Content uploaded by Kathryn Lynn Modecki
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Kathryn Lynn Modecki on Feb 18, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
Relations between Social Context and Adolescents’ Emotional Reactivity to Daily Stress
1
Previous Experience Sampling Method (ESM) studies demonstrate that adolescents’ daily
emotional states are heavily influenced by their immediate social context. However, ESM
research is yet to examine the influence of peers on adolescents’ emotional responses to
stressors that they encounter across the day, despite adolescence being a risk period for
exposure to daily stressors. Adolescents (N = 108) from a low-SES school completed ESM
reports of their social context, minor stressors and emotions, 5 times a day for 7 days.
Based on previous findings that the peer context is experienced as positive and rewarding,
we expected being with peers be associated with lower post-stress negative emotions and
higher happiness, compared being with family or alone. As expected, being with peers
after a stressor was associated with lower sadness, worry and jealousy compared to being
alone, and lower sadness compared to being with family. Gender differences emerged for
the influence of peers for all of the emotions under examination. The findings demonstrate
the influence that peers can have on adolescents’ emotional reactivity to stressors as they
occur in their natural environment. Findings are discussed in reference to peers as
important emotion socialization agents during adolescence and in terms of theories of
coping and emotion regulation.
Key words: Peers, Daily Stressors, Social Context, Emotions, Experience Sampling
Relations between Social Context and Adolescents’ Emotional Reactivity to Daily Stress
2
Disadvantaged youth report less negative emotion to minor stressors when with
peers: An experience sampling study
During adolescence, daily challenges emerge as a consequence of entering more complex
social relationships and navigating increasingly autonomous roles. As a result of such
changes adolescents are at risk of increased exposure to minor, daily stressors (Ham &
Larson, 1990). Unfortunately, the intensity of emotion that can result from these stressors
is associated with elevated internalizing and externalizing symptoms (Silk, Steinberg, &
Morris, 2003). Thus, adolescents’ exposure to daily stressors can have significant
psychological cost. In an effort to understand factors that might dampen the influence of
daily stressors on adolescents’ emotions we examine social context as a potential
moderator of adolescents’ emotional reactivity to moment-to-moment stressors.
Specifically, we use experience sampling (ESM) to examine whether being with peers
after a stressor- compared to being alone or with family- is associated with lower negative
emotion and higher happiness, among a sample of socio-economically disadvantaged
adolescents. The use of ESM allows for temporally accurate reports of the emotions, social
contexts and stressors that adolescents’ experience in their day-to-day lives.
Social Context and Adolescents’ Responses to Daily Stressors
Previous ESM research suggests that minor, daily stressors are associated with
elevations in state negative affect among adolescents (Schneiders et al., 2006). Although
the experience of intense negative emotional is not necessarily maladaptive, developmental
changes that occur during adolescence may make it more difficult for adolescents to
regulate such intense emotion. For instance, puberty brings about rapid neuronal growth in
adolescents’ appetitive, approach systems which serves to draw adolescents towards
increased motivational and emotion inputs, including excitement seeking and peers
Relations between Social Context and Adolescents’ Emotional Reactivity to Daily Stress
3
(Galvan, Hare, Voss, Glover, & Casey, 2007). However, the protracted fine-tuning of the
cognitive control system results in adolescents’ inability to effectively regulate the upsurge
in these motivational and emotional inputs (Luciana, 2013). As a result, adolescents
arguably find it difficult to regulate the surges in emotion that are associated with daily
stressors. Consequently, adolescents are at-risk of potentially maladaptive patterns of daily
emotional flux (Neumann, van Lier, Frijns, Meeus, & Koot, 2011; Suveg, Payne,
Tommason, & Jacob, 2009). Thus, it is imperative that research identify factors which may
moderate adolescents’ emotional reactivity to daily stressors.
Following on from this, theoretical perspectives on coping highlight the role that
social context plays in stress responses. For instance, transactional models of coping
highlight the iterative process that individuals go through in order to formulate a response
to stress (Lazarus & Folkman, 1987). Perceived efficacy to cope with a stressor is
determined after the individual has evaluated the degree of support afforded to them by
their environment. In turn, perceived support influences the individual’s coping efforts.
Thus, stress responses involve a dynamic interaction between the individual and their
environment. As such, taking into account the potential influence of the social context in
which an adolescent is embedded following a stressor may be especially important to
understanding adolescents’ coping responses.
Examining the Influence of Peers on Adolescents’ Emotions
Given the potential influence of social context on adolescents’ stress responses it is
worth considering whether specific social contexts are influential in shaping adolescents’
emotional responses to stress. One salient social context for adolescents is the peer context
(Steinberg, 2008). Youths spend increasing amounts of time with peers as they transition
into adolescence, even after accounting for time spent in school (Larson, Richards,
Relations between Social Context and Adolescents’ Emotional Reactivity to Daily Stress
4
Moneta, Holmbeck, & Duckett, 1996; Larson & Richards, 1991). At the same time,
adolescents spend increasing amounts of time alone, arguably as a result of increased
desire for independence. By contrast, adolescents spend decreasing amounts of time with
their family.
The increasing amount of time spent with peers, relative to family, likely reflects
that the peer context matches adolescents’ developmental needs (Eccles et al., 1992). For
instance, adolescent friendships are characterized by increased disclosure of intimate
information, which may facilitate development of emotional autonomy, as well as
understanding of self and others (Parker & Gottman, 1989). Likewise, adolescence is a
period of increased desire for social acceptance (Sommerville, 2013) which can be
achieved in the peer context.
How Peers May Shape Adolescents’ Stress Response
There is preliminary evidence to suggest peers play a particularly potent role in
helping adolescents to cope emotionally with stress. For example, having strong
friendships, numerous friends and high peer acceptance protects against surges in
loneliness during adolescents’ transition from elementary to middle school (Kingery,
Erdley & Marshal, 2011). By contrast, jealousy can emerge from a lack of perceived
emotional support among friends (Parker, Low, Walker & Gamm, 2005). However, given
that daily stressors are far more common than major life transitions (Compas, Davis,
Forsythe, & Wagner, 1987), and are the events and experiences that make up adolescents’
daily lives, it is likely that peers play a recurrent role in shaping adolescents’ emotions
during times of stress. Specifically, because receipt of peer support is linked with reduced
loneliness and jealousy, peers may be associated with lower post-stress loneliness and
jealousy compared to other social contexts.
Relations between Social Context and Adolescents’ Emotional Reactivity to Daily Stress
5
Peers may also be associated with more positively valanced emotional states after a
stressor because adolescents experience peers, in general, as a positive and rewarding
context. Neuro-imaging studies show increased activity in brain ‘reward centers’ when
adolescents are with peers, especially compared to when they are alone (Chein et al.,
2011). In addition, preliminary ESM work demonstrates that being with peers is associated
with greater positive affect, lower anger and lower sadness, compared to being with family
or being alone (Silk et al., 2011; Schneiders et al., 2007; Larson & Richards, 1991).
Likewise, adolescents experience the peer context as more ‘open’ and ‘free’ compared to
the family context, whereas parental relationships are experienced as more punitive
(Larson, 1983). In fact, while peers seem to be associated with positive affect, spending
time with family and spending time alone may both be associated with more negative
affect among adolescents.
Moreover, peers may shape adolescents emotional responses to daily stressors
because they act as emotion socialization agents. Emotion socialization agents directly or
indirectly promote the expression of emotion (Klimes-Dougan et al., 2007), and thus may
influence the degree to which an adolescent chooses to express emotions within a
particular context. There is some evidence to suggest that peers, at least in terms of a close
friend, may actually serve as cues to down-regulate negative emotions. For instance,
adolescents perceive their best-friend as less supportive and expect more negative
feedback from negative emotional displays, compared to parents (Zeman & Shipman,
1997). Further, in lab-based observations, supportive responses to emotion talk from a
close friend increases subsequent emotion talk, whereas dismissing responses result in
minimizing emotion talk (Legerski, Biggs, Greenhoot, & Sampilo, 2015). These findings
highlight the ways in which adolescents’ friends can shape the expression of emotion.
Moreover, adolescents may be more likely to down-regulate their negative emotions with
Relations between Social Context and Adolescents’ Emotional Reactivity to Daily Stress
6
peers due to peer norms not favouring uncontrolled outbursts of emotion (von Salisch,
2001). While one conclusion from these findings could be that peers may not be helpful to
adolescents’ coping, it could be that adolescents are acutely aware of emotion display rules
within the peer group and thus would be more likely to down-regulate their negative
emotion with peers, possibly resulting in better coping outcomes.
Gender Differences
It is possible that peer effects may vary by gender. Illustratively, girls perceive their
peers as more supportive of their expression of negative emotion (Zeman & Shipman,
1997). Further, boys who show deregulated sadness around their peers are lower in peer
acceptance, whereas the same is not found in girls (Perry-Parish & Zeman, 2011). These
findings suggest that adolescent girls may experience more emotional benefits from being
in the presence of peers after experiencing a stressor than boys do. However, adolescent
girls are also at higher risk than boys for co-rumination with friends, a process which
involves repeatedly discussing emotionally provoking problems and is associated with
negative affect (Rose, 2002). Thus, it is also possible that due to co-rumination, peers may
be associated with greater negative affect after a stressor among girls.
Using ESM to Assess Social Context-Emotion Relations
Although previous studies provide important insight into the role peers play in
shaping adolescents’ stress responses, for the most part, these studies have relied upon
participants imagined emotional responses to hypothetical situations across different social
context, or observations of peer dyads in laboratory settings. Alternatively, the use of ESM
allows for the examination of social context-emotion relations in response to stressors that
occur in the adolescents’ natural environment. Moreover, ESM allows for ‘in-the-moment’
sampling of emotions and events as they occur throughout the day, reducing the possibility
Relations between Social Context and Adolescents’ Emotional Reactivity to Daily Stress
7
of retrospective recall bias of emotions and events (Myin-Gyrmeys et al., 2009). Thus,
studies that assess adolescents’ momentary emotional responses to stressors in relation to
the different social contexts in which adolescents spend time provide unique, ecologically-
valid insight into adolescents’ daily lives.
Current Study
Although previous research indicates that peer, family, and alone contexts are
experienced differently, no study to our knowledge has directly compared the influence of
peer context with family or being alone on adolescents’ levels of emotion after a minor
stressor. Thus the current study uses ESM to examine whether adolescents’ social context,
in the hours after a stressor, moderates the relation between exposure to a stressor and
emotion. In addition, we test for gender differences in the influence of social context on
adolescents’ emotional reactivity to stressors. We use ESM to examine emotional
reactivity to stress, that is, the post-stress increase or decrease in an emotion post-stress,
relative to an adolescent’s typical level of that emotion. Importantly, emotional reactivity
is not to be mistaken for emotional dysregulation, which reflects a range of emotion
regulation difficulties, such as unacceptance of distress and poor emotion recognition, and
represents a typical way of responding to stress rather than an aspect of the temporal
dynamics of daily emotion (Weinberg & Klonsky, 2009).
We examine the primary emotions of happiness and sadness. Because of links to
peer support, we also examine the emotions of loneliness and jealousy. In addition, we
examine post-stress worry because daily stressors are associated with higher state anxiety
among adolescents (Schneiders et al., 2006). Importantly, previous ESM research
demonstrates that peers set the emotional tone when adolescents are with both friends and
family and when peers are physically absent (e.g. talking to peers on the phone; Larson &
Relations between Social Context and Adolescents’ Emotional Reactivity to Daily Stress
8
Richards, 1991). Thus, moments when participants were with family and peers and when
they were talking to friends online were included in the ‘peers’ category.
We utilize a low socio-economic status (SES) sample because economically
disadvantaged youths report higher rates of exposure to daily stressors (Evans, Vermeylen,
Barash, Lefkowitz, & Hutt, 2009). Consistent with previous research we expected
adolescents’ happiness to be higher and negative emotions to be lower when they were
with peers compared to when they were alone or with family. Because peers are found to
be supportive and rewarding contexts we expected that being with peers in the hours after
a stressor would be associated with lower negative emotion and higher happiness,
compared to being alone or being with a family member. No specific hypotheses about
gender differences in social context-emotional reactivity relations were set, due to
diverging evidence which suggests that girls not only benefit more from peer presence
during times of stress, but also are at greater risk of co-rumination than boys.
Method
Participants
Participants were 112 adolescents, however, two participants withdrew consent
during the study and another did not commence the ESM phase. Thus, the final sample
consisted of one hundred and eight adolescents (Mage =14.7, S.D =.92, 13-16 years, girls
= 68.6%) from a low socio-economic status (SES) school in Western Australia. The
school’s SES was determined by an Index of Community and Socio-Education Economic
Disadvantage allocated to each school in the state (ISCEA; Index of Community and
Socio-Education Economic Advantage; Australian Curriculum, Assessment & Reporting
Authority, 2013). ISCEA values are determined based on the school’s geographical
location, parental education levels and per-cent of Indigenous and non-English speaking
Relations between Social Context and Adolescents’ Emotional Reactivity to Daily Stress
9
background students. The majority of participants reported their ethnicity as Caucasian
(75.7%), 6.8% Maori, 3.9% African, .9% Asian, .9% Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander,
and 11.7% ‘other’. There was no significant gender difference in age (t (91) = .136, p =
.892; girls Mage = 14.72 years, boys Mage = 14.73 years).
Procedure
Data collection took place over the two weeks in the final school term of 2013 and
over three weeks in the first term of 2014. Data were collected in two time periods due to
having a limited number of smartphones, although data from both periods was combined
for the final sample. Adolescents and their parents were invited to participate in the study
and gave written consent prior to participating. Approval for the study was granted by the
University Human Ethics Committee. Participants did not receive any financial
compensation for participation in the study.
Pre and Post-ESM Phase. Prior to beginning the ESM phase, and immediately
after, participants completed a computerized survey which contained questions about
demographics (e.g. gender, parental education level) as well as other variables of interest.
This method provides more stable, trait-level indicators of measures of interest. Specific to
this study, depression, social anxiety and externalizing were measured pre and post ESM
and were included as between-level covariates in all analyses.
ESM Phase. During the ESM phase participants reported on their current
emotions, social context, physical location, minor stressors (negative events) and positive
events across the day. Participants completed the ESM surveys five times a day for seven
days. The sampling phase included time points when participants were in and out of school
as well as weekdays and a weekend, and thus captured moments a variety of social and
physical contexts. Participants did not complete any ESM surveys during class hours to
Relations between Social Context and Adolescents’ Emotional Reactivity to Daily Stress
10
minimize disruption to their class work. Instead, participants completed “lunch time”
surveys during their lunch break.
Participants were sent text messages containing web-links to the ESM surveys and
instructed to complete the survey as soon as possible. Surveys closed within an hour of
being sent, thus eliminating the opportunity for a participant to complete multiple surveys
at once, for example, at the end of the day. A reminder message was sent five minutes
before each survey closed in order to maximize response rates.
The surveys were sent in five, half-hour time blocks each day, in the hours between
7:30am-9:30 pm on weekdays (Morning; 7:30-8:00am, Lunch = 1:15pm, After school;
3:30-4:00 pm, Dinner; 6:30-7:00pm and Night: 9:00-9:30pm), and between 9:00am and
10:00pm on weekends (Mornings: 9:00-9:30 am; Dinner 9:30-10:00pm). The exact survey
times within these half-hour time blocks were randomized to reduce the possibility of
participants habituating to a set response time. Participants received training in using the
smartphones prior to commencing the ESM phase and a researcher was always available to
resolve any technical issues.
Person-level Measures
Depression. Participants completed the Reynolds’s Adolescent Depression Scale -
2nd edition (RADS-2; Reynolds, 2004). The RADS-2 is a 30 item self-report questionnaire
that assesses risk of diagnosis of depression (e.g. “How often do you feel sad”; 1 = Almost
Never, 4 = Most of the Time). Participants who scored above a clinical-cut off score, based
on the average of their pre-and post ESM scores were coded as risk of clinical depression
(N = 16; Depression pre-ESM α =.82, post-ESM α =.87).
Relations between Social Context and Adolescents’ Emotional Reactivity to Daily Stress
11
Social Anxiety. Participants completed the 18 item self-report Social Anxiety
Scale for Adolescents (SAS-A; LaGrecca et al., 1998; e.g. “I worry about what others
think of me”, “I get nervous when I meet new people”; 1 = Not at All, 5 = All the Time).
Participants’ total scores from the pre-and post ESM phases were averaged for a final
social anxiety variable with higher scores reflecting higher levels of social anxiety
symptoms (=.96, post-ESM α= .96, test-retest r = .62).
Externalizing. Externalizing symptoms were measured with 15 self-report items
designed to measure anti-social, delinquent and substance use behaviour that adolescents
typically engage in (Fredricks & Eccles, 2006; e.g. “How often in the last 6 months have
you gotten in a physical fight with someone? …been drunk?”; 0 = None, 7 = 31 or More
Times). Thus, higher scores represented more frequent participation in externalizing
behaviours. Participants’ scores from the pre-ESM and post-ESM phases were averaged
for a final externalizing variable (pre-ESM α= .85, post-ESM α =. 90, test-retest r = .88).
ESM Measures
Momentary Stressors. Adolescents’ exposure to minor stressors throughout the
day was assessed by asking “Since you were last messaged, has anything bad happened to
you?” at each sampling moment. A similar question format has been used in previous
ESM research (Schneiders et al., 2006). The question format also meant that participants
reported on stressors that had occurred within the last 2-5 hours. Participants then rated
how severe the event was (1 = “Sort of Bad”, 5 = Very bad”) and provided a brief
description of the event. Only events that were rated ≥3 on the severity item were included
in the current analyses, given that perceived severity of a stressor influences coping
responses (Lazarus & Folkman, 1987). Likewise, to ensure events tapped substantive
external events from which adolescents could conceivably “bounce back” in the short-
Relations between Social Context and Adolescents’ Emotional Reactivity to Daily Stress
12
term, events that related to an adolescent’s internal state (e.g. ‘Nothing, I just feel bad’;
.26% of events) and events that referred to major life stressors (e.g. ‘Found out a friend’s
dad is dying’) were excluded from the analyses. A dummy variable was created for
negative events (0 = no bad event since last messaged, 1 = bad event since last messaged).
Positive events across the day were assessed in a similar way, and positive events with a
valence of ≥ 3 (1 = “Sort of Good”, 5 = “Very good”) were included as a level 1 co-
variate in the main analyses.
Social Context. Participants’ social context at each sampling moment was
assessed by asking “Right now, who are you with?” (alone, a friend, a number of friends,
with friends who are online, a family member, teacher, boyfriend/girlfriend or ‘other’).
The option of ‘with peers who are online’ assessed whether adolescents were physically
alone but interacting with peers via the internet. Two separate dichotomous variables were
created to indicate whether adolescents were, 1) with peers versus alone (pVa; 0 = alone, 1
= peers), and 2) with peers versus family (pVf; 0 = family, 1 = peers). Being with a friend,
a number of friends, with online friends or with friends and family were re-coded as being
‘with peers’. Romantic peers were excluded from the peer category.
Momentary Emotion. Adolescents’ emotions across the day were assessed by
asking “Right now, how are you feeling?” at each sampling moment. Specific to the
current study, participants rated how happy, sad, lonely, worried and jealous they were
feeling (1 = “Not at all”, 5 = “Very Much”).
Physical Location. Adolescents also reported on their current physical location at
each sampling moment (at home, school, at a family member’s house [not home], going
somewhere/transport, in a public place, at work, at sport or ‘other’). Specific to the
current study, physical location data were used to assess where adolescents were most
Relations between Social Context and Adolescents’ Emotional Reactivity to Daily Stress
13
likely to be when they were in the presence of peers, and thus provide descriptive data
regarding activities they were engaged in when with peers.
Analyses
Data from the first day of the sampling phase were excluded from analyses, to
allow participants to adapt to the sampling protocol, resulting in 3240 possible sampling
moments total. For descriptive analyses, frequency of negative events was summed and
levels of each emotion were averaged across the six days. Table 1 presents pairwise
correlations between study variables.
Because the data were nested (repeated measures nested within person) a series of
variance-component models were run prior to the main analyses in order to examine
whether hierarchical-linear modelling (HLM) was appropriate. Significant within-and
between-person variance in each emotion (Table 2) indicated that HLM was appropriate
for the data (Hox, 2010). All main analyses were run using HLM in MPlus V7 (Muthén
& Muthén, 2012). Separate models were run for each emotion and for each social context
comparison (pVa; pVf).
Level 1 random-intercept models (Equation 1) tested for the main effects of 1)
negative event on emotion, 2) social context on emotion and, 3) whether the main effect of
negative event on emotion was conditioned by social context (Negative Event x Social
Context interaction). Concurrent positive event and time of day were included as level 1
covariates. Consistent with prior research, a quadratic time of day covariate was used in
the happiness models (Barber, Jacobson, Miller, & Peterson, 1998).
Emotionij = β0j + β1j (negative event) + β2j (social context) + β3j (positive event) +
β4j (ToD) + β5j (negative event x social context) + eij. (1)
Relations between Social Context and Adolescents’ Emotional Reactivity to Daily Stress
14
As Equation 1 demonstrates an adolescent’s emotion score at any time point was a
function of the following: β0j, their average intercept value of negative event on emotion
for the week, β1j whether they had a negative event at each sampling moment, β2j their
social context in the moment when the negative event was reported, β3j, whether they had
a positive event at each sampling moment, β4j, time of day, β5j, the interaction of negative
event and social context and (eij), an error term for the individual
Level 2 random-intercept models estimated the main effect of gender on adolescents’
average level of each emotion for the week. Depression status, social anxiety and
externalizing scores were entered as level 2 covariates (Equation 2).
β0j = γ00 + γ01 (gender) + γ02 (depression) + γ03 (social anxiety) + γ04 (externalizing)
+ μ0j (2)
Where an adolescent’s emotion score for the week was a function of the average
emotion for the whole sample (y00) as well as their gender, depression status, of
depression, social anxiety level, externalizing symptoms, and an error term (u0j).
Last, we split the data file by gender to examine whether the above interaction effects
differed between genders. We did not test for a 3-way cross-level interaction of Gender x
Negative Event x Social Context due to limited power in our sample to detect such an
effect. All 2-way interactions were probed by plotting the simple slopes for each gender.
Unstandardized coefficients with standard errors are presented for simple slopes.
Results
Compliance and Missing Data
The median number of completed ESM reports across the six days was 17 (56.7%,
S.D = 7.58, Range = 1-30). Sixty per-cent of participants completed ≥50% of ESM reports.
Relations between Social Context and Adolescents’ Emotional Reactivity to Daily Stress
15
Our compliance rate was slightly lower than previous ESM studies with adolescents (e.g.
Schneiders et al., 2006), although consistent with another ESM study that do not offer
incentives for participation (Suveg et al., 2009). All missing data were estimated with full
maximum likelihood (FIML) procedure. The advantage of the FIML procedure is that it
uses all the information of the observed data and thus does not require a participant to have
data at every sampling moment (Enders, 2010). Girls completed significantly more ESM
reports than boys (t (104) = -.2.31, p <.05; girls = 71.4%, boys = 25.6%).
Descriptives
Negative events rated ≥3 were a relatively low occurrence in the current sample. The
average number of these negative events across the 6 days was 1.22 (S.D. = 1.60, Range 0-
7). Negative events were reported on 6.8% of completed sampling moments and just over
half of the participants (51.4%) reported at least one negative event across the six days.
Social anxiety was positively related to number of negative events (Table 1). Number of
negative events did not differ significantly between year of study; t (106) = -.241, p >.05.
Participants reported being with peers more often (43.2.7% of completed sampling
moments), than family (34.7%) or alone (20.4%). On weekdays, participants were most
likely to be with peers during lunch time, and with peers during mornings on weekends.
Adolescents’ Physical Locations and Time with Peers.
On average, during the weekdays, participants were most likely to be ‘going
somewhere’ when with peers in the mornings (34.05%), ‘at school’ with peers during
lunchtimes (95.60%), ‘at home’ with peers during the afternoons (34.68%), in a ‘public
place’ with peers during dinner times (45.8%) and ‘at home’ with peers during night times
(90.9%). During the weekend, participants were most likely to be ‘at home’ when they
Relations between Social Context and Adolescents’ Emotional Reactivity to Daily Stress
16
were with friends during the mornings (36.4%), during lunchtimes (41.65%) and
afternoons (40%), most likely to be ‘in a public place’ with peers during dinner times
(23.35%) and most likely to be at a ‘friend’s house’ during night times (40.33%). Note,
Friday nights were included as weekends. These results suggest that participants connected
with their peers through a variety of physical contexts.
HLM Analysis: Main Effects
Person-Level Variables. As Table 2 demonstrates, in the pVa models, participants at
risk of depression experienced significantly higher jealousy and worry across the week
compared to participants not at risk of depression. In addition, participants higher in social
anxiety demonstrated significantly higher loneliness compared to participants lower in
social anxiety. Table 2 also demonstrates that the main effect of depression became
significant for sadness, loneliness and worry in the pVf models. No other significant main
effects were found for level 2 predictors.
Adolescents’ Emotional Reactivity to Negative Events. Level 1 models revealed a
significant main effect of negative event for all of the emotions under examination (Table
2). These results suggested that negative events were associated with a lower happiness
and higher negative emotions compared to an individual’s average level of each emotion
for the week.
Adolescents’ Social Contexts and Momentary Emotions. Consistent with our
expectations being with peers was associated with significantly higher happiness compared
to be alone or with family and significantly lower loneliness compared to being alone
(Table 2). Surprisingly, no other significant main effects of social context were found.
However, the significant main effects should be interpreted in light of the significant
Negative Event x Social Context interactions reported below.
Relations between Social Context and Adolescents’ Emotional Reactivity to Daily Stress
17
HLM Analysis: Interaction Effects
Negative Event x pVa. There was a significant interaction effect for Negative
Event x pVa for sadness (Table 2). Consistent with our expectation, being with peers was
associated with lower post-stress sadness compared to being alone (Figure 1). As Figure 1
demonstrates, the relation between negative event and sadness was positive for adolescents
who were alone after the event, but negative for adolescent who were with peers after the
event. Inspection of simple slopes revealed the slope for ‘alone’ was significantly different
from zero (b = .491 (.21), p <.05), whereas the slope for ‘peers’ was not significantly
different from zero (b =-.88 (.50), p >. 05). This result suggests that being alone after a
negative event was associated with lower sadness compared to other time points in an
adolescent’s week, whereas being with peers was not associated with a decrease in
sadness.
A similar interaction effect was found for worry (Table 2; see Figure 1). Similar to
sadness, the relation between negative event and worry was positive for adolescents who
were alone after the event, but negative for adolescents who were with peers. Inspection of
simple slopes revealed that the slope for ‘alone’ was significantly different from zero
(b=.449 (.15), p <.01), but that the slope for ‘peers’ was not significantly different from
zero (b=-.453(.37), p >.05). Thus, being alone after a stressor was associated with higher
worry, relative to other time points, whereas being with peers not associated with increases
in worry. Further, being alone after a stressor was associated with higher worry compared
to being with peers.
Last, there was a significant interaction effect of Negative Event x pVa for jealousy
(Figure 2). As Figure 2 demonstrates, being with peers after a negative event was
associated with lower jealousy compared to being alone. The form of the interaction was
Relations between Social Context and Adolescents’ Emotional Reactivity to Daily Stress
18
such that there was a positive association between negative event and jealousy for
adolescents who were alone, but a negative relation between event and jealousy for
adolescents who were with peers after the event. The slope for ‘alone’ was not
significantly different from zero (b = .033 (.09), p >. 05), whereas the slope for ‘peers’ was
significantly different from zero (b = -0.799 27), p <. 01). This result suggests that being
with peers after a stressor was associated with lower levels of jealousy, compared to other
time points in an adolescent’s week.
Negative Event x pVf. Next, we examined the interaction effect of Negative
Event x pVf. Analyses revealed a significant interaction of Negative Event x pVf for
sadness (Table 2). Similar to the Negative Event x pVa result, adolescents’ who were with
family after a negative event demonstrated higher levels of sadness, compared to
adolescents who were with peers after the event (see Figure 1). Thus, as expected, being
with peers was associated with lower post-stress sadness compared to being with family.
Inspection of simple slopes revealed that the slopes for ‘family’ and for ‘peers’ were trend
level significantly different from zero (b=.256 (.14), p = .06; b = -.612 (.33), p = .06). This
result suggest that being with peers after a stressor was associated with lower sadness,
compared to other time points, whereas being with family was associated with higher
sadness. No other significant interaction effects of Negative Event x pVf were found.
Gender Differences
Negative Event x pVa. A gender difference emerged in the interaction of
Negative Event x pVa for sadness, worry, jealousy and happiness. For girls, the interaction
of Negative Event x pVa was significant for sadness (β = -1.40 (.51), p <.05), worry (β = -
1.04 (.37), p <.05), and jealousy (β -0.926 (.30), p <.05) but not for boys (β = -0.893 (1.6),
p = >.05; β = .839 (.93), p >.05; β = .268(.42), p <.05). Inspection of simple slopes
Relations between Social Context and Adolescents’ Emotional Reactivity to Daily Stress
19
suggested that the interactions were in the same form as those found in the full sample (see
Figure 1). Thus, being with peers after a negative event was associated with lower sadness,
worry and jealousy, compared to being alone, for girls but not for boys.
By contrast, there was a significant interaction effect of Negative Event x pVa on
happiness for boys (β = 2.46 (.31), p <.05) but not for girls (β= .322(.48), p >.05). As
Figure 3 demonstrates, there was a positive relation between negative event and happiness
for participants who were with peers after the event, whereas there was a negative relation
between event and happiness for participants who were alone. Inspection of simple slopes
revealed that the slope of ‘peers’ was significant from zero (b = 2.28(.53), p <.001)
whereas the slope for ‘alone’ was not significant from zero (b = .176(.25), p <.05). Thus,
being with peers after a negative event was associated with higher happiness, relative to
other time points, as well as higher happiness compared to being alone.
Negative Event x pVf. Last, there was a significant interaction effect of Negative
Event x pVf for sadness for girls (β = -.805 (.36), p <.05). The form of the interaction was
similar to that found in the full sample (see Figure 1). However, inspection of simple
slopes revealed that neither the slope of ‘peers’ or ‘family’ were significant from zero (b =
-.56(.35); b =.245(.15), p >.05).
Discussion
The current study addressed an important gap in the research literature by
examining the influence of social context on adolescents’ emotional responses to daily
stressors. As expected, being with peers in the hours after a stressor was associated with
lower levels of sadness, worry and jealousy, compared to other social contexts. Further, the
influence of peers differed between girls and boys. Overall, the findings suggest that peers
are important in shaping adolescents’ moment-to-moment emotional responses to stress.
Relations between Social Context and Adolescents’ Emotional Reactivity to Daily Stress
20
Below, we discuss the current findings in relation to how adolescents’ experience the peer
context, before linking findings to social-contextual theories of coping.
Time with Peers during Adolescence
Given that the peer context represents a space for positive developmental and
affective experiences (Silk et al., 2001; Parker & Gottman, 1989), it is not surprising that
participants in the current study spent the majority of their waking hours with peers.
Interestingly, participants were most likely to be with peers during school hours,
suggesting that time with peers was dependent on access to peers. Participants also
engaged with peers across a variety of physical contexts which mapped onto a daily
routine. For example, participants’ were most likely to be ‘going somewhere’ with peers
on weekday mornings, likely reflecting the commute to school. These findings suggest that
time with peers outside of school hours may have been limited by external factors, for
instance, lack of transportation, and that participants took advantage of physical settings
where they could engage with peers. These findings are consistent with previous ESM
studies that demonstrate that adolescents spend the majority of their time with peers
(Larson et al., 1996; Larson & Richards, 1994).
The Influence of Peers on Adolescents’ Post-Stress Emotions
The major aim of the current study was to examine whether social context
conditioned the relation between daily stressors and emotions. Peers become a salient
influence on behavior and emotional states during adolescence and play an important role
in adolescents’ coping via the provision of social support (Chein, Albert, O’Brien, Uckert
& Steinberg, 2011; Kingery et al., 2011; Silk et al., 2011; Larson & Richards, 1991). Thus,
we expected that that being with peers after a stressor would be associated with more
positively valanced emotional states, compared to being alone or with family. The current
Relations between Social Context and Adolescents’ Emotional Reactivity to Daily Stress
21
findings were largely in support of our expectations, and add to the ESM literature by
demonstrating that peers shape adolescents ‘in-the-moment’ emotional responses to stress.
Specifically, being with peers was associated with lower post-stress sadness
compared to being alone and with family. One possible explanation for this finding is that
adolescents may down-regulate overt displays of sadness within the peer context out of
fear of negative consequences (e.g. teasing; von Salisch, 2011; Zeman & Shipman, 1997).
Arguably, if participants were cognizant of peer expectations around not displaying
sadness this would influence the subjective experience of sadness within the peer context
(von Salisch, 2001). Indeed, how others react to emotion displays can influence further
regulation efforts (Gilbert, 2015; Legerski et al., 2015). By contrast, adolescents expect
parents to be more supportive of displays of sadness (Zeman & Shipman, 1997) and may
be more comfortable displaying sadness when alone, resulting in greater overt displays of
sadness within these contexts.
Similar to sadness, being with peers after a stressor was associated with lower
worry and jealousy, compared to being alone. Previous research demonstrates that peers
are important sources of social support during times of major stress (Kingery et al., 2011).
Arguably, peers could offer social support throughout the day, even for relatively minor
stressors. As a consequence of receiving social support participants’ may experience less
worry about the stressor. Indeed, transactional models of coping point to a process
whereby individuals evaluate the resources in their environment that may bolster their
coping efficacy (Lazarus & Foklman, 1987). Likewise, jealousy among peers can arise
from the perception that friend is not available to meet emotional needs (Parker, Low,
Walker, & Gamm, 2005). Thus, participants who approached their peers during times of
stress and received support may have gained a sense of emotional needs being met, leading
Relations between Social Context and Adolescents’ Emotional Reactivity to Daily Stress
22
to lower jealousy compared to other contexts. Indeed, sharing intimate information is a key
characteristic of adolescent friendships and sharing emotions is linked to intimacy in
friendships (Zech, Rime, & Nils., 2004; Parker & Gottman, 1989).
Gender Differences
Several of the above findings regarding the conditioning effect of peers remained
only for girls when we examined gender differences. Specifically, being with peers
conditioned the relationship between stressor and sadness, worry and jealousy. Girls’ peer
relations are characterised by higher social support and girls expect more emotional
support from peers for displays of sadness compared to boys (Zeman & Shipman, 1997;
Slavin & Rainer, 1990), which may account for these findings. Interestingly, though, being
with peers after a stressor was associated with higher happiness compared to being alone
only for boys, suggesting that peers played a role in shaping boys’ positive emotion after a
stressor. However, the current sample consisted mainly of girls (67%) and these gender
differences may be a statistical artefact. Thus, future studies should examine social
context-emotional reactivity relations among a sample with more even gender
representation. Nevertheless, the current findings point to potential gender differences in
the conditioning effect of peers on adolescents’ emotional reactivity to minor stressors.
The Role of State Emotion in Adolescents’ Well-Being
Although the above findings suggest that peers are associated with more positively
valanced post-stress emotional states, it is worth noting two assumptions. First, lower state
negative emotion (or higher state happiness) is not necessarily indicative of an
adolescents’ successful coping or overall emotional well-being. Healthy adolescents
demonstrate overall less intense positive affect and more intense negative affect compared
to pre-adolescence and demonstrate elevations in negative affect on days with stressors
Relations between Social Context and Adolescents’ Emotional Reactivity to Daily Stress
23
(Schneiders et al., 2006; Larson et al., 2002), suggesting that temporal lows in emotional
states are not necessarily associated with maladaptive outcomes. Moreover, ‘time out’
from positive emotions may be adaptive in some contexts (Gilbert, 2015).
However, previous work also suggests links between internalizing and
externalizing and greater peaks in negative affect on days with stressors, compared to
healthy adolescents (Schneiders et al., 2006). Thus, it may be that the extent of emotional
reactivity to stress, rather than the absolute level of emotion, is associated with
maladaptive outcomes. Indeed, greater emotional variability is predictive of adolescents’
depression and problem behaviour (Neumann et al., 2011). Importantly, although the
current study did not examine change in an individual’s emotion after a stressor (compared
to pre-event levels), the findings suggest that being with peers is associated with lower
emotional reactivity, compared to other social contexts. Thus, peers may help dampen the
emotional flux that adolescents experience as a result of exposure to daily stressors.
Peers as Emotion Socialization Agents and Theories of Coping
Although we did not directly emotion socialization processes, the current findings
add weight to the view that peers are emotion socialization agents (Klimes-Dougan et al.,
2014), by demonstrating that peers shape adolescents’ levels of emotion in response to
stress. Further, our findings are consistent with laboratory based observations of peer
dyads that suggest peers influence the amount of emotion talk during a problem solving
task (Legerski et al., 2015). The current findings expand on laboratory-based findings and
suggest that everyday events provide the context in which peer emotion socialization
occurs. Moreover, the current findings support notions of the embedded nature of
adolescents’ emotional and social worlds, and are consistent with theories of coping that
Relations between Social Context and Adolescents’ Emotional Reactivity to Daily Stress
24
highlight interactions between the individual’s emotional response to the stressor and their
environment (Lazarus & Folkman, 1987).
Next Steps
Although the findings fill an important gap in our understanding on the influence
of peers on adolescents’ stress responses, several questions remain unanswered. First, we
did not measure adolescents’ objective displays of sadness across different social contexts
and therefore cannot comment on whether adherence to peer norms resulted in lower
sadness within the peer context. Future research would benefit from examining objective
displays of sadness within the peer context, along with subjective reports of sadness, in
order to understand whether adolescents’ deliberately regulate their displays of sadness
within the peer group to remain in-line with peer norms. Gathering ESM data on
adolescents’ overt displays of emotion, and more broadly, emotion socialization practices
within the peer context will allow researchers to examine the mechanisms by which peer
influence adolescents’ emotional experiences.
Relatedly, the current findings could be explained by participants seeking out
specific contexts during times of stress. Because the peer context is generally experienced
as positive and rewarding (Chein et al., 2011) participants may have sought out peers
during times of stress as an ‘emotional tonic’ for transient dips in affect. Indeed, lowered
emotional states may prompt a desire to re-connect with others (Gilbert, 2015).
Participants may have also actively sought time alone during time of heightened negative
emotion, possibly as an emotional reprieve from stress (Larson, 1997). Due to the nature
of the data we collected, we cannot say whether participants actively sought our peers after
a stressor. Thus, future research would benefit from examining whether adolescents
actively seek out specific contexts during times of stress as a way to regulate emotion.
Relations between Social Context and Adolescents’ Emotional Reactivity to Daily Stress
25
Second, although we did not find support for the notion that girls’ negative emotion
would be higher if they were with peers after a stressor, possibly due to co-rumination
(Rose, 2002), we did not directly measure co-rumination in the current study. Thus,
examining whether adolescent girls engage in co-rumination on a daily basis, and whether
this diminishes the positive effect of peers on girls’ post-stress emotions, remains an
important empirical question. Third, because participants were only asked to indicate
whether they were with a family member we were unable to examine the influence of
different family members (e.g. mother, father, siblings) on post-stress emotion. Previous
research suggests that mother, father and sibling relationships follow a unique relational
pattern across adolescence (Larson & Richards, 1991). As a consequence, different family
members may have different influences on adolescents’ emotional reactivity. Likewise,
adolescent peer relationships are complex and multi-dimensional, and future studies would
benefit from a nuanced examination of different peer relationships, for instance, the
influence of a best-friend versus other friends on adolescents’ emotional responses to
stress.
Last, the number of minor stressors reported was relatively low in the current
study, especially given the disadvantaged nature of the sample (Evans et al., 2009).
Although participants were briefed on what types of events could be used to answer this
question, asking participants to report on “bad” events rather than stressful events could
have meant participants failed to report on minor stressors that they did not judge as “bad”.
Relatedly, the use of a socio-economically disadvantaged sample limits the extent to which
study findings can be generalized to adolescents from middle-income contexts.
Conclusions
Relations between Social Context and Adolescents’ Emotional Reactivity to Daily Stress
26
All told, the current findings suggest that adolescents’ peers are influential in
shaping their emotional responses to stressors that occur across the day. The importance of
these findings is highlighted when considering the emotional impact that daily stressors
can have on adolescents (Schneiders et al., 2006). Given that adolescence is a
developmental period where youths are at risk for increased exposure to stressors and
exacerbated stress responses, but also when peers become increasingly salient, it is
important that researchers and clinicians gain a clear understanding of when the peer
context may be beneficial to adolescents. Although the current findings cannot speak to the
mechanisms by which peer contexts were linked with more positively valanced post-stress
emotions, they represent a first step in delineating the relative influence of peers, family
and alone contexts on adolescents’ emotional responses to minor stressors. Based on the
current findings, adolescents may be encouraged to seek out peers as an ‘emotional tonic’
after exposure to stressors that occur as they go about their daily lives. Being among peers
during times of stress may offer adolescents an open, supportive and rewarding space
which may help dampen the emotional turbulence that adolescence can bring.
References
Barber, B.L., Jacobson, K.C., Miller, K.E., & Peterson, A.C. (1998). Ups and downs:
Daily cycles of adolescent moods. New Directions for Child and Adolescent
Development, 82, 23-36. DOI: 10.1002/cd.23219988203
Compas, B.E., Davis, G.E., Forsythe, C.J., & Wagner, B.M. (1987). Assessment of major
and daily stressful events during adolescence: The adolescent perceived events
scale. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55(4), 554-54.
Relations between Social Context and Adolescents’ Emotional Reactivity to Daily Stress
27
doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.55.4.534
Chein, J., Albert, D., O’Brien, L., Uckert, K., & Steinberg, L. (2011). Peers increase
adolescent risk taking by enhancing activity in the brain’s reward circuitry.
Developmental Science, 14 (2), F1-F10. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7687.2010.01035.x.
Eccles, J.S., Midgley, C., Wigfield, A., Buchanan, C.M., Reuman, C., Flanagan, C., &
Mac Iver, D. (1993). Development during adolescence: The impact of stage-
environment fit on young adolescents’ experiences in schools and families.
American Psychologist, 48(2), 90-101. doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.48.2.90
Enders, C.K. (2010). Applied missing data analysis. Guilford, New York.
Evans, G.W., Vermeylen, F.M., Barash, A., Lefkowitz, E.G., & Hutt, R.L. (2009). The
experience of stressors and hassles among rural adolescents from low-income and
middle-income households in the USA. Children, Youth and Environments, 19(2),
164-175.
Fredericks, J.A., & Eccles, J.S. (2006). Is extracurricular participation associated with
beneficial outcomes? Concurrent and longitudinal relations. Developmental
Psychology, 42(4), 698–713. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.42.4.698.
Galvan, A., Hare, T., Voss, H., Glover, G., & Casey, B.J. (2007). Risk-taking and the
adolescent brain: Who is at risk? Developmental Science, 10 (2), F8-14. DOI:
Relations between Social Context and Adolescents’ Emotional Reactivity to Daily Stress
28
10.1111/j.1467-7687.2006.00579.x
Ham, M., & Larson, R. (1990). The cognitive moderation of daily stress in early
adolescence. American Journal of Community Psychology, 18(4), 567-585. Doi:
10.1007/BF00938060
Hox, J.J. (2010). Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications, 2nd Edition,
(Marcoulides, G.A. ed.). Routledge, New York.
Kingery, J.N., Erdley, C.A., & Marshall, K.C. (2011). Peer acceptance and friendship as
predictors of early adolescents’ adjustment across the middle school transition.
Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 57 (3), 215-243. Doi: 10.1353/mpq.2011.0012
Klimes-Dougan, B., Brand, A.E., Zahn-Waxler, C., Usher, B., Hastings, P.D., Kendziora,
K., & Garside, R.B. (2007). Parental emotion socialization in adolescence:
Differences in sex, age, and problem status. Social Development, 16 (2), 326-342.
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9507.2007.00387.x
Klimes-Dougan, B., Pearson, T.E., Jappe, L., Mathieson, L., Simard, M.R., Hastings, R.,
& Zahn-Waxler, C. (2014). Adolescent emotion socialization: A longitudinal study
of friends’ responses to negative emotions. Social Development, 23(2), 395-412.
doi: 10.111/sode/12045
La Greca, A.M. (1998). Social anxiety scales for children and adolescents: manual and
instructions for the SASC, SASC-R, SAS-A (Adolescents) and parent versions of
these scales.
Relations between Social Context and Adolescents’ Emotional Reactivity to Daily Stress
29
Larson, R.W. (1983). Adolescents’ daily experience with family and friends: Contrasting
opportunities and systems. Journal of Marriage & Family, 45 (4), 739-750.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/351787
Larson, R., & Ham, M. (1993). Stress and “storm and stress” in early adolescence: The
relationship of negative events with dysphoric affect. Developmental Psychology,
29(1), 130-140. doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.29.1.130
Larson, R.W., Moneta, G., Richards, M.H., & Wilson, S. (2002). Continuity, stability and
change in daily emotional experience across adolescence. Child Development,
73(4), 1151-1165. DOI: 10.1111/1467-8624.00464
Larson, R., & Richards, M.H. (1991). Daily companionships in late childhood and early
adolescence: Changing developmental contexts. Child Development, 62(2), 284-
300. doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.32.4.744
Larson, R., & Richards, M.H. (1994). Adolescents: lives of emotional flux in Divergent
realities: the emotional lives of mothers, fathers, and adolescents, R. Larson &
M.H. Richards (Eds), pp 79-104, Basic Books, New York, NY.
Larson, R.W., Richards, M.H., Moneta, G., Holmbeck, G., & Duckett, E. (1996). Changes
in adolescents’ daily interactions with their families from ages 10 to 18:
Disengagement and transformation. Developmental Psychology, 32(4). 744-754.
doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.32.4.744
Lazarus, R.S., & Folkman, S. (1987). Transactional theory and research on emotions and
Relations between Social Context and Adolescents’ Emotional Reactivity to Daily Stress
30
coping. European Journal of Personality, 1, 141-169. DOI:
10.1002/per.2410010304
Legerski, J-P., Biggs, B.K., Greenhoot, A.F., & Sampilo, M.L. (2015). Emotion talk and
friend responses among early adolescent same-sex friend dyads. Social
Development, 24(1), 20-38. DOI: 10.1111/sode.12079
Luciana, M. (2013). Adolescent brain development in normality and psychopathology.
Development and Psychopathology, 25, 1325-1345.
doi.org/10.1017/S0954579413000643
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2012). Mplus user's guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA:
Muthén & Muthén.
Myen-Germeys, I., Oorschot, M., Collip, D., Lastaster, J., Delespaul, P., & van Os, J.
(2009). Experience sampling research in psychopathology: Opening the black box
of daily life. Psychological Medicine, 39, 1533-1547. doi:10.1017/S00332917080
0494
Neumann, A., van Lier, P.A.C., Frijns, T., Meeus, W., & Koot, H.M. (2011). Emotional
dynamics in the development of early adolescent psychopathology: A one-year
longitudinal study. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 39(5), 657-669. doi:
10.1007/s10802-011-9509-3
Parker, J.G., & Gottman, J.M. (1989). Social and emotional development in a relational
context: Friendship interaction from early childhood to adolescence. In Peer
Relations between Social Context and Adolescents’ Emotional Reactivity to Daily Stress
31
Relationship in Child Development, Berndt, T.J & Ladd, G. W. (Ed), pp. 95-131.
Oxford, England, John Wiley & Sons.
Parker, J. G., Low, C., Walker, A. W., & Gamm, B. K. (2005). Children’s friendship
jealousy: Assessment of individual differences and links to gender, self-esteem,
aggression, and social adjustment. Developmental Psychology, 41, 235–250.
doi:10.1037/0012-1649.41.1.235.
Perry-Parish, C., & Zeman, J. (2011). Relations among sadness regulation, peer
acceptance, and social functioning in early adolescence: The role of gender. Social
Development, 20(1), 135-153. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9507.2009.00568.x
Reynolds W.M. (2004) Reynolds Adolescent Depression Scale. Comprehensive
Handbook of Psychological Assessment, Vol. 2: Personality Assessment and
Psychopathology, 2nd edn (HersenM., SegalD.L. & HilsenrothM., eds), John
Wiley & Sons, New York, pp. 224–236.
Rose, A.J. (2002). Co-rummination in the friendships of girls and boys. Child
Development, 73(6), 1830–1843. DOI: 10.1111/1467-8624.00509
Schneiders, J., Nicolson, N.A., Berkhof, J., Feron, F.J., van Os., V.J., & deVries, M.W.
(2006). Mood reactivity to daily negative events in early adolescence: relationship
to risk for psychopathology. Developmental Psychology, 42, 543-554. doi:
10.1037/0012-1649.42.3.543
Schneiders, J., Nicholson, N.A., Berkhof, J., Feron, F.J., DeVires, M.W., & van Os, J.
(2007). Mood in daily contexts: Relationships with risk in early adolescence.
Relations between Social Context and Adolescents’ Emotional Reactivity to Daily Stress
32
Journal of Research on Adolescence, 17 (4), 697-722. DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-
7795.2007.00543.x
Silk, J.S., Forbes, E.E., Whalen, D.J., Jackubcak, J.L., Thompson, W.K., Ryan, N.D.,
Axelson, D.A., Birmaher, B., & Dahl, R.E. (2011). Daily emotional dynamics in
depressed youth: A cell-phone ecological momentary assessment study. Journal of
Experimental Child Psychology, 110(2), 241-257. doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2010.10.007
Silk, J.S., Steinberg, L., Morris, A.S. (2003). Adolescents’ emotion regulation in daily life:
Links to depressive symptoms and problem behavior. Child Development, 74,
1869-1880. DOI: 10.1046/j.1467-8624.2003.00643.x
Slavin, L.A., & Rainer, K.L. (1990). Gender differences in emotional support and
depressive symptoms among adolescents: A prospective analysis. American
Journal of Community Psychology, 18(3), 407-421. doi: 10.1007/BF00938115
Somerville, L.H. (2013). The teenage brain: Sensitivity to social evaluation. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 22 (2), 121–127. DOI:
10.1177/0963721413476512
Steinberg, L. (2008). A social neuroscience perspective on adolescent risk-taking.
Developmental Review, 28 (1), 78-106. doi: 10.1016/j.dr.2007.08.002
Suveg, C., Payne, M., Thomassin, K., & Jacob, M.L. (2009). Electronic diaries: A feasible
method of assessing emotional experiences in youth? Journal of Psychopathology
and Behavioral Assessment, 32, 57-67. doi 10.1007/s10862-009-9162-0
Relations between Social Context and Adolescents’ Emotional Reactivity to Daily Stress
33
Tan, P, Z., Forbes, E.E., Dahl, R.E., Ryan, N.D., Siegle, G.J., Ladouceur, C.D., & Silk,
J.S. (2012). Emotional reactivity and regulation in anxious and non-anxious youth:
A cell-phone ecological momentary assessment study. Journal of Child Psychology
and Psychiatry, 53 (2), 197-206. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2011.02469.x
Von Salisch, M., (2001). Children’s emotional development: Challenges in their
relationships to parents, peers and friends. International Journal of Behavioral
Development, 25(4), 310-319. doi: 10.1080/01650250143000058
Weinberg, A., & Klonsky, D.E. (2009). Measurement of emotion dysregulation in
adolescents. Psychological Assessment, 22(4), 616-621. doi: 10.1037/a0016669 ·
Zech, R., Rime, E., & Nils, F. (2004). The sharing of emotion, emotional recovery, and
interpersonal aspects. The Regulation of Emotion, P. Phillipot,
Zeman, J., Cassano, M., Perry-Parish, C., & Stegall, S. (2006). Emotion regulation in
children and adolescents. Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 27(2), 155-
168.
Zeman, J., & Shipman, K. (1997). Social-contextual influences on expectancies for
managing anger and sadness: The transition from middle childhood to adolescence.
Developmental Psychology, 33(6), 917-924. doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.33.6.917
Relations between Social Context and Adolescents’ Emotional Reactivity to Daily Stress
34
Table 1. Pair-wise correlations between study variables.
Mean (S.D)
Neg.
Event
Pos.
Event
HAP
SAD
LON
JEA
WOR
EXT
DEP
Soc.
ANX.
GEN
Neg. Event
1.13 (1.58)
1.00
.416**
-.103
.352**
.216*
.236*
.277**
.091
-.050
.210*
.204*
Pos. Event
2.44 (2.78)
.354**
1.00
.337**
-.108
-.170
-.085
-.033
-.012
-.209*
-.098
.237*
HAP
3.45(.67)
--
--
1.00
-.159
-.143
-.160
-.263*
.018
.231*
-.242*
-.069
SAD
1.69(.89)
--
--
--
1.00
.839**
.750**
.808**
.173
.246*
.153*
.080
LON
1.74(.86)
--
--
--
--
1.00
.754**
.794**
.156
.324**
.227*
-.155
JEA
1.50(.78)
--
--
--
--
--
1.00
.820**
.153
.661*
.211*
.013
WOR
1.59(.78)
--
--
--
--
--
--
1.00
.191
.437**
.304**
.084
EXT
.54(.67)
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
1.00
.204*
.028
-.078
DEP
.16(.37)
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
1.00
.454**
.185
Soc. ANX
50.67(17.0)
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
1.00
.112
Notes; Neg. Event = negative event frequency, Pos. Event = positive event frequency, HAP = happy, LON = lonely, JEA = jealous, WOR =
worry, EXT = externalizing, DEP = depression, Soc. ANX = social anxiety, GEN = gender.
GEN (0 = male, 1 = female). Depression (0 = not at risk; 1 = at risk of diagnosis).
N = 96-100. *p = <.05, ** p = <.01.
Relations between Social Context and Adolescents’ Emotional Reactivity to Daily Stress
35
Table 2: Main Effects of Level 1 and Level 2 Variables
Happy (β, S.E)
Sad (β, S.E)
Lonely (β, S.E)
Jealousy (β, S.E)
Worry(β, S.E)
Gender
-0.148(.16)
.288(.15)
-0.068(.15)
-0.074(.14)
-0.072(.13)
Depression
-0.322(.20)
.387(.36)
.574(.32)
1.002(.35)*
.972(.29)**
Social Anxiety
-0.007(.01)
.009(.01)
.010(.01)*
.004(.01)
.009(.01)
Externalizing
.097(.91)
.150(.12)
.138(.10)
.024(.10)
.090(.10)
Peers vs. Alone model
Negative Event
-0.657(.14)**
.690(.21)**
.358(.14)**
.090(.10)
.464(.15)**
Positive Event
.537(.09)**
-0.179(.07)*
-0.270(.07)**
-0.034(.06)
.021(.09)
Time of Day
-0.034(.06)
.003(.02)
.032(.02)
.019(.02)
.017(.02)
pVa
.504(.09)
-0.165(.09)
-0.425(.10)**
-0.024(.05)
-0.013(.06)
Peers vs. Family model
Negative Event
-0.667(.12)**
.353(.14)**
.149(.09)
-0.102(.06)
.155(.10)
Positive Event
.521(.09)**
-0.144(.06)*
-0.198(.06)**
-0.015(.05)
-0.067(.07)
Time of Day
.090(.05)
.021(.02)
.018(.02)
.010(.01)
.010(.02)
pVf
.238(.07)**
-0.066(.05)
-0.025(.05)
.001(.04)
-0.032(.05)
Notes: N (Level 1) = 880-1142, N (Level 2) = 91-100. ** p < .01, * p < .05.
Relations between Social Context and Adolescents’ Emotional Reactivity to Daily Stress
36
Table 3: Results from HLM analysis.
Happy (β, S.E)
Sad (β, S.E)
Lonely (β, S.E)
Jealousy (β, S.E)
Worry(β, S.E)
Level 1 variance (null
model)
.881(.06)**
.519(.07)**
.600(.08)**
.361(.06)**
.478(.06)**
Level 2 variance (null
model)
.369 (.06)**
.659(.17)**
.611(.15)**
.476(.15)**
.532(.12)**
ICC
.295
.560
.505
.569
.527
Peers vs. Alone model
Negative Event
-.532(.12)**
.491(.20)*
.318(.15)*
.033(.08)
.449(.15)**
Positive Event
.526(.09)**
-.150(.77)*
-.262 (.08)**
-.019(.05)
.038(.10)
Time of Day
-.030(.06)
.010(.02)
.033(.02)
.025(.20)
.025(.02)
pVa
. 499(.10)**
-.156 (.08)
-.452(.10)**
-.019(.06)
-.005(.06)
NE x pVa
.503(.46)*
-1.37(.48)**
-.510 (.32)
-.832(.29)**
-.902(.35)*
Gender
-.222(.18)
.172 (.16)
-.142(.16)
-.133(.25)
-.131(.14)
Depression
-.254(.19)
.495(.38)
.530(.40)
1.08(.37)**
1.00(.29)**
Social Anxiety
-.006(.01)
.007(.01)
.012(.01)*
.001(.01)
.008(.01)
Externalizing
.053(.10)
.083(.12)
.079(.10)
.015(.10)
.060(.10)
Peers vs. Family model
Negative Event
-.578(.12)**
.256 (.14)
.136(.10)
-.112(.06)*
.172(.10)
Positive Event
.500(.09)**
-.129 (.07)
-.187(.06)**
-.017(.50)
-.075(.08)
Time of Day
.103 (.06)
.022 (.06)
.017 (.16)
.012(.01)
.012(.02)
pVf
.239(.07)**
-.066 (.05)
-.039(.05)
.006(.04)
-.042(.05)
NE x pVf
.427(.26)
-.868(.33)**
-.015(.26)
-.258(.15)
-.081(.26)
Gender
-.184 (.16)
.209 (.13)
-.047(.15)
-.090 (.14)
-.192(.14)
Depression
-.352 (.20)
. 663 (.32)*
.787 (.32)**
1.07(.36)**
1.17(.29)**
Social Anxiety
-.005 (.01)
.005(.01)
.009(.01)
.005(.01)
.005(.01)
Externalizing
.083(.20)
.102 (.10)
.118(.10)
.043(.10)
.091(.10)
Notes: N (Level 1) = 880-1142, N (Level 2) = 91-100. ** p < .01, * p < .05. ICC = intra-class correlation.
Relations between Social Context and Adolescents’ Emotional Reactivity to Daily Stress
37
Figure 1): Simple slopes of sadness on negative event, alone versus with peers. A similar
trend was found for Negative Event x pVa for worry and jealousy; for Negative Event x
pVf for sadness; Negative Event x pVa for sadness in girls; and for Negative Event x pVa
for sadness and worry in girls.
sadness.
Figure 2): Simple slopes of jealousy on negative event, alone versus with peers. A similar
trend was found for Negative Event x pVa on jealousy, girls only.
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
No Event Event
Alone
With Peers
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
No Event Event
Alone
With Peers
Sadness
Jealousy
Relations between Social Context and Adolescents’ Emotional Reactivity to Daily Stress
38
Figure 3; Simple slopes of happiness on negative event, alone versus peers for boys only
(N = 27).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
No Event Event
Alone
With Peers
Happy
