↓ Skip to main content

Help me Feel Better! Ecological Momentary Assessment of Anxious Youths’ Emotion Regulation with Parents and Peers

Overview of attention for article published in Research on Child and Adolescent Psychopathology, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
47 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
164 Mendeley
Title
Help me Feel Better! Ecological Momentary Assessment of Anxious Youths’ Emotion Regulation with Parents and Peers
Published in
Research on Child and Adolescent Psychopathology, June 2018
DOI 10.1007/s10802-018-0454-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lindsey B. Stone, Rebekah J. Mennies, Jennifer M. Waller, Cecile D. Ladouceur, Erika E. Forbes, Neal D. Ryan, Ronald E. Dahl, Jennifer S. Silk

Abstract

Anxious youth often have trouble regulating negative affect (NA) and tend to over-rely on parents when faced with challenges. It is unclear how social interactions with parents or peers actually helps or hinders anxious youths' success in regulating NA. The aim of this study was to examine whether the success of anxious youths' emotion regulation strategies differed according to social context. We compared the effectiveness of co-ruminating, co-problem solving and co-distracting with parents/peers for regulating anxious youth's NA in response to stress in their daily lives. We also examined the benefit of attempting each strategy socially vs. non-socially (e.g., co-ruminating vs. ruminating). One-hundred-seventeen youth (9-14) with a current diagnosis of Separation Anxiety Disorder, Generalized Anxiety Disorder, and/or Social Phobia completed an ecological momentary assessment (14 calls over 5 days), reporting on recent stressors, their affective state, presence of others, and emotion regulation strategies within the prior hour. Mixed linear models revealed that co-distracting was the most effective social strategy for reducing NA, but only for boys. Co-rumination was the least effective social strategy for regulating NA. Regarding social context, only co-distracting was more effective for regulating NA over distracting alone, but only among anxious boys. Results suggest that co-rumination is an ineffective use of social support for regulating NA. Anxious boys may benefit from social support by co-distracting with parents/peers, but improper use may reflect avoidance and contribute to long-term anxiety maintenance. Results extend research on gender differences in interpersonal relationships and emotion regulation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 164 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 164 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 29 18%
Student > Master 22 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 16 10%
Researcher 14 9%
Student > Bachelor 11 7%
Other 28 17%
Unknown 44 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 67 41%
Social Sciences 8 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 4%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 4%
Unspecified 5 3%
Other 15 9%
Unknown 57 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 July 2018.
All research outputs
#17,292,294
of 25,385,509 outputs
Outputs from Research on Child and Adolescent Psychopathology
#1,411
of 2,047 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#222,150
of 342,755 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Research on Child and Adolescent Psychopathology
#16
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,509 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,047 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.5. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 342,755 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.