23.37 23.13** 14 .45Gender 1.37 1.24 15Time 1 aggressive behavior 0.71 5.77** 15

Anxious/depressed behaviorIntercept 2.44 8.53** 14EBP treatment 20.87 22.54* 14 .47Time 1 anxious/depressed behavior 0.49 4.35** 15

Negative emotion expressionIntercept 7.84 19.89** 14EBP treatment 21.26 22.66* 14 .53Time 1 negative emotion expression 0.32 3.38** 15

Observations: negativeIntercept 4.18 5.44** 14EBP treatment 22.54 23.56** 14 .73Gender 0.46 0.57 15Verbal ability 0.03 0.73 15Time 1 observations: negative 0.13 1.31 15

Note: Cohen’s d (computed as the ratio of the posttest mean difference to the pooled SD) is reported only for significantEmotion Based Prevention Program (EBP) effects. Emotion knowledge, emotion matching task score; GATSB, Guideto the Assessment of Test Session Behavior; ER: emotion regulation, Emotion Regulation Checklist (ERC) Emotion Reg-ulation Scale score: ER: lability/negative emotionality, ERC Lability/Negative Emotionality Scale score; social compe-tence, Preschool Competence Questionnaire score; positive emotion expression, Emotion Expression Ratings Scale(EERS) Positive Scale score; observations: positive, aggregate of independent observers’ ratings of children’s positive in-teractions with peers, positive interactions with adults, and happy expressions; aggressive behavior, Caregiver–Teacher Re-port Form (C-TRF) Aggressive Behavior Scale score; anxious/depressed behavior, C-TRF Anxious/Depressed BehaviorScale score; negative emotion expression, EERS Negative Scale score; observations: negative, aggregate of independentobservers’ ratings of children’s negative interactions with peers, negative interactions with adults, anger expressions, andsad expressions.†p , .10. *p , .05. **p , .01.


children in the treatment group. However,teacher ratings and independent classroom obser-vations converged on the conclusion that EBPreduced both negative emotionality and mal-adaptive behavior.

The effect of EBP on emotion knowledge dif-fered for 3- and 4-year-olds. In the initial analy-sis testing Hypothesis 1, the effect of treatmenton emotion knowledge was not significant. Afollow-up age–cohort analysis showed thatEBP significantly increased emotion knowledgein 4-year-olds. The gain for 3-year-olds was notsignificant. The treatment effect on emotionknowledge was estimated after controlling forage and cognitive ability. As expected, the lattertwo predictor variables had moderate to highcorrelations with emotion knowledge.

We had expected that age and cognitive abil-ity might limit the growth of emotion knowl-edge in the younger children in our low-incomesample. Those attending Head Start for the firsttime were mostly 3-year-olds, and some wereunder 3 at the start of the treatment. Their pre-test mean receptive vocabulary score was a fullstandard deviation below the norm, and their in-dividual chronological age equivalents rangedfrom 1.9 to 2.6 (Dunn & Dunn, 1997). Thesedata suggest that they were well behind thepace of normative growth in the 0–3 period, aperiod of rapid development in brain systemsserving cognitive ability, language, emotion,and social processes (Cicchetti & Tucker,1994; Dawson, Hessl, & Frey, 1994; Fonagy,1998; Greenough, 1987, 1991; Laucht, Esser,& Schmidt, 1994; Panksepp, 2001; Posner &Rothbart, 2000; Zeanah, Boris, & Scheeringa,1997).

In the overall analysis testing Hypothesis 2,we found that, as expected, EBP predicted a sig-nificant decrease in the lability/negative emo-tionality scale of the ERC. We did not have avalid test of the effects of EBP on the emotionregulation scale of the ERC because therewere pretest mean differences across groupson this measure.

The analyses provided support for only onepart of Hypothesis 3. The results did not showthat EBP increased adaptive behavior. Theydid show that EBP decreased maladaptivebehavior patterns. Results revealed significantdecreases in both internalizing and externaliz-

ing types of maladaptive behavior. In the over-all analysis testing the effect of EBP on childbehavior, the results showed that compared tochildren in the control condition, children inthe treatment (EBP) condition had greater de-creases in negative emotion expressions, neg-ative classroom encounters, externalizing be-havior, and anxious/depressed behaviors. Thesebehavioral outcomes have positive implicationsfor the development of school readiness.Externalizing behavior may be the numberone target of Head Start and early elementarygrade school teachers’ efforts to regulate emo-tion, particularly anger in possession contestsand other agonistic encounters (Cummingset al., 1989; Keenan & Shaw, 1994; Shaw et al.,1994).

EBP apparently reduced maladaptive be-havior that might include precursors of psy-chopathology. This was particularly so for asubset of children whose C-TRF scores wereat the borderline or above the clinical cutoffon aggressive or anxious/depressed behavior.The number of children above the clinical cut-off on the indices of these precursors ofpsychopathology decreased by nearly half inthe treatment group and tripled in the controlcondition.

We failed to find a treatment effect on thethree measures of positive behavior: teachers’ratings of social competence (PCQ), teachers’ratings of positive emotion expression(EERS), and the aggregate of independentobservers’ ratings of positive classroom interac-tions and emotion expression. However, analy-ses for two of the three measures of positivebehavior, teacher ratings of social competenceand teacher ratings of positive emotion expres-sion, were invalid because the pretest meansdiffered across groups. That independentobservers also failed to find a difference in pos-itive behaviors and expressions across treatmentand control classrooms is consistent with theidea that EBP did not increase positive behav-ior. Overall, the results of Study 1 were incon-clusive as to whether the findings regarding alack of positive outcomes reflected a weaknessin the treatment/EBP, a measurement problem,or a design feature (randomization at the centerlevel) that led to pretest mean differences ontwo of the positive behavior variables.


Study 2

A goal for Study 2 was to increase the general-izability of the effectiveness of EBP by verify-ing the principal findings from the rural/smalltown Head Start system in an inner-city systemand to extend the search for mediators andmoderators of treatment (EBP) effects. Study 1compared EBP only to Head Start as usual,but in Study 2 we compared the treatment ef-fects of EBP with those of an established inter-vention program called I Can Problem Solve(ICPS; Shure, 1993). The Head Start teachersin the collaborating urban Head Start systemhad been trained to do ICPS, and it had beenin place as a social–cognitive component ofthe Head Start’s curriculum for more than 10years. Study 2 thus offered an opportunity fora head to head treatment comparison.

An exact replication of Study 1 was not pos-sible because of administrative and curriculumchanges in the rural system. Moreover, it wasnecessary to make some changes in EBP foruse in the inner-city system. These changeswere made, in part, through discussions withstaff and teachers. One purpose of the changeswas to make a more teacher-friendly EC Man-ual and involve the teachers in this task. Asecond purpose of the changes, inspired by nullfindings for emotion knowledge gains in 3-year-olds in Study 1, was to make the programmore engaging for the younger children. Thechanges concerned formatting (use of desktoppublishing to make the manual easier to useand more visually engaging), accessories(e.g., more ethnically diverse emotion expres-sion photographs and illustrations), and addi-tional emotion story books and emotion-re-lated crafts. These adaptations did not affectthe theoretical substance or the primary tech-niques of EBP.

As in Study 1, we tested three hypotheses:compared to ICPS, EBP would show relativelygreater increases in emotion knowledge (Hypoth-esis 1) and emotion regulation (Hypothesis 2),and greater increases in adaptive behavior alongwith greater decreases in maladaptive behavior(Hypothesis 3). We expected emotion knowl-edge to mediate the effect of EBP on emotionregulation, and emotion competence, definedin terms of emotion knowledge and emotion

regulation, to mediate the effect of EBP onsocial competence. As in Study 1, we alsoexplored possible moderating effects of teacherfidelity, parent participation, child age, andchild gender.

Method

Design. As in Study 1, the research plan was acluster randomized design. Six of the 7 centersin the urban Head Start system were randomlyassigned to treatment and comparison groupswith the restrictions that the groups bebalanced in terms of ethnicity and the numberof classrooms. The number of classrooms inthese centers ranged from 1 to 9, and the totalwas 26. A seventh center was not included inthe study because of a change in teacherassignment after substantial training had takenplace that prevented it from being a pureEBP or ICPS room. No participants wererecruited from that center.

Participants. The participants came from a col-laborating Head Start system that serves an in-ner-city area in a mid-Atlantic state (adjacentto the state in which Study 1 was conducted).All children in the treatment group receivedEBP because the Head Start administrationagreed to make it part of the overall curriculumin these classrooms. All children in the compar-ison group received the ICPS program. Therewere 15 treatment and 11 comparison class-rooms. The number of participants at pretestwas 191, but because of families moving andchildren leaving Head Start or switching acrossEBP and comparison treatment classrooms itwas 177 at posttest. Children ranged in agefrom 2.99 to 5.17 years (M ¼ 4.22 years, SD¼ 0.60); 91 were boys. Parent-reported raceand ethnicity indicated that 50% were AfricanAmerican, 48% were Hispanic or Latino.

Procedure. The substance and techniques ofEBP, the manner in which it was conducted,and fidelity checks remained the same as inStudy 1. Teachers were trained by the authorsat four, 2-hr sessions prior to program implemen-tation. Training included discussion of EBP prin-ciples and practice of lessons on each emotioncovered in the EC. During the intervention,


biweekly consultations were held with all EBPteachers. Differences occurred in parent involve-ment. We held four meetings at Head Start cen-ters for parents in the EBP group. Thesemeetingslasted for 2 hr. We provided refreshments andprovided a small incentive of $10 for parents tocover cost of transportation. Meetings typicallyhad higher attendance by Hispanic parents,with 18–20 parents on average, and lower atten-dance by non-Hispanic parents, with 4–5 parentson average.

During these meetings, we discussed thecontent of the EC to increase understandingof what their children were learning aboutemotions at Head Start. We also illustratedtechniques teachers use to help children under-stand, regulate, and utilize emotions. Finally,we talked about the weekly parent messagesand discussed the importance of acknowledg-ing and dealing with emotions in parent–childinteractions.

Measures.

Child measures. The child measures used inStudy 2 were identical to those used in Study 1:PPVT-III, EMT, and the GATSB Inattentive-ness Scale. As in Study 1, research assistantsblind to experimental condition performed theseassessments. However, because of a logisticalproblem (unavoidable conflict between sched-ules of graduate student supervisors and under-graduate research assistants) and lack of re-sources to circumvent that problem, we wereunable to obtain reliable observations of chil-dren’s behavior from trained independentobservers in Study 2.

Teacher measures.As in Study 1, teachers inStudy 2 completed the ERC and EERS for eachchild in the study. In Study 2, teachers com-pleted the entire C-TRF for each child, enablingus to use the broadband Externalizing and Inter-nalizing scores rather than the AggressiveBehavior and Anxious/Depressed Scale scores.In lieu of the PCQ, Study 2 used the AdaptiveSocial Behavior Inventory (ASBI; Hogan,Scott, & Bauer, 1992) as a measure of chil-dren’s social competence. Because the ASBIwas developed for a high-risk population andhas shown good psychometric properties in

several high-risk preschool populations, includ-ing ethnically diverse Head Start samples(Greenfield, Iruka, & Munis, 2004; Greenfield,Wasserstein, Gold, & Jorden, 1997), it wasdeemed the more suitable measure. The ASBIhas 30 Likert scale items used by teachers torate social competence and disruptive behavior.For the interpersonal aspect of social compe-tence, a ¼ .89 at pretest and posttest. Oneitem was removed from this scale because it as-sessed emotion knowledge. For the complianceaspect, a ¼ .91 at pretest, a ¼ .92 at posttest.Because of construct overlap with the C-TRFExternalizing scale, the disruptive behaviorscale of ASBI was not used.

Results

Table 4 presents the means and standard devia-tions, and Table 5 presents the intercorrelationsfor all variables in the study. The magnitude ofthe correlations among cognitive ability, emo-tion regulation, and emotion knowledge areconsistent with previous findings from low-income populations. At pretest, there were sig-nificant mean differences for two of the nineoutcome variables. The mean for teacher-rated externalizing behavior was higher in ICPSclassrooms, t (166) ¼ 3.29, p , .01. (Notethat had we opted to create an aggregate ofexternalizing behavior from the ASBI and C-TRF, this problem of pretest differences wouldremain.) The mean for teacher-rated internaliz-ing behavior was also higher in ICPS class-rooms, t (166) ¼ 2.30, p , .05. The mean forteacher-rated lability/negative emotionalitywas higher in ICPS classrooms, but the differ-ence only approached significance, t (165) ¼1.91, p , .06.

Primary analyses of treatment effectiveness. Asin Study 1, we performed two-level analyses inHLM with children represented at Level 1 andclassrooms at Level 2. We estimated sevenmodels; one focused on each of the main out-come variables, except the two (externalizingand internalizing behaviors) where pretestmeans were significantly different across theEBP and ICPS treatment groups. The strategy forthe HLM analyses was the same as in Study 1.Estimates for the final HLM models across


the seven outcome variables that had compa-rable means at pretest are given in Table 6.

In testing Hypothesis 1, the HLM analysesshowed that compared to children in ICPSclassrooms, children in EBP classrooms gainedsignificantly more emotion knowledge over thecourse of the fall to spring 5-month interven-tion, t (24) ¼ 2.68, p, .01. In testing Hypoth-esis 2, the analyses showed that children in EBPclassrooms had larger increases from fall tospring in teacher-rated emotion regulation,t (24) ¼ 2.70, p , .05. Analyses did notshow a significant effect of EBP on decreasesin the lability/negative emotionality scale ofthe ERC measure.

In testing Hypothesis 3, the analyses pro-vided support only for predicted changes inpositive behavioral outcomes. These analysesrevealed that compared to children in ICPSclassrooms those in EBP classrooms showedsignificantly greater increases in positive emo-tion expression, t (24) ¼ 2.41, p , .05, and inthe interpersonal component of social compe-tence, t (24) ¼ 2.61, p , .05. Children inEBP classrooms also tended to show relativelygreater gains in the compliance component ofsocial competence ( p , .10).

Contrary to predictions, analyses for testingHypothesis 3 did not show that children inEBP classrooms differed significantly fromchildren in ICPS classrooms on changes innegative emotion expression, externalizing be-havior, or internalizing behavior. As previouslynoted, significant baseline differences were ob-served in teacher ratings of children’s external-izing and internalizing behaviors across ICPSand EC classrooms. Follow-up analyses ofchildren at borderline or clinical levels onexternalizing or internalizing behavior werenot conducted because of these pretest meandifferences.

Analyses for potential moderators of treat-ment/EBP effects. The fidelity with whichteachers administered EBP moderated gains inemotion knowledge, t (13) ¼ 2.62, p , .05,with higher fidelity predicting greater gains.In addition, within EBP classrooms, childrenwhose parents completed more of the take-home exercises had higher teacher-rated emo-tion regulation at postintervention, t (14) ¼2.31, p, .05, after controlling for Time 1 emo-tion regulation and covariates. This index ofparent participation tended to predict higher

Table 4. Study 2: Means and standard deviations of all variables

Variable

Pretest Posttest

EBP Control EBP Control

M SD M SD M SD M SD

PPVT-III 83.27 15.58 80.58 13.11Emotion knowledge 20.85 9.34 19.77 7.58 29.31 9.16 24.90 8.72ER: emotion regulation 23.98 5.07 23.23 4.23 26.23 4.91 22.78 3.98ER: lability/neg. emotionality 24.47 6.97 26.75 7.49 23.14 7.15 26.30 5.99Social comp.: interpersonal 31.13 5.69 31.50 5.29 33.75 5.29 31.37 4.75Social comp.: compliance 24.20 4.54 23.19 4.89 25.79 4.24 23.20 4.03Positive emotion expression 8.88 2.37 8.24 2.77 10.08 2.01 8.32 2.29Externalizing behaviora 5.87 9.18 11.55 12.56 4.79 8.99 8.96 11.65Internalizing behaviora 5.34 6.12 7.87 7.56 3.57 5.52 6.04 7.96Negative emotion expression 9.17 4.15 9.63 4.14 8.00 2.80 8.49 3.57

Note: EBP, Emotion Based Prevention Program; PPVT-III, Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test—Third Edition score;emotion knowledge, emotion matching task score; ER: emotion regulation, Emotion Regulation Checklist (ERC) EmotionRegulation Scale score; ER: lability/neg. emotionality, ERC Lability/Negative Emotionality Scale score; social comp.: in-terpersonal, Adaptive Social Behavior Inventory (ASBI) Expressive Scale score; social comp.: compliance, ASBI ComplyScale score; positive emotion expression, Emotion Expression Ratings Scale (EERS) Positive Scale score; externalizingbehavior, Caregiver–Teacher Report Form (C-TRF) Externalizing Behavior Scale score; internalizing behavior, C-TRF In-ternalizing Behavior Scale score; negative emotion expression, EERS Negative Scale score.aSignificant difference between groups in pretest means.


Table 5. Study 2: Intercorrelations among outcome measures at pretest, verbal ability, and age

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

1. Emot. knowledge — .25** 2.08 .37** .25** .25** 2.03 2.11 .05 .47** .41**2. ER: emot. reg. — 2.45** .81** .65** .73** 2.26** 2.55** 2.30** .17* .22**3. ER: lab./neg. — 2.33** 2.73** 2.33** .83** .43** .55** 2.14 2.134. Social competence:interpersonal — .66** .72** 2.18* 2.52** 2.21** .29** .23**5. Social competence: compliance — .54** 2.60** 2.43** 2.35** .22** .21**6. Positive emotion expression — 2.19* 2.49** 2.19* .20* .18*7. Externalizing behavior — .48** .52** 2.20* 2.028. Internalizing behavior — .59** 2.28** .019. Negative emotion expression — 2.11 2.0110. Age — 2.1311. PPVT-III —

Note: Emot. knowledge, emotion matching task score; ER: emot. reg., Emotion Regulation Checklist (ERC) Emotion Regulation Scale score: ER: lab./neg. Emotionality, ERC Lability/NegativeEmotionality Scale score; social competence: interpersonal, Adaptive Social Behavior Inventory (ASBI) Expressive Scale score; social competence: Compliance, ASBI Comply Scale score; Positive emo-tion expression, Emotion Expression Ratings Scale (EERS) Positive Scale score; externalizing behavior, Caregiver–Teacher Report Form (C-TRF) Externalizing Behavior Scale score; internalizing be-havior, C-TRF Internalizing Behavior Scale score; negative emotion expression, EERS Negative Scale score; age, child age at pretest; PPVT-III, Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test—Third Edition score atpretest.*p , .05. **p , .01.

387

emotion competence and fewer internalizingbehavior problems ( ps , .10).

We also investigated child age and genderas possible moderators of the effect of treat-

ment. Child age moderated the treatment effectfor the interpersonal aspect of social compe-tence, t (24) ¼ 2.13, p , .05. Both 3- and4-year-olds in EBP classrooms improved in

Table 6. Study 2: Primary hierarchical linear modeling analyses

Fixed Effect Coefficient t df Cohen d

Emotion knowledgeIntercept 27.52 49.51** 24EBP treatment 3.21 2.68** 24 .49Age 0.00 1.30 25Gender 0.32 0.24 25Verbal ability 0.04 0.80 25Time 1 emotion knowledge 0.61 8.70** 25GATSB inattention 20.71 22.11* 25

ER: emotion regulationIntercept 22.17 49.72** 24EBP treatment 2.30 2.70* 24 .77Gender 21.40 22.63* 25Verbal ability 20.00 20.20 25Time 1 emotion regulation 0.39 5.01** 25

ER: lability/negative emotionalityIntercept 49.89 63.05** 24EBP treatment 0.73 0.47 24Gender 20.06 20.08 25Time 1 lability/negative emotionality 0.66 7.07** 25

Social competence: interpersonalIntercept 30.42 66.58** 24EBP treatment 2.19 22.61* 24 .47Age 0.00 1.44 25Gender 22.17 22.96** 25Verbal ability 20.04 21.50 25Time 1 social competence 0.31 3.17** 25

Social competence: complianceIntercept 24.55 58.64** 24EBP treatment 1.52 1.81† 24 .63Gender 20.88 21.98† 25Verbal ability 20.00 20.27 25Time 1 compliance 0.57 8.75** 25

Positive emotion expressionIntercept 9.41 37.94** 24EBP treatment 1.13 2.41* 24 .82Gender 20.40 21.61 25Verbal ability 20.00 20.95 25Time 1 positive emotion expression 0.43 6.16** 25

Negative emotion expressionIntercept 8.31 22.03** 24EBP treatment 20.40 20.52 24Time 1 negative emotion expression 0.27 3.82** 25

Note:Cohen’s d (computed as the ratio of the posttest mean difference to the pooled SD) is reported only for Emotion BasedPrevention Program (EBP) effects that are significant or approach significance. Emotion knowledge, emotionmatching taskscore; GATSB, Guide to the Assessment of Test Session Behavior; ER: emotion regulation, Emotion Regulation Checklist(ERC) Emotion Regulation Scale score: ER: lability/negative emotionality, ERC Lability/Negative Emotionality Scalescore; social competence: interpersonal, Adaptive Social Behavior Inventory (ASBI) Expressive Scale score; socialcompetence: compliance, ASBI Comply Scale score; positive emotion expression, Emotion Expression Ratings Scale(EERS) Positive Scale score; negative emotion expression, EERS Negative Scale score.†p , .10. *p , .05. **p , .01.


social competence from pre- to posttest,whereas only the 3-year-olds improved inICPS classrooms. Age did not moderate otheroutcomes, and child gender was not a signifi-cant moderator of any outcome.

Mediation analyses for potential mechanismsof change. Multilevel mediation analyseswere performed based on procedures recom-mended by Krull and MacKinnon (2001)and the significance of mediated effects wasevaluated using Sobel tests (Figure 1). Theeffect of EBP on emotion regulation (Time2 emotion regulation controlling for Time 1emotion regulation) was fully mediated byEBP’s effect on emotion knowledge (Time 2emotion knowledge controlling for Time 1emotion knowledge).

For the mediation analysis of changes inchild social competence (Figure 2), emotioncompetence aggregates for each child at Time1 and Time 2 were computed by standardizingand summing children’s emotion knowledgescores and teachers’ ratings of emotion regula-tion. The effect of EBP on the interpersonalcomponent of social competence (Time 2 socialcompetence controlling for Time 1 social com-petence) was fully mediated by the effect ofEBP on emotion competence (Time 2 emotioncompetence controlling for Time 1 emotioncompetence).

Discussion

The data generally supported Hypotheses 1 and2 that EBP increases emotion knowledge andemotion regulation and partially supportedHypothesis 3 that EBP increases adaptive be-havior and decreases maladaptive behavior.

Results of the mediation analyses should beinterpreted with caution. The evidence thatemotion knowledge mediates the effect ofEBP/treatment on emotion regulation and theevidence that emotion competence mediatesthe effects of EBP on adaptive behaviorchanges must be considered tentative. Wewould have more definitive evidence of media-tion had we been able to measure emotionknowledge at a middle time point to establisha timeline for mediation effects (Kazdin &Nock, 2003). In addition, the potential mediatoridentified as emotion competence was anaggregate that included a teacher measure andthus shared method variance may have influ-enced the prediction of teacher-rated socialcompetence.

General Discussion

There were some differences in the findingsfrom Study 1 and Study 2. The similaritiesand differences are presented with the caveatthat their interpretation is rendered difficult, ifnot moot, by the differences in settings (rural

Figure 1. The effect of EBP on children’s emotion regulation was mediated by the change in children’semotion knowledge. Sobel’s test: z ¼ 2.00 ( p , .05). EBP, emotion-based prevention program; changein emotion knowledge, Time 2 emotion knowledge, controlling for Time 1 emotion knowledge; changein emotion regulation, Time 2 emotion regulation, controlling for Time 1 emotion regulation.*p , .05. **p , .01.


vs. urban), experimental conditions (EBP vs.Head Start as usual in one and EBP vs. an estab-lished preventive intervention in the other), andin the number of children in Study 2 whoentered Head Start and the treatment programwith little or no knowledge of English. In addi-tion, pretest differences occurred on differentmeasures across the two studies, further compli-cating the comparison.

Similarities in findings across studies

Both studies found that, compared to a controlcondition (Head Start as usual) or to anotherintervention (ICPS), EBP increased emotionknowledge and emotion regulation. EBP alsohad favorable effects on behavioral outcomesin both studies. In both studies, teacher fidelityto the EBP program manual influenced thechildren’s acquisition of emotion knowledge.

Differences in findings of Study 1 and Study 2

In Study 1, EBP increased emotion knowledgeonly in 4-year-olds. Based on this finding, weintentionally made EBP more engaging for3-year-olds for Study 2 by making EBP materi-als more visually interesting and adding addi-tional emotion-related crafts. In Study 2, emo-tion knowledge increases were not moderatedby child age. In Study 1, EBP was more effec-tive in reducing maladaptive behavior than inincreasing positive or adaptive behavior. The

reverse was true in Study 2. Because of non-significant paths between relevant variables,mediation analyses of the type performed inStudy 2 were not possible in Study 1.

Identifying causal processes in the EBPintervention

We can tentatively suggest some causal pro-cesses that help account for the effects of EBPas a whole. There are conceptual relations be-tween the theoretical principles underlying EBPand the behavior changes it facilitated. Thus,the principle that accurate emotion knowledgerepresents effective connections among feelings,thought, and action could help explain increasesin adaptive behavior and decreases in maladap-tive behavior. In addition, the effects of EBPare congruent with the findings from extensiveresearch frommany different laboratories on rela-tions among emotion knowledge, emotion regu-lation, and behavioral outcomes (Denham &Burton, 2003; Havighurst, 2003; Izard, 2002;Izard et al., 2002).

Perhaps more important, our results are con-sistent with the assumption that EBP, particu-larly the teacher-administered EC, increasedchildren’s awareness of emotions in self and oth-ers and teachers’ awareness of the potential ben-efits of giving preschool children the freedom toexperience and express modulated emotionsverbally and nonverbally in a safe and supportiveenvironment. The results are also consistent with

Figure 2. The effect of EBP on children’s social competence was mediated by the change in children’semotion competence. Sobel’s test: z ¼ 3.39 ( p , .01). EBP, emotion-based prevention program; changein emotion competence, Time 2 emotion competence, controlling for Time 1 emotion competence; changein social competence, Time 2 social competence, controlling for Time 1 social competence. *p , .05.**p , .01.


the related assumption that the EC increasedlanguage-related emotion awareness, consciouscontrol of emotions, and adaptive emotion utili-zation (cf. Prencipe & Zelazo, 2005). Several ofthe activities and techniques in the treatmentcondition involved children connecting wordsand feelings and using language to express andrespond to emotion feelings. The processes in-volved in talk about emotion feelings, temperedexpression of emotions, and emotion awarenessmay have enhanced each other dynamically infacilitating desirable behavior change.

EBP included no extrinsic rewards for chil-dren even when they showed successfulnegative behavior regulation. This characteris-tic of the treatment may rule out explanationof positive effects on negative outcomes interms of the reward factor in behavioral andcognitive–behavioral theories (cf. Samoilov& Goldfried, 2000). We assumed that theEBP-induced increase in emotion competence,reflected in part by the accompanying decreasein maladaptive behavior or increase in adaptivebehavior, provided continual intrinsic rewards.

Causal processes involved in increasingchildren’s emotion knowledge

A number of elements of the treatment weredesigned to increase emotion knowledge. TheEBP Manual has numerous illustrations offacial expressions that meet the criteria for pro-totypic emotion signals (Izard, 1995). Severallessons have materials that focus directly onlearning to label and describe expressive behav-ior and relate it to emotion feelings and possibleovert actions. These lessons include emotion-related games, such as placing expressions incategories, make a feeling face, interactive read-ing of emotion stories, and practice at tellingabout events and situations that cause a particu-lar emotion. Children play the latter game ingroup (circle) time and, with assistance fromthe teacher, get the opportunity to learn aboutindividual differences in event–emotion rela-tions.

Certain benefits of the children’s under-standing of emotions may have motivatedthem to participate in activities designed to fur-ther increase their emotion knowledge. Increas-ing children’s understanding of the expressions,

causes, and functions of emotions increases theirability to detect the signals of others’ feelingsand intentions. Thus, they can better anticipateothers’ behavior and thereby reduce the likeli-hood of agonistic encounters and respond moreappropriately to anxious/depressive behavior aswell (Dunn, Brown,&Beardsall, 1991; Gottmanet al., 1997; Harris, 1999; Izard, 2002). Improv-ing children’s ability to label emotions enablesdiscourse about them, and the latter increaseschildren’s ability to obtain social support. Emo-tion expression labeling may also increaseawareness and cognitive control of emotions(Northoff et al., 2004; cf., Prencipe & Zelazo,2005).

Causal processes involved in increasingchildren’s emotion regulation

We attribute the gain in emotion regulation pri-marily to two processes. First, the data of Study2 provide tentative evidence that the increasein emotion regulation was mediated by the in-crease in emotion knowledge. Thus, for exam-ple, better understanding of the causes of angerin self and others may facilitate anticipation andavoidance of conflict situations. In turn, this ef-fective coping technique functions as a part of aregulatory process by decreasing the frequencyof anger arousal and the need for episodic emo-tion regulation. Furthermore, increased emo-tion knowledge increases awareness of emotionexpressions, feelings, and functions. An in-crease in emotion awareness should contribute toan increase in children’s self-control or execu-tive function (cf. Prencipe & Zelazo, 2005).

Second, another major factor in increasingemotion regulation may have been the learningand practicing of emotion regulation techniquesderived from emotion theory. Each regulatorytechnique was designed to serve two purposes.The first was to act immediately to regulate theactivated emotion. The second was to helpchannel and utilize the energy and motivationinherent in the adaptive functions of the emo-tion for negotiation, effective emotion commu-nication, and prosocial action. The goal wasnever to prevent the emotion from occurringor to reduce arousal to zero. The goal for a reg-ulatory technique was to change the intensity ofarousal such that it approached an optimal level


for its utilization. We propose that utilization ofemotion throughout the day constitutes optimalemotion regulation in day-to-day activities andin developmental time (Izard, Trentacosta,King, Morgan, & Diaz, in press). A long-termgoal was to begin the process of transformingregulatory activities (e.g., modulated verbaland nonverbal expressive behavior) into trait-like processes that reduce the need for episodicemotion regulation. Determining the specificcontribution of the regulatory techniques aswell as that of features designed to increaseemotion knowledge must await future con-trolled experiments on the various componentsof the EBP treatment.

Causal processes involved in decreasingexternalizing behavior

Several aspects of the treatment could have con-tributed to the finding of decreased externaliz-ing behavior in Study 1. Interactive readinggave the children practice at anticipating emo-tion experiences to prepare for them. The emo-tion stories contained material that could havegiven them better understanding of the conse-quences of uncontrolled anger. EBP techniquesincluded exercises that helped children under-stand the physiological accompaniments of in-tense anger and their possible effects on action.In addition, lessons on helping a friend who isangry (or sad or scared) provided training inempathic responding, a process that tends todecrease aggression (Eisenberg et al., 1996;Fabes, Eisenberg, Karbon, Troyer, & Switzer,1994).

The Head Start teachers taught children inthe treatment group specific techniques foranger regulation and utilization. For example,the hold tight technique described in the intro-duction is designed to help the children to mod-ulate anger and use words to help them expresstheir feelings appropriately so they can utilizethe modulated anger motivation (e.g., for ap-propriate self-assertion). This technique en-courages tempered expression of feelings forthree reasons. First, underlying theory includesthe assumption that Steps 1 and 2 of hold tight(hugging oneself or pressing hands togetherand deep breathing) modulate the intensity ofthe arousal and the associated expressive-be-

havior tendencies. Second, it also assumesthat modulated expression of feelings will mod-ulate feelings further and facilitate their inherentlyadaptive functions. Third, it may help satisfy abasic motivation to share emotion feelings andintentions with other persons and facilitate thedevelopment of skills for effective social en-gagement (Izard, 1978; Tomasello, Carpenter,Call, Behne, & Moll, 2005). This approachto anger regulation assumes that it is neitherpossible nor desirable to try to completelystop the processes involved in emotion arousalor prevent the occurrence of anger experiences.According to the theory underlying EBP, tryingto do that could either eliminate or degrade theadaptive functions of anger, such as appropriateself-assertion. Furthermore, some researchershave cautioned that use of passive or avoidantcoping strategies may eventually play a majorrole in the development of maladaptive behav-ior (Blair et al., 2004; cf. Volling, 2001).

Causal processes involved in decreasinganxious/depressed behavior

Specific emotion-related content and tech-niques in the treatment condition could have con-tributed to the reduction of children’s anxious/depressed behavior found in Study 1. EBP pro-vided numerous occasions for children to ex-press and talk about sadness-eliciting situationsand the subsequent experiences of sadness.These included interactive reading of emotionstories that focus on sadness, “Tell Me” (e.g.“Tell me what makes you feel sad,” “Tell meabout a time when you felt sad,”) and learningto “Help a Friend Who Is Sad.” Open discus-sion about sadness feelings may have increasedchildren’s (and teachers’) awareness of themand their effects on behavior. The treatmentcondition may have helped create a classroomatmosphere where sadness feelings could be ac-knowledged and discussed one on one by childand teacher or during an EC lesson. Such in-creases in the articulation of feelings and possi-ble gains in emotion awareness could also haveother desirable effects. Several studies showedthat talk about emotion feelings generally haspositive benefits (Dunn et al., 1991; Dunn &Brown, 1994; Eisenberg et al., 1998; Gottmanet al., 1997; Halberstadt, Cassidy, Stifter, Parke,


& Fox, 1995; Harris, 1999; Ramsden & Hub-bard, 2002).

Comparison of treatment effects of EBPand other preschool interventions

Only two preschool intervention programs forchildren at risk have published data that enabledus to calculate effect sizes. Comparisons of ef-fect sizes from those two studies and the presentone are made with the caveat that all three stud-ies used different outcome measures. In addi-tion, all three studies compared their treatmentswith control groups, whereas our Study 2 com-pared EBP with an empirically supported inter-vention (ICPS). For the program called Al’sPals (Lynch et al., 2004), effect sizes in termsof Cohen d (calculated using posttest mean dif-ferences and standard deviations) ranged from.59 to 1.15 for measures of “social–emotionalcompetence,” social skills, problem behaviors,aggressive/antisocial, and anxiety/somaticproblems. For the program called IncredibleYears (Webster-Stratton et al., 2001), the Cohendwas .76 for a construct represented by a compo-site measure of child conduct problems at school.

In Study 1 of the present paper, effect sizes(Cohen d ) for significant results ranged from.45 to .73. In Study 2, effect sizes (Cohen d )for significant results ranged from .47 to .82.EBP effect sizes thus fall into the medium tolarge range and compare favorably with thoseof eclectic interventions for preschool children.

Limitations

We have no data that help explain why EBP hadrelatively greater effects on maladaptive behav-ior in Study 1 and relatively stronger effects onpositive social behavior in Study 2. However, itis notable that in both studies, it was primarilythe measures that differed across groups at pre-test (teacher ratings of positive behavior inStudy 1 and teacher ratings of externalizingand internalizing behavior in Study 2) thatfailed to show significant EBP effects. Pretestdifferences across groups render analyses basedon these measures invalid (Cohen & Cohen,1983). However, two other analyses suggestedreal differences in the EBP effects on positiveand maladaptive behavior in Studies 1 and 2.

In Study 1, EBP did not show a significant ef-fect on positive behavior and positive emotionexpression as indexed by independent observ-ers’ coding. In Study 2, EBP did not have asignificant effect on teacher-rated negativeemotion expression.

We are not certain why the groups differed atpretest in both trials, although the limited num-ber of centers in the study is one importantfactor. The gender, age, and verbal ability ofchildren did not differ significantly across con-dition in either study. Replications using largersamples, which are more likely to ensureequivalent means onmeasures at pretest, shouldhelp resolve this issue.

We were unsuccessful in implementing astrong parent component of EBP. Our attemptto engage parents in EBP and increase positiveemotion communication in parent–child inter-actions was highly limited by poor attendanceat parent meetings (perhaps because of inade-quate incentives) and insufficient time, particu-larly in Study 1. To the extent that parents’reactions to their children’s emotions conflictwith messages conveyed to children by EBPteachers, poor parent participation might under-mine the effects of EBP. Future implementa-tions of EBP might change the parent compo-nent of the EC to a more parent-friendlyformat by offering free transportation to meet-ings or a home visit option.

The results of the present studies are basedon data from families and children who meetthe criteria for participation in Head Start.Ninety percent of participants in this Head Startsystem had to have an income level at or belowthe poverty line. Up to 10% could be admitted ifthey had a special need, whether or not theymet the economic criterion. Furthermore, thesamples in both studies had a much larger per-centage of ethnic minorities than currentlyfound in middle class preschools. These factorsmay restrict the generalizability of our findings.

The present data cannot tell us how long ittakes to get favorable results with EBP or theextent to which its various components contrib-uted to the outcomes. In addition, the lack ofresources to conduct independent child obser-vations in Study 2 was a significant drawback.To strengthen the evidence for interventioneffects, an additional replication that includes


structured observations as an independentevaluation of child behavior is underway.EBP needs revisions (e.g., addition of at leasta 10-session parent version of the EC). More re-search with a revised EBP is needed to confirmthe promising findings reported here, especially

those that tentatively identify mediators andmoderators that help explain causal processesin EBP effects on emotion and social compe-tence and the reduction of maladaptive behav-ior that might include precursors of psycho-pathology.

References

Achenbach, T. M., & Rescorla, L. A. (2000). Manualfor the ASEBA preschool forms and profiles. Burling-ton, VT: University of Vermont, Department of Psy-chiatry.

Ackerman, B. P., Brown, E., & Izard, C. E. (2004). The re-lations between contextual risk, earned income, and theschool adjustment of children from economically disad-vantaged families. Developmental Psychology, 40,204–216.

Ackerman, B. P., Izard, C. E., Schoff, K. M., Youngstrom,E. A., & Kogos, J. L. (1999). Contextual risk, caregiveremotionality, and the problem behaviors of 6- and7-year-old children from economically disadvantagedfamilies. Child Development, 70, 1415–1427.

Arsenio, W. F., Cooperman, S., & Lover, A. (2000). Affec-tive predictors of preschoolers’ aggression and peeracceptance: Direct and indirect effects. DevelopmentalPsychology, 36, 438–448.

Bear, G. G., Webster-Stratton, C., Furlong, M. J., &Rhee, S. (2000). Preventing aggression and violence.In G. G. Bear & K. M. Minke (Eds.), Preventing schoolproblems: Promoting school success (pp. 1–69). Be-thesda, MD: National Association of School Psycholo-gists.

Blair, K. A., Denham, S. A., Kochanoff, A., &Whipple, B.(2004). Playing it cool: Temperament, emotion regula-tion, and social behavior in preschoolers. Journal ofSchool Psychology, 42, 419–443.

Bond, L. A., & Hauf, A. M. C. (2004). Taking stock andputting stock in primary prevention: Characteristics ofeffective programs. The Journal of Primary Prevention,24, 199–221.

Cicchetti, D., Ackerman, B. P., & Izard, C. E. (1995).Emotions and emotion regulation in developmental psy-chopathology. Development and Psychopathology, 7,1–10.

Cicchetti, D., & Tucker, D. (1994). Development and self-regulatory structures of the mind. Special Issue: Neuralplasticity, sensitive periods, and psychopathology.Development and Psychopathology, 6, 533–549.

Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hills-dale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Cole, P. M., Martin, S. E., & Dennis, T. A. (2004). Emotionregulation as a scientific construct: Methodologicalchallenges and directions for child development re-search. Child Development, 75, 317–333.

Conroy, M. A., Dunlap, G., Clarke, S., & Alter, P. J. (2005).A descriptive analysis of positive behavioral interven-tion research with young children with challenging be-havior. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education,25, 157–166.

Crick, N. R., Casas, J. F., & Mosher, M. (1997). Relationaland overt aggression in preschool. Developmental Psy-chology, 33, 579–588.

Cummings, E. M., Iannotti, R. J., & Zahn-Waxler, C.(1989). Aggression between peers in early childhood:Individual continuity and developmental change. ChildDevelopment, 60, 887–895.

Cutting, A. L., & Dunn, J. (1999). Theory of mind, emotionunderstanding, language, and family background: Indi-vidual differences and interrelations. Child Develop-ment, 70, 853–865.

Darwin, C. (1998). The expression of the emotions in manand animals. New York: Oxford University Press. (Ori-ginal work published 1872)

Dawson, G., Hessl, D., & Frey, K. (1994). Social influencesof early developing biological and behavioral systemsrelated to risk for affective disorder. Development andPsychopathology, 6, 759–779.

Deater-Deckard, K., & Dodge, K. A. (1997). Externalizingbehavior problems and discipline revisited: Nonlineareffects and variation by culture, context, and gender.Psychological Inquiry, 8, 161–175.

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

Denham, S. A. (1998). Emotional development in youngchildren. New York: Guilford Press.

Denham, S. A., Blair, K. A., DeMulder, E., Levitas, J.,Sawyer, K., Auerbach-Major, S., et al. (2003). Preschoolemotional competence: Pathway to social competence.Child Development, 74, 238–256.

Denham, S. A., & Burton, R. (1996). A social–emotionalintervention for at-risk 4-year olds. Journal of SchoolPsychology, 34, 225–245.

Denham, S. A., & Burton, R. (2003). Social and emotionalprevention and intervention programming for preschool-ers. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Press.

Denham, S. A., Caverly, S., Schmidt, M., Blair, K.,DeMulder, E., Caal, S., et al. (2002). Preschool under-standing of emotions: Contributions to classroom angerand aggression. Journal of Child Psychology and Psy-chiatry, 43, 901–916.

Denham, S. A., McKinley, M., Couchoud, E. A., & Holt, R.(1990). Emotional and behavioral predictors of preschoolpeer ratings. Child Development, 61, 1145–1152.

Domitrovich, C. E., Cortes, R., & Greenberg, M. T. (2002).PATHS: Promoting social and emotional competencein young children. Paper presented at the Society forPrevention Research Seattle, WA.

Dunn, J., & Brown, J. (1994). Affect expression in the family,children’s understanding of emotions, and their interac-tionswith others.Merrill–PalmerQuarterly, 40, 120–137.

Dunn, J., Brown, J., & Beardsall, L. (1991). Family talk aboutfeeling states and children’s later understanding of others’emotions. Developmental Psychology, 27, 448–455.

Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, L. M. (1997). Peabody Picture Vo-cabulary Test: Manual (3rd ed.). Circle Pines, MN:American Guidance Services.


Edwards, R., Manstead, A. S. R., & MacDonald, C. J.(1984). The relationship between children’s sociometricstatus and ability to recognize facial expressions ofemotion. European Journal of Social Psychology, 14,235–238.

Eisenberg, N. (2001). The core and correlates of affectivesocial competence. Social Development, 10, 120–124.

Eisenberg, N., Cumberland, A., & Spinrad, T. L. (1998).Parental socialization of emotion. Psychological In-quiry, 9, 241–273.

Eisenberg, N., & Fabes, R. A. (1998). Prosocial develop-ment. In W. Damon & N. Eisenberg (Eds.), Handbookof child psychology: Social, emotional, and personalitydevelopment (Vol. 3, pp. 701–767). New York: Wiley.

Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Murphy, B., Karbon, M.,Smith, M., & Maszk, P. (1996). The relations of chil-dren’s dispositional empathy-related responding to theiremotionality, regulation, and social functioning. Devel-opmental Psychology, 32, 195–209.

Ekman, P., & Davidson, R. J. (Eds.), (1994). The nature ofemotion: Fundamental questions. New York: OxfordUniversity Press.

Fabes, R. A., Eisenberg, N., Karbon, M., Troyer, D., &Switzer, G. (1994). The relations of children’s emotionregulation to their vicarious emotional responses and com-forting behaviors. Child Development, 65, 1678–1693.

Fantuzzo, J. W., Bulotsky-Shearer, R., Fusco, R. A., &McWayne, C. (2005). An investigation of preschoolclassroom behavioral adjustment problems and social–emotional school readiness competencies. Early Child-hood Research Quarterly, 20, 259–275.

Fine, S. E., Izard, C. E., Mostow, A. J., Trentacosta, C. J., &Ackerman, B. P. (2003). First grade emotion knowledgeas a predictor of fifth grade self-reported internalizing be-haviors in children from economically disadvantaged fam-ilies. Development and Psychopathology, 15, 331–342.

Fine, S. E., Trentacosta, C. J., Izard, C. E., Mostow, A. J., &Campbell, J. L. (2004). Anger perception, caregivers’use of physical discipline, and aggression in childrenat risk. Social Development, 13, 213–228.

Fonagy, P. (1998). Prevention, the appropriate target ofinfant psychotherapy. Infant Mental Health Journal,19, 124–150.

Garcı́a Coll, C., & Garrido, M. (2000). Minorities in theUnited States: Sociocultural context for mental healthand developmental psychopathology. In A. J. Sameroff&M. Lewis (Eds.),Handbook of developmental psycho-pathology (pp. 177–195). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.

Garner, P. W. (1996). The relations of emotional role tak-ing, affective/moral attributions, and emotional displayrule knowledge to low-income school-age children’ssocial competence. Journal of Applied DevelopmentalPsychology, 17, 19–36.

Garner, P. W., & Estep, K. M. (2001). Emotional compe-tence, emotion socialization, and young children’speer-related social competence. Early Education andDevelopment, 12, 29–48.

Garner, P. W., Jones, D. C., Gaddy, G., & Rennie, K. M.(1997). Low-income mothers’ conversations aboutemotions and their children’s emotional competence.Social Development, 9, 29–48.

Garner, P. W., Jones, D. C., & Miner, J. L. (1994). Socialcompetence among low-income preschoolers: Emotionsocialization practices and social cognitive correlates.Child Development, 65, 622–637.

Garner, P. W., & Spears, F. M. (2000). Emotion regulationin low-income preschoolers. Social Development, 9,246–264.

Gennetian, L., Bos, J., & Morris, P. (2002). Using instru-mental variables analysis to learn more from social pol-icy experiments (MDRC working papers on researchmethodology). New York: Manpower DemonstrationResearch.

Gilliom, M., Shaw, D. S., Beck, J. E., Schonberg, M. A., &Lukon, J. L. (2002). Anger regulation in disadvantagedpreschool boys: Strategies, antecedents, and the devel-opment of self-control. Developmental Psychology,38, 222–235.

Glutting, J. J., & Oakland, T. (1991). Guide to the assess-ment of test session behaviors. San Antonio, TX: ThePsychological Corporation.

Gottman, J. M., Katz, L. F., & Hooven, C. (1997). Meta-emotion: How families communicate emotionally. Mah-wah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Greenberg, M. T., & Kusche, C. A. (1993). Promotingsocial and emotional development in deaf children:The PATHS project. Seattle, WA: University of Wash-ington Press.

Greenberg,M. T., &Kusche, C. A. (1998). Preventive inter-vention for school-aged deaf children: The PATHS cur-riculum. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education,3, 49–63.

Greenfield, D., Iruka, I., &Munis, P. (2004). Assessment ofsocial competence in high-risk preschoolers: Evaluationof the Adaptive Social Behavior Inventory (ASBI)across home and school settings. Journal of Psychoedu-cational Assessment, 22, 220–232.

Greenfield, D., Wasserstein, S. B., Gold, S., & Jorden, B.(1997). The Adaptive Social Behavior Inventory(ASBI): Evaluation with high-risk preschoolers. Jour-nal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 5, 322–333.

Greenough, W. T. (1987). Experience effects on the devel-oping and the mature brain: Dendritic branching andsynaptogenesis. In N. A. Krasnegor & E. M. Blass (Eds.),Perinatal development: A psychobiological perspec-tive. Behavioral biology (pp. 195–221). San Diego,CA: Academic Press.

Greenough, W. T. (1991). Experience as a component ofnormal development: Evolutionary considerations.Developmental Psychology, 27, 14–17.

Halberstadt, A. G., Cassidy, J., Stifter, C. A., Parke, R. D.,& Fox, N. (1995). Self-expressiveness within the familycontext: Psychometric support for a new measure.Psychological Assessment, 7, 93–103.

Halberstadt, A. G., Denham, S. A., & Dunsmore, J. C.(2001). Affective social competence. Social Develop-ment, 10, 79–119.

Harris, P. L. (1999). Individual differences in understandingemotion: The role of attachment status and psychologi-cal discourse. Attachment & Human Development, 13,307–324.

Hartup, W. M. (1992). Peer relations in early and middlechildhood. In V. B. V. Hasselt & M. Hersen (Eds.),Handbook of Social Development (pp. 257–281).New York: Plenum Press.

Havighurst, S. S. (2003). Improving children’s emotionalcompetence: Parenting interventions. In S. A. Denham& R. Burton (Eds.), Social and emotional preventionand intervention programming for preschoolers (pp.167–182). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Press.

Havighurst, S. S., Harley, A., & Prior, M. (2004). Buildingpreschool children’s emotional competence: A parent-ing program. Early Education and Development, 15,423–447.

Hogan, A., Scott, K. G., & Bauer, C. R. (1992). The Adap-tive Social Behavior Inventory (ASBI): A new assess-


ment of social competence in high-risk three-year-olds.Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 10, 230–239.

Hubbard, J. A., & Coie, J. D. (1994). Emotional correlates ofsocial competence in children’s peer relations. Merrill–Palmer Quarterly, 40, 1–20.

Hubbard, J. A., Smithmyer, C. M., Ramsden, S. R., Parker,E. H., Flanagan, K. D., Dearing, K. F., et al. (2002). Ob-servational, physiological, and self-report measures ofchildren’s anger: Relations to reactive versus proactiveaggression. Child Development, 73, 1101–1118.

Izard, C. E. (1971). The face of emotion. New York: Apple-ton–Century–Crofts.

Izard, C. E. (1977). Human emotions. New York: PlenumPress.

Izard, C. E. (1978). On the ontogenesis of emotions andemotion–cognition relationships in infancy. In M.Lewis & L. A. Rosenblum (Eds.), The development ofaffect (pp. 389–413). New York: Plenum Press.

Izard, C. E. (1995). The Maximally Discriminative FacialMovement Coding System, Revised. Newark, DE: Uni-versity of Delaware.

Izard, C. E. (2000). EERS: Emotion Expression RatingScale. Unpublished manuscript, University of Dela-ware.

Izard, C. E. (2001a). Emotional intelligence or adaptiveemotions? Emotion, 1, 249–257.

Izard, C. E. (2001b). The emotions course: Helping chil-dren understand and manage their feelings. Teachersmanuals. Newark, DE: University of Delaware.

Izard, C. E. (2002). Translating emotion theory and researchinto preventive interventions. Psychological Bulletin,40, 796–824.

Izard, C. E., Fine, S. E., Mostow, A. J., Trentacosta, C. J., &Campbell, J. (2002). Emotion processes in normal andabnormal development and preventive intervention.Development and Psychopathology, 14, 761–787.

Izard, C. E., Fine, S. E., Schultz, D., Mostow, A. J., Acker-man, B. P., & Youngstrom, E. (2001). Emotion knowl-edge as a predictor of social behavior and academiccompetence in children at risk. Psychological Science,12, 18–23.

Izard, C. E., Haskins, F. W., Schultz, D., Trentacosta, C. J.,& King, K. A. (2003). Emotion Matching Test. Unpub-lished manuscript, University of Delaware. (Contains182 standardized color photos of children’s emotion ex-pressions)

Izard, C. E., Schultz, D., Fine, S. E., Youngstrom, E. A., &Ackerman, B. P. (2000). Temperament, cognitive ability,emotion knowledge, and adaptive social behavior. Imagi-nation, Cognition, and Personality, 19, 305–330.

Izard, C. E., Trentacosta, C. J., King, K. A., Morgan, J. K.,& Diaz, M. (in press). Emotions, emotionality, and in-telligence in the development of adaptive behavior.In G. Matthews, M. Zeidner, & R. Roberts (Eds.),Science of Emotional Intelligence: Knowns and Un-knowns. Cambridge, MA: Oxford University Press.

Izard, C. E., Trentacosta, C. J., King, K. A., &Mostow, A. J.(2004). An emotion-based prevention program for HeadStart children. Early Education and Development, 15,407–422.

Kazdin, A. E., & Nock, M. K. (2003). Delineating mecha-nisms of change in child and adolescent therapy: Meth-odological issues and research recommendations. Jour-nal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 44, 1116–1129.

Keane, S. P., & Calkins, S. D. (2004). Predicting kindergar-ten peer social status from toddler and preschool prob-lem behavior. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology,32, 409–423.

Keenan, K. (2000). Emotion dysregulation as a risk factorfor child psychopathology. Clinical Psychology:Science & Practice, 7, 418–434.

Keenan, K., & Shaw, D. S. (1994). The development of ag-gression in toddlers: A study of low-income families.Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 22, 53–77.

Krull, J., & MacKinnon, D. P. (2001). Multilevel modelingof individual and group level mediated effects. Multi-variate Behavioral Research, 36, 249–277.

Kusche, C. A. (1984). The understanding of emotion con-cepts by deaf children: An assessment of an affectivecurriculum. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Univer-sity of Washington.

Laucht, M., Esser, G., & Schmidt, M. H. (1994). Contrast-ing infant predictors of later cognitive functioning.Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry & AlliedDisciplines, 35, 649–662.

Lemerise, E. A., & Arsenio, W. F. (2000). An integratedmodel of emotion processes and cognition in social infor-mation processing. Child Development, 71, 107–118.

Lindsey, E. W., & Colwell, M. J. (2003). Preschoolers’emotional competence: Links to pretend and physicalplay. Child Study Journal, 33, 39–52.

Lynch, K. B., Geller, S. R., & Schmidt, M. G. (2004).Multi-year evaluation of the effectiveness of a resil-ience-based prevention program for young children.The Journal of Primary Prevention, 24, 335–353.

McLloyd, V. C. (1998). Socioeconomic disadvantage andchild development. American Psychologist, 53, 185–204.

McMahon, S. D., Washburn, J., Felix, E. D., Yakin, J., &Childrey, G. (2000). Violence prevention: Programeffects on urban preschool and kindergarten children.Applied and Preventive Psychology, 9, 271–281.

Mendez, J. L., Fantuzzo, J., & Cicchetti, D. (2002). Profilesof social competence among low-income AfricanAmerican preschool children. Child Development, 73,1085–1100.

Miller, A. L., Gouley, K. K., Seifer, R., Dickstein, S., &Shields, A. (2004). Emotions and behaviors in thehead start classroom: Associations among observeddysregulation, social competence, and preschool adjust-ment. Early Education & Development, 15, 147–165.

Miller, A. L., & Olson, S. L. (2000). Emotional expressive-ness during peer conflicts: A predictor of social malad-justment among high-risk preschoolers. Journal ofAbnormal Psychology, 28, 339–352.

Morgan, J. K., Izard, C. E., King, K. A., Diaz, M., & Tren-tacosta, C. J. (2005). Validation of the emotion match-ing task: An emotion knowledge measure for youngchildren. Unpublished manuscript, University of Dela-ware.

Mostow, A. J., Izard, C. E., Fine, S. E., & Trentacosta, C. J.(2002). Modeling the emotional, cognitive, and behav-ioral predictors of peer acceptance. Child Development,73, 1775–1787.

Murray, D. M. (1998). Design and analysis of group-ran-domized trials. New York: Oxford University Press.

Northoff,G.,Heinzel,A.,Bermpohl, F.,Niese,R., Pfennig,A.,Pascual-Leone, A., et al. (2004). Reciprocal modulationand attenuation in the prefrontal cortex: An fMRI studyon emotional–cognitive interaction.Human BrainMap-ping, 21, 202–212.

Nowicki, S., & Duke, M. P. (1994). Individual differencesIn the nonverbal communication of affect: The Diag-nostic Analysis of Nonverbal Accuracy Scale. Journalof Nonverbal Behavior, 18, 9–35.

O’Leary, S. G., Slep, A. M. S., & Reid, M. J. (1999). Alongitudinal study of mothers’ overreactive discipline


and toddlers’ externalizing behavior. Journal of Abnor-mal Child Psychology, 27, 331–341.

Olson, S. L. (1984). The Preschool Competence Question-naire: Factor structure, longitudinal stability, and con-vergence with ratings of maladjustment. Unpublishedmanuscript.

Ostrov, J. M., & Keating, C. F. (2004). Gender differencesin preschool aggression during free play and structuredinteractions: An observational study. Social Develop-ment, 13, 255–277.

Owens, E. B., & Shaw,D. S. (2003). Predicting growth curvesof externalizing behavior across the preschool years.Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 31, 575–590.

Panksepp, J. (2001). The long-term psychobiological conse-quences of infant emotions: Prescriptions for the twenty-first century. InfantMental Health Journal, 22, 132–173.

Posner, M., & Rothbart, M. (2000). Developing mecha-nisms of self-regulation.Development and Psychopath-ology, 12, 427–441.

Prencipe, A., & Zelazo, P. D. (2005). Development of affec-tive decision making for self and other: Evidence forthe integration of first- and third-person perspectives.Psychological Science, 16, 501–505.

Ramsden, S. R., & Hubbard, J. A. (2002). Family expres-siveness and parental emotion coaching: Their role inchildren’s emotion regulation and aggression. Journalof Abnormal Child Psychology, 30, 657–667.

Rapee, R. M., Kennedy, S., Ingram, M., Edwards, S., &Sweeney, L. (2005). Prevention and early interventionof anxiety disorders in inhibited preschool children. Jour-nal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73, 488–497.

Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchicallinear models: Applications and data analysis methods.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Raver, C. C. (1996). Relations between social contingencyin mother–child interaction and 2-year-olds’ socialcompetence. Developmental Psychology, 32, 850–859.

Raver, C. C. (2004). Placing emotional self-regulation insociocultural and socioeconomic contexts.Child Devel-opment, 375, 346–353.

Raver, C. C., & Spagnola, M. (2002). “When my mommywas angry, I was speechless”: Children’s perceptions ofmaternal emotional expressiveness within the context ofeconomic hardship. Marriage and Family Review, 34,63–88.

Robin, A., Schneider,M., &Dolnick,M. (1976). The TurtleTechnique: An extended case study of self-control in theclassroom. Psychology in the Schools, 13, 449–453.

Robins, L. N. (1992). The role of prevention experiments indiscovering causes of children’s antisocial behavior. InJ. McCord & R. E. Tremblay (Eds.), Preventing anti-social behavior: Interventions from birth throughadolescence (pp. 3–18). New York: Guilford Press.

Rogosch, F. A., Cicchetti, D., & Aber, J. L. (1995). The roleof child maltreatment in early deviations in cognitiveand affective processing abilities and later peer relation-ship problems. Development and Psychopathology, 7,591–609.

Rubin, K. H., Cheah, C. S. L., & Fox, N. (2001). Emotion reg-ulation, parenting and display of social reticence in pre-schoolers.Early Education andDevelopment, 12, 97–115.

Rydell, A.-M., Berlin, L., & Bohlin, G. (2003). Emotional-ity, emotion regulation, and adaptation among 5- to 8-year-old children. Emotion, 3, 30–47.

Samoilov, A., & Goldfried, M. R. (2000). Role of emotionin cognitive–behavior therapy. Clinical Psychology:Science & Practice, 7, 373–385.

Schneider, M. (1974). Turtle technique in the classroom.Teaching Exceptional Children, 7, 22–24.

Schultz, D., Izard, C. E., & Bear, G. G. (2004). Children’semotion processing: Relations to emotionality and aggres-sion. Development and Psychopathology, 16, 371–387.

Shaw, D. S., Vondra, J. I., Hommerding, K. D., Keenan, K.,& Dunn, J. (1994). Chronic family adversity and earlychild behavior problems: A longitudinal study of lowincome families. Journal of Child Psychology andPsychiatry, 35, 1109–1122.

Shaw, D. S., Winslow, E. B., Owens, E. B., Vondra, J. I.,Cohn, J. F., & Bell, R. Q. (1998). The development ofearly externalizing problems among children fromlow-income families: A transformational perspective.Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 26, 95–107.

Shields, A., & Cicchetti, D. (1997). Emotion regulationamong school-age children: The development and vali-dation of a new criterion Q-sort scale. DevelopmentalPsychology, 33, 906–916.

Shure, M. B. (1993). I can problem solve (ICPS): Interper-sonal cognitive problem solving for young children.Early Child Development and Care, 96, 49–64.

Smith, M. (2001). Social and emotional competencies:Contributions to young African-American children’speer acceptance. Early Education and Development,12, 49–72.

Southam-Gerow, M. A., & Kendall, P. C. (2002). Emotionregulation and understanding: Implications for childpsychopathology and therapy. Clinical PsychologyReview, 22, 189–222.

Tomasello, M., Carpenter, M., Call, J., Behne, T., &Moll, H.(2005). Understanding and sharing intentions: The ori-gins of cultural cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sci-ences, 28, 675–691.

Tomkins, S. S. (1962). Affect, imagery, consciousness: Vol.I. The positive affects. New York: Springer.

Tomkins, S. S. (1963). Affect, imagery, consciousness: Vol.II. The negative affects. New York: Springer.

Trentacosta, C. J., Izard, C. E., Mostow, A. J., & Fine, S. E.(2006). Children’s emotional competence and atten-tional competence in early elementary school. SchoolPsychology Quarterly, 21, 149–170.

Volling, B. L. (2001). Early attachment relationships as pre-dictors of preschool children’s emotion regulation witha distressed sibling. Early Education and Development,12, 185–207.

Walden, T. A., & Field, T. M. (1990). Preschool children’ssocial competence and production and discrimination ofaffective expressions. British Journal of DevelopmentalPsychology, 8, 65–76.

Webster-Stratton, C., Reid, M. J., & Hammond, M. (2001).Preventing conduct problems, promoting social compe-tence: A parent and teacher training partnership in headstart. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 30,283–302.

Zeanah, C. H., Boris, N. W., & Scheeringa, M. S. (1997).Psychopathology in infancy. Journal of Child Psychol-ogy & Psychiatry & Allied Disciplines, 38, 81–99.


Documents

Accelerating the development of emotion competence in …