are dysfunctional strategies in emotion regulation, risk

Are Dysfunctional Strategies in Emotion

Regulation, Risk Factors for Psychopathology in

Children and Youth?

Comparison of Children’s Emotion Regulations in Germany and Iran

Inagural-Disertation

Zur

Erlangung der Doktorwürde

der Wirschafts- und Verhatenswisenschaftlichen Fakultät

der Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg im Breisgau

Vorgelegt von

Niloufar Tahmouresi

Tehran, Iran

Sommersemester 2014

2 Dysfunctional Emotion Regulation Strategies and Psychopathology

Dekan: Prof. Dr. Dieter K. Tscheulin

• Gutachterin: Prof. Dr. Brunna Tuschen-Caffier

• Gutachterin: PD. Dr. Jennifer Svaldi

Date: 06.06.2014


Acknowledgments

A major research project like this is never the work of anyone alone. The contributions of many

different people, in their different ways, have made this possible. I would like to express my

gratitude to all those who gave me the opportunity and support to complete this thesis.

Thank God for the wisdom and perseverance that he has been bestowed upon me during this

research project, and indeed, throughout my life: I can do everything through him who give me

strength.

In particular, I would like to thank my supervisor Prof. Dr. Brunna Tuschen-Caffier for her

support and helpful comments and suggestions during all stages of this project.

Furthermore, I am deeply indebted to Dr. Caroline Bender whose support, advice, and

encouragement guided me through this study.

Many warm thanks also go to my friends Nader Kabiri, Dr. Anisha H Aubeeluck, Dr. Sadaf

Koohkan, my brother- in- law Hans Heinrich Brueggemann who always was like my second

father, my sister Shahrzad and my brother Mohammad Mehdi.

I also thank my family who prayed for me throughout the time of my research. This thesis is

heartily dedicated to my mother who took the lead to heaven, but she will be in my heart forever.


Table of Contents

List of Tables ...................................................................................................................................... 7

List of Figures ..................................................................................................................................... 8

Abstract ............................................................................................................................................... 9

1. Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 10

2. Theoretical Background .................................................................................................. 14

2.1. Theories of Emotion Regulation ...................................................................................... 14

2.1.1. Emotion ................................................................................................................................... 14

2.1.2. Emotion Regulation .............................................................................................................. 15

2.1.3. Emotion Dysregulation and Dysfunctional Strategies in Emotion Regulation ............. 23

2.1.4. Coping, Cognitive Emotion Regulation Strategies ........................................................... 24

2.2. Factors Affecting Emotion Regulation .......................................................................... 28

2.2.1. Social Factor on Emotion Regulation and Coping in Children ....................................... 28

2.2.2. Environmental Factors .......................................................................................................... 28

2.2.4. Family Factor ......................................................................................................................... 30

2.3. Psychopathology and Emotion Dysregulation ........................................................... 34

2.3.1. Internalizing Behavior Problem in Children ...................................................................... 37

2.3.1.1. Depression .................................................................................................................... 38

2.3.1.2. Anxiety ......................................................................................................................... 39

2.3.2. Externalizing Behavior Problem in Children ...................................................................... 40

2.3.2.1. Oppositional Defiant Disorder.................................................................................... 42

2.3.2.2. Conduct Disorder ......................................................................................................... 42

2.4. Cross Culture Study .............................................................................................................. 43

2.4.1. Concept of Culture ............................................................................................................... 44

2.4.2. Dimensions of Culture ......................................................................................................... 44

2.4.2.1. Differences between Individualism and Collectivism – Individualism versus

Collectivism…………………………………………………………………………….45

2.4.2.2. The Self………………………………………………………………………....................48


2.4.3. Cultural Differences between Germany and Iran .............................................................. 49

2.4.3.1. Cognition………………………………………………………………………….......51

2.4.3.2. Self……………………………………………………………………………………..52

2.5. Cross-Cultural Studies in Emotion Regulation .......................................................... 53

2.5.1. Culture, Cross Cultural Studies and Psychology............................................................... 53

2.5.2. Cross-Cultural Study on Emotion Regulation and Cognitive Emotion Regulation ..... 55

2.5.3. Goal of Cross Cultural Studies ............................................................................................ 63

2.5.4. Summary ................................................................................................................................. 64

3. Hypotheses .................................................................................................................................. 66

4. Methods ......................................................................................................................................... 68

4.1. Participants and Procedures ............................................................................................... 68

4.2. Measures .................................................................................................................................... 69

4.2.1. Children’s Emotion Management Scale (CEMS). ............................................................ 69

4.2.2. Cognitive Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (CERQ) ................................................... 71

4.2.3. Youth Self-Report (YSR) ..................................................................................................... 72

4.2.4. Children Behavior CheckList (CBCL) ............................................................................... 73

4.2.5. Children Depression Inventory (CDI) ................................................................................ 74

4.2.6. Parenting Scale (PS) .............................................................................................................. 75

4.2.7. Psychometric properties ....................................................................................................... 75

5. Results .......................................................................................................................................... 78

5.1. Descriptive Findings ............................................................................................................. 78

5.1.1. Description of Background Variables................................................................................. 79

5.1.1.1. Description of Gender Variables……………………………………………............79

5.1.1.2. Description of Parent Educational Level Variable…………………………..........79

5.1.1.3. Description of Parent Occupation………………………………………………..…80

5.1.1.4. Description of the Children Age…………………………………………………....81

5.1.2. Description of Main Variables of the Research…………………………………..…..….81

5.1.2.1. Description of Emotion Regulation Variables…………………………………….82

5.1.2.2. Description of Cognitive Emotion Regulation Strategies Variables………...…..82


5.1.2.3. Description of Children Depression Inventory (CDI), Parenting scale (PS),

Youth Self Report (YSR) and Child Behavior Check List (CBCL) Variables………...83

5.2. Inferential Findings ................................................................................................................... 84

5.2.1. Group Comparison on Emotion Regulation Variables (CEMS) ......................................... 84

5.2.2. Group Comparison on Cognitive Emotion Regulation Variables (CERQ)……………...87

5.2.3. Groups Comparison of Component of Parent Scale (PS) .................................................... 90

5.2.4. Group Comparison on Components of Depression, CBCL and YSR Variables .............. 91

5.2.5. Examination of Research Variables Correlation from CEMS, CERQ, PS, YSR, CBCL

and CDI……………………………………………………………………………………… 94

5.3. Multivariate Regression Test……………………………………………………………...103

5.3.1. Examination of Predictor Variables Effect on Internalizing (YSR) among Iranian

Children……………………………………………………………………………………….103

5.3.2. Examination of Predictor Variables Effect on Internalizing (YSR) Variable among

German Children…………………………………………………………………………….105

5.3.3. Examination of Predictor Variables Effect on Externalizing (YSR) Variable among

Iranian Children……………………………………………………………………………...106

5.3.4. Examination of Predictor Variables Effect on Externalizing (YSR) Variable among

German Children…………………………………………………………………………….108

5.3.5. Examination of Predictor Variables Effect on Depression Variable among Iranian

Children………………………………………………………………………………………109

5.3.6. Examination of Predictor Variables Effect on Depression Variable among German

Children………………………………………………………………………………………110

6. Discussion................................................................................................................................... 112

References ..................................................................................................................................... 128

Appendix ....................................................................................................................................... 160

Index of Appendixes ................................................................................................................... 160


List of Tables

Table 1. Psychometric properties of the scales .................................................................... ..77

Table 2. Frequency of gender variable .................................................................................. 79

Table 3. Description of parent educational level variable ..................................................... 80

Table 4. Description of parent occupation ............................................................................. 81

Table 5. Age of Iranian and German children ....................................................................... 81

Table 6. Country differences in CEMS subscales ................................................................. 82

Table 7. Country differences in CERQ subscales .................................................................. 83

Table 8. Country differences in CDI, PS, YSR, CBCL subscales ......................................... 84

Table 9. Summary of analysis of variance to compare groups on the variables CEMS ........ 85

Table 10. Scheffe's test for paired comparison groups ........................................................... 86

Table 11. Summary of analysis of variance to compare groups of the variables CERQ ........ 88

Table 12. Scheffe's test for paired comparison groups ........................................................... 89

Table 13. Summary of analysis of variance to compare the two groups on the variables Parent

discipline .................................................................................................................................. 91

Table 14. Summary of analysis of variance to compare groups on the variables CDI, YSR,

CBCL ....................................................................................................................................... 92

Table 15. Scheffe's test for paired comparison groups ........................................................ ..94

Table 16. Correlation between CEMS and CERQ ................................................................. 96

Table 17. Correlation between CERQ with PS, CDI, YSR, CBCL....................................... 98

Table 18. Correlation between CEMS with CDI, PS, CBCL, YSR………………………...100

Table 19. Correlation matrix of research variables in Iran………………………………….102

Table 20. Correlation matrix of research variables in Germany…………………………….103

Table 21. Multiple regression analysis to predict internalizing (YSR) in Iranian children…104

Table 22. Multiple regression analysis to predict internalizing (YSR) in German children...105

Table 23. Multiple regression analysis to predict externalizing (YSR) for Iranian children...107

Table 24. Multiple regression analysis to predict externalizing (YSR) in German children...108

Table 25. Multiple regression analysis to predict depression in Iranian children……………109

Table 26. Multiple regression analysis to predict depression in German children...…………111


List of Figures

Figure 1. Process model of emotion regulation that show five families of emotion regulation

strategies (Gross&Thompson, 2007)…………………………………………………………19

Figure 2. Emotion regulation and related process (Gross 1998b)…………………………..27

Figure 3. Bronfenbrenner’s ecological theory ...................................................................... .30

Figure 4. Biosocial interaction model of childhood externalizing behavior by Raine, Brennan,

Farrington, and Mednick (1997) .............................................................................................. 41

Figure 5. Comparison of the logic underlying the Markus& Kitayama (1991) model with at

underlying the evidence cited in support of it. ......................................................................... 49

Figure 6. Hofested (1980) cultural dimensions score in Iran and Germany ......................... 51

Figure 7. Comparison of four groups mean on components of (CEMS) ............................... 87

Figure 8. Group comparison of cognitive emotion regulation variables (CERQ) ................ 90

Figure 9. Comparison of German children & Iranian student in PS-laxness........................ 91

Figure 10. Mean differences between groups ........................................................................ 93


Abstract

The aim of this research project was to investigate relationships between dysfunctional emotion

regulation strategies and psychopathology in children from two different cultures. This cross-

cultural study compared the level of psychopathology from 141 German (individualistic culture)

and 128 Iranian children (collectivistic culture). The design of the study allowed to compare

Iranian children (N=103) living in Iran, German children living in Germany (N=118), Iranian

children living in Germany (N=23) and German children (N=24) living in Iran. The project also

analyzed whether different strategies of emotion regulation as well as dysfunctional parenting

strategies were related to internalizing and externalizing problems. The following

questionnaires were used in this project: Children Emotion Management Scale (CEMS),

Cognitive Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (CERQ), Parenting Scale (PS), Child Behavior

Check List (CBCL), Youth Self Report (YSR), and Children Depression Inventory (CDI).

According to the results of the current study German and Iranian children reported about

different strategies to cope with emotions and to regulate their emotions. Differences could also

be seen in psychopathological symptoms (internalizing and externalizing behavior problems).

Moreover, correlations were found between dysfunctional strategies in emotion regulation and

symptoms of psychopathology in Iranian as well as German children. Logistic regression

analyses showed that dysregulation of sadness and anger predicted externalizing behavior

problems in Iranian children. Furthermore, negative parenting discipline predicted internalizing

behavior problems in Iranian as well as German children. So far, very few cross-cultural studies

compared strategies of emotion regulation of children from an individualistic (e.g. Germany) and

collectivistic culture (e. g. Iran). Moreover, to the best of my knowledge no study has provided a

comparison of dysfunctional emotion regulation strategies and psychopathology for German and

Iranian children by ages of 11-14 years. Limitations of the current study include the small

sample size of German children in Iran and Iranian children in Germany as well as the lack of


reports from some German and Iranian parents regarding their educational and occupational

status. Additionally, the data are only based on self-reports and the sample consisted of non-

clinical children.

1. Introduction

Researchers have shown that an inability to regulate emotions has been linked with

childhood psychopathology (Suveg & Zeman 2004; Zeman et al., 2002). Psychopathology

develops from a combination of several risk factors such as dysfunctional parenting discipline,

use of dysfunctional emotional strategies, social context and environmental factor. Zeman et al.

(2002) showed that different strategies of emotional coping, expressing or inhibition are related

to different behavior disorders. For example, poor anger coping and sadness inhibition predicted

externalization of aggressive behavior; maladaptive coping predicted inhibition of anger; and

inappropriate expression of anger and sadness predicted symptoms of depression and anxiety.

Emotion regulation in children is the most important topic or concept in the field of psychology,

especially for the development of clinical psychology. Unfortunately, there are limited studies of

the role of social factors such as culture in the development of emotion regulation in children.

Without knowing the role and values of cultures it is difficult to know how children regulate their

emotions. In Hofsted’s (1980) view, culture reflects shared values, meanings, and norms within

an organization or a nation. Understanding a group culture requires an extended interval

considerations rather than a surface manifestation of culture. By investigating the core of a

culture; we know how individuals think, and what is shared as values. Values are acquired early

in life through childhood socialization and education, and are often “stable in landscape but

change over time reflecting changes in culture” (Karahanna, Evaristo, & Srite, 2005). Cultures


are different in terms of ideologies, interpersonal relationship, source of distress, experience

and expression, symptomatic and interpretation of illness, help seeking, composition of the

family, maternal-infant interaction, and child-rearing practices all prime and shape an influence

on system (Laurence & Kirmayer, 2001).

Emotion regulation defines the processes by which individuals influence the experience and

expression of their emotions and emotion regulated at five points in the emotion generative

process (1) selection of the situation; (2) modification of the situation; ( 3) deployment of

attention; (4) change of cognitions; and (5) modulation of experiential, behavioral, or

physiological responses (Gross, 1998). Researchers showed that the modal model of emotion

regulation seems to map well onto the psychopathology of common emotional disorders in

youth (Trosper et al., 2009). Gross and John (2004) talked about two strategies of emotion

regulation: reappraisal and suppression. Reappraisal as an adaptive strategy can help

individuals reduce the negative emotion by changing the situation, attention and cognition. In

contrast, suppression is a maladaptive strategy, and a person is deliberately trying to stop

thinking about the negative or positive emotion in the difficult situation. Suppression is

consciously inhibiting emotion-expressive behavior. Calkins (1994) mentioned internal and

external factors affecting the development of emotion regulation skills. Parents as an external

factor can influence and guide their children’s development of emotion regulation within their

cultural context, especially for young children (Calkins & Johnson, 1998; Denham, Zoller, &

Couchoud, 1994; Kopp, 1989).

Familial factors are particularly important for explaining the origins of behavior problems in

children. Children learn to interpret, manage and express their emotions from the primary

caretakers or parents. This supports the argument that parents from different cultures contribute

to the modal model of emotion regulation (Matsumoto, 2005, 2008). For example the first

(situation selection) research, of a families with a history of depression produced considerable


data showing differences in the family atmosphere and home environment of depressed youth

and children of depressed parents (Matsumoto, 2005; Gross et al., 2003; McKeown et al., 1997;

Thompson and Calkins (1996). McKeown et al. (1997) concentrated on social withdrawal and

they noted that a person with depression has less interest in pleasurable activities. This model

is detrimental of situation selection. These studies demonstrate that when parents use model

avoidant coping and attend more greatly to threatening cues, they are more likely to have

children who lack the ability to regulate fear and anxiety effectively. Types of parental

attachment and parental discipline (parental rearing) with children are the foundation of

maladaptive or adaptive behavior and likely lead to psychopathological problems in children.

Research also supported that insecure attachments are associated with the development of

disorders (e.g., Warren, Huston, Egeland & Sroufe, 1997; Brumariu & Kerns, 2010). However,

Sroufe et al. (2005) in their Minnesota longitudinal study did find inappropriate attachments were

not always associated with behavior problems in children, as children with secure attachment

also showed behavior problems in childhood and some form of psychiatry diagnosis by late

adolescence. A combination of other parenting variables and attachments are strong predictors

for behavior problems in children. In another study Muris et al. (2003b) found that both insecure

attachment and negative parent rearing are important factors for internalizing and externalizing

symptoms in children.

Culture, parents and society are factors in the development of cognition and emotion

regulation in children. This cross-cultural study is focused primarily on psychopathology related

to emotion regulation and cognitive emotion regulation strategies and is designed to compare

components of the affective, behavioral and cognitive systems on internalizing and externalizing

behaviors in two different ethnic groups. Furthermore, the roles of emotion regulation strategies,

cognitive emotion regulation strategies and dysfunctional parenting discipline on internalizing

and externalizing behaviors of German and Iranian children in non-clinical groups.


According to Gross’ (2001) explanation emotion regulation, a culture’s effect is on antecedent

focused strategies (such as reappraisal) and response focused strategy. For the reason that

cultures differ in their worldviews, ideologies, values and concepts of the self when it comes to

study the individuals (Markus & Kitayama, 1991, 1998; Matsumoto, 2005; Schwartz, in press;

Schwartz & Bardi. 2001).

There are a variety of dimensions on which one can find differences between Iranian children,

with their “collective culture” and German children with their “individualistic culture” (age 11-14

Yrs). These cultural differences might be seen in such aspects as emotion regulation strategies,

use of cognitive emotion regulation strategies, depression and self-reported internalizing and

externalizing behaviors. Due to cultural differences, there are also some differences in parenting

discipline and parental reporting of internalizing and externalizing behaviors.

As there are correlations among parenting discipline and CEMS, CERQ and psychopathology in

both countries, it is expected that negative parental discipline, dysfunctional cognitive strategies

and certain types of emotion regulation have an effect on the development of internalizing and

externalizing symptoms in both groups. However, Iranian children displayed more internalizing

symptoms and rumination strategies, anger inhibition and sadness inhibition. These hypotheses

were based on previous cross cultural studies (Matsumoto, 2007, Matsumoto, et al., 2008;

Gross & John, 2003; Okasaki, 2002; McCare, 2002, McCare, et al., 2005 ) reporting that Asian

children displayed more emotional suppression which results in more internalizing symptoms

than European children (Campos et aI., 1989; Arrindell, et al., 2005; Trommsdorf & Rothbaum,

2008).


2. Theoretical Background

2.1. Theories and Concept of Emotion Regulation

2.1.1. Emotion

Emotions are considered to be inner feelings or states of mind that are associated with a

physical change and expressed by an outward behavior (Tooby & Cosmides, 1990). Individuals

can learn about their experiences, sensations, relationships and behaviors with the help of

emotions. The feeling and expression of emotions indicate some of the most basic human

experiences. Since psychologists have no consensus on what creates an emotion, the

definitions and theories about emotions vary. From earlier research on emotions, psychologists

have focused on the work of James, Freud and Darwin (Gross, 1998). William James said that

emotions existed in the “aesthetic sphere of the mind, its longings, its pleasure and pains”

(1884, P.188). Thus, emotions have different functions, such as evolutionary, social,

interpersonal and intrapersonal functions, decision making function, enhancing memory function

for important events, and function for communication and interpersonal interaction (Tooby &

Cosmide, 1990; Ekman, 1993; Oatley & Johnson-Larid, 1987; Gross & Thompson, 2007).

Interestingly, LeDoux (1996) stated “Everyone knows what emotion is until they are asked to

define it,” (p. 23).

Psychologists believed that emotions were represented in different ways, such as

physiological arousal, neurological activation, cognitive appraisal, attention and response

tendency (Thompson 1994). Biological processes prepare an individual to have a fast

reappraisal and thus respond in a suitable behavior towards favorable situations or to terminate

unfavorable ones (Cole et al., 2004). Emotions are thought to be triggered when a person is in a

situation that has connection with his /her goal of action (Lazarus, 1991a; Frijda, 1988; Gross


&Thompson, 2007). Based on this finding, the most important aspect is the attention that the

individual pays to the event. This event response also depends on the experience, behavior and

the physiology of individuals.

Emotions can be viewed as “episodic, relatively short-term, biologically based patterns of

perception, emotions are also part of experience, physiology, action, and communication that

occur in response to specific physical and social challenges and opportunities” (Keltner &

Gross, 1999).

Some researchers describe emotion as a multifaceted response to a potential personal aim,

including subjective experience, physiological activity, and behavior (Mauss et al., 2005;

Porges, 2007). In addition, emotions allow individuals to lead their attention to important

situations and motivate them to respond with action. Emotions reflect the individual’s meaning of

a situation in the way persons need to activate their appraisal system (Lazarus, 1991).

Developmental psychopathology emphasized the importance of emotional processes in normal

and atypical development (e.g., Cicchetti, 1984; Cicchetti & Cohen, 1995; Luthar, Burack,

Cicchetti, & Weisz, 1997; Sroufe & Rutter, 1984).

2.1.2. Emotion Regulation

For more than two decades researchers pondered about emotion regulation (ER) in children

and adults. They noted that there are relations between ER and outcomes such as mental

health, physical health, work performance and relation satisfaction (Gross & Muñoz, 1995;

Sapolsky, 2007; Diefendorff, Hall, Lord, & Strean, 2000; Murray, 2005). They were interested in

deepening their understanding of how individuals regulated their emotions in different situations

and what were the individual differences in regulation of emotions (e.g., Thompson, 1991 &

Gross, 1996). In reviewing the current research about emotion regulation, we can see that the


current focus is on how we attempt to regulate emotions and develop various regulatory

processes.

The concepts of regulation have been extensively studied in the field of child development.

The roots of emotion regulation studies date back to over a century ago e.g., the early

psychoanalytic theories about the nature of psychological defenses or unconscious attempts to

subvert emotional responses (Breuer & Freud, 1895/1957; Freud, 1946), psychological stress

and coping (Lazarus, 1986), attachment theory (Bowlby, 1969), and emotion theory (Frijida,

1986).

A more precise definition or characterization of emotion regulation has evolved over the

past 30 years. According to psychologists, emotion regulation can be viewed in seven different

fields namely biology, personality, health, development, clinical and social psychology (Gross,

1998). It is important to clarify the aim of emotion regulation. Emotion regulation is regarded not

only as the suppression of the emotional experience or arousal, but also as a tool that an

individual uses to function optimally on a day to day basis (Tortorella, 2008). Additionally, it can

involve upholding and increasing emotional arousal as well as inhibiting or suppressing it

(Masters, 1991).

The emotion regulatory processes refer to the influence of an individual on the experience

and expression of his/her emotions. These processes may be automatic or controlled, as well

as conscious or unconscious (Gross, 1998; Thompson, 1990). Recent research confirmed that

emotion regulation could be activated automatically (Mauss, Cook, & Gross, 2007). Emotion

regulation also involves changes to one or more aspects of the emotion including the eliciting

situation, attention, appraisal, subjective experience, behavior, or physiology. Furthermore,

emotion regulation can be seen as part of behavioral and cognitive strategies to change the

duration and intensity of an emotion (e.g., Bargh & Williams, 2007; Gross & Thompson, 2007).


According to Thompson (1994) emotion regulation was the “extrinsic and intrinsic processes

responsible for monitoring, evaluating and modifying emotional reactions, especially their

intensive and temporal features to accomplish one's goal”. He noted different ways to regulate

emotions “depending on (a) neurophysiological response, (b) attentional processes, (c)

construal / attribution, (d) access to coping resources, (e) exposure to environment, and(f)

response / behavior” (pp. 27-28). There are two dominant procedures: (a) extrinsic, which

included the manner in which caregivers shape and socialize their infant’s emotional responses

and the relationship that develops between infant and caregivers as a consequence of these

important interactions, and (b) intrinsic, which included the disposition or temperament of the

infant, and underlying both neural and physiological systems that support and are engaged in

the processes of emotional control. Eisenberg and Morris (2002) both agreed with Thompson

that emotion regulation can help to reduce intensity of internal feelings and also physiological

processes. Other researchers suggested that emotion regulation reduces positive emotions and

activates negative emotions (Masters, 1991; Parrott, 1993; Wegner & Bargh, 1998).

The distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic manifestation of the emotions plays an

important role in distinguishing emotional regulation in children and adults. In the literature of

developmental psychology, these distinctions in emotion regulation are structurally separate

(Campos, Campos, & Barrett, 1989; Thompson, 1990, 1991). Nevertheless, more attention is

focused on the extrinsic function, because it is more noticeable in infancy and early childhood

(e.g., Cole et al., 2004). The regulation of emotion exists from an early point in infant

development with the function of extrinsic and intrinsic mechanisms and their effects on future

development. Usually, children learn the ability to regulate emotion through parents or other

caregivers. In this context, attachment theory (Bowllby, 1969/1982) is used to explain the

processes of emotion regulation skills in children (Cassidy, 1994; Sroufe, 2000). In literature

focusing on adult emotion regulation the emphasis is somewhat different (e.g., Izard, 1990;


Gross & Levenson, 1993) and researchers in this field focus more on the intrinsic function

(Gross, 1998b). The intrinsic component also gives important insight into an individual’s ability

to regulate his/her emotions: “The intra- and extra- organismic factors by which emotional

arousal is redirected, controlled, modulated, and modified to enable an individual to function

adaptively in emotionally arousing situations” ( Ciccetti, Ganiban, and Barnett, 1991, p. 15).

A few additional definitions of emotion regulation are being proposed here. Eisenberg and

Fabes (1995) introduced three types of emotion regulation processes, which are considered as

cognitive strategies. These are (a) cognitive change, (b) behavioral strategies which attempt to

cope with the experience of emotion, and (c) identifying situations such as intentional control.

With regard to the different definitions about emotion regulation, researchers in this field tried

to explain emotion regulation with a variety of concepts such as conscious or unconscious,

change in psychological processes such as memory or physiological, intrinsic or extrinsic

processes, or a change in cognition. However, with regard to the general definition, Gross

developed the most convincing definition on emotion regulation. Gross (1998a), defined emotion

regulation as a broad construct covering a range of processes that may be conscious or

unconscious, automatic or controlled. He further defined it as “processes by which individuals

influence which emotions they have, when they have them, and how they experience and

express these emotions”. He noted that these processes can include decreasing, maintaining,

or increasing both negative and positive emotions by using various cognitive processes such as

reappraisal, and suppression.

Gross & Thompson’s (2007) introduced processes of emotion regulation with the modal

model to further understand how individuals can regulate their emotion. The modal model

highlights five families of emotion regulatory processes that occur along the temporal course of

emotion generation. He described (a) situation selection, allowing one to approach situations


that are likely to produce pleasant feeling and avoid situations which are likely to evoke

unpleasant feelings, (b) situation modification, altering (revising) a situation so that its emotional

impact may be changed as well, (c) attention deployment, placing one’s attention on an aspect

of a situation that would elicit feelings inconsistent with the undesired emotional state, (d)

cognitive change or reappraisal, reinterpreting a situation to give it another meaning, and (e)

response modulation, influencing emotion response tendencies once they arise (Gross, 1998).

These five families sum up the most important emotion regulation strategies (Gross, 1998).

Figure 1 Process model of emotion regulation that shows five families of emotion regulation strategies

(Gross & Thompson, 2007). Figures added by permission from Prof. J. Gross.

These families are distinguished by the point in the emotion generative processes at which

they have their primary impact (Gross & John, 2004, Gross & John 2003 & Mauss; Cook, &

Gross, 2007). Gross and Thompson (2007) showed that these five processes are necessary to

the study of psychopathology as many disorders are due to impairment related to any one of

these processes. For example, individuals with generalized anxiety disorder, have difficulty in

attention deployment (MacLeod, Mathews, Tata, 1986).

Gross & John (2004) believed that there are two important and specific strategies for emotion

regulation. The first one is cognitive reappraisal (when an individual changes his thoughts about


a situation thus changing his emotions) and the second one is expressive suppression (when an

individual inner experience and outer expression differs).

Cognitive reappraisal is involved in the first four families of emotion regulation. Cognitive

reappraisal occurs early in emotion-generative process influencing both the experience and

subsequent expression of the emotion and is a form of cognitive change (antecedent focus

strategies). The definition of cognitive reappraisal is the process by which an individual’s

reinterprets an emotion eliciting a situation to change how we think about that situation in order

to decrease emotional impact (Gross, 1998). Reappraisal decrease negative emotion

experience and expression to produce efficient interpersonal behavior which is appropriately

focused on the interaction with others, and has no negative effects on physiology and memory.

An individual’s use of reappraisal in everyday life is related to having increased experience and

expression of positive emotions and decreased experience and expression of negative

emotions, more self-acceptance, personal growth, and better relationship with others as well as

experiencing lesser symptoms of depression (Gross, Richards, & John, in press). There is

experimental evidence that reappraisal increased positive emotion experience and expression

and decreased negative emotion experience and expression and enhanced interpersonal

functioning (Gross, Richards, & John, in press; Gross, 2001; Gross, 2002; Gross & John 2003;

Gross & John, 2004; Lazarus & Alfert, 1962).

Expressive suppression is a type of response modulation (response focus strategy), that

refers to the inhibition of ongoing emotional expressive behavior (Gross & Levenson, 1993).

These types of modulations appear later in the emotion generating process as compared to

reappraisal and they are responsible for the primary changes of the behavioral aspect of

emotion response tendencies with little impact on negative emotion experience and reducing

positive emotion experience, as well as cognitive suppression which impairs social information

for memory. Suppression is defined as a form of response modulation that is characteristic of


posttraumatic stress disorder (Roemer et al., 2001). Individuals who habitually use suppression

in everyday life not only have less life satisfaction and well-being, less social support, and less

optimistic attitude about the future but they also lack close relationship with others, have worse

interpersonal relationship and show at least more negative mood, symptoms of depression, and

higher level of psychopathology (Gross, Richards, & John, in press; Moore, Zoellner, &

Mollenholt, 2008). Researchers noted that the individual’s use of reappraisal and suppression is

affected by age such that older individuals reported greater use of reappraisal and lesser use of

suppression (Gross, Richards, & John, in press).

Gross also identified two aspects of emotion regulation: response focused and antecedent

focused emotion regulation. Response focused emotion regulation comprises more of

suppression or inhibition of emotion and is related to the maladaptive effect on an individual’s

wellbeing, social function and physical health.Antecedent focused emotion regulation consists

more of cognitive reappraisal and is accompanied by relatively adaptive profile response (e.g.,

Butler et aI. 2003; Davidson, MacGregor, Stuhr, Dixon, & MacLean, 2000; Gross & Levenson,

1997; Mauss & Gross, 2004; Muraven, Tice, & Baumeister, 1998) (Gross & John, 2004).

One important factor which facilitates social interaction is emotion expressive behavior

(Darwin, 1872, 1998). These views are supported by social functional analyses of emotion and

show the importance of emotion-expressive behavior in social interaction such as what is the

consequence of suppression and reappraisal for asocial functioning (e.g., Campos, Mumme,

Kermonia, & Campos, 1994).

It is important to bear in mind the individual and situational differences existing in emotion

regulation ability. The latter depends on the person’s immediate environment as well as the goal

and demands of the environment or situation. Gross and John (2002) showed by using

individual differences in suppression and reappraisal as a measure of social function that those


who used suppression showed less negative or positive emotions to others. Moreover, they had

more negative social consequences in casual conversation, less social support, decreased use

of emotional social support as well as decreased coping hindering the development of

emotionally close relationships in comparison to individuals who use more reappraisal(Gross,

Richards, & John, in press). Gross (2002), in an experimental study, showed that suppression

decreased both negative and positive emotion expressive behavior.

Furthermore, Gross found that there were individual differences in reappraisal and

suppression in memory in individuals such that those who scored higher on suppression had

worse memory than those who scored lower. In addition, reappraisal had no effect on objective

memory. Suppression thus makes the difference between inner experience and outer

expression in individuals (Higgins, 1987; Rogers, 1951).

One of the purposes of our study was to determine the effect of cultural and individual

differences in emotion regulation related to psychopathology. In the current research, we

considered different emotion regulation theories. Here we concentrated on Thompson (1994)

and Gross & John (2002), individuals and cultural differences to study children from two

different cultures and societies (individualistic and collectivistic) and focusing on Thompson’s

(1994) extrinsic processes, which included the manner in which caregivers shape and socialize

their children. Gross & John’s (2002) views on model processes of emotion regulation help to

identify the influence of situation and culture on psychopathology on individual from different

cultures. There are several approaches for the study of emotion regulation.

The two main factors that influence the development of children’s emotion regulation are

parents’ discipline and cultural context. In the next section, we aim to review the existing

literature on how children’s regulate their emotion by different parents’ disciplinary measures


and cultural context and also the relationship between emotion regulation and psychopathology.

2.1.3. Emotion Dysregulation and Dysfunctional Strategies in Emotion

Regulation

Emotion dysregulation is said to occur when individuals lack the ability to regulate the

experience and expression of emotions (Cole, Michel& O'Donnell Teti, 1994). The term emotion

dysregulation is mostly used in clinical setting. It is defined as a problem in emotion regulation

state due to the lack or insufficiency in regulatory strategies or failure to meet the developmental

tasks of emotional development (Cicchetti et al., 1995, 1991). When emotions are dysregulated,

the consequences are difficulties in coping with negative emotions. Individuals with adequate

emotion coping strategies (reappraisal, problem solving) are more efficient in dealing with

negative emotion and have better adjusting capacities in difficult situations (Nolen-Hoeksema et

al., 2008).

On the other hand, individuals with inadequate emotion strategies (suppression and

avoidant) or dysregulated emotion have inefficient management of negative emotion and have

difficulty in adjusting with negative situation. Emotional dysregulation results in social problems

through impaired communication and social dysfunction including deficits in conveying

information about peoples’ thoughts, feelings and objectives, coordinating social encounters and

guiding adaptive functioning (Denham 1986; Eisenberg et al., 2000). Thus, a significant cause

for behavioral problems, deficit in communication and understanding at school, home or in

society can be attributed to emotional dysregulation. The cause behind many pediatric mental

disorders could also be attributed poor emotion regulation (Dodge& Garber, 1991). Children

with emotional dysregulation show patterns of over-regulation and an inhibition of emotional

response. They have difficulty in regulating emotions as well as generating effective strategies,


thus their responses are less adaptive, more aggressive and avoidant in nature. Such children

with less effective strategies to deal with negative situations and stressors have more negative

experience and thereby are prone to higher risk of negative child outcome measures of,

internalizing and externalizing behaviors (see more in Mackler, 2009).

There are several factors which have an effect on regulation or dysregulation of emotions.

Genetics, insecure attachment, biological and environment risk factors, and parents with

symptoms of depression are associated with increased negative emotions and dysregulated

emotion in children (Cole, Luby, & Sullivan, 2008).

2.1.4. Coping, Cognitive Emotion regulation Strategies

Coping and emotion regulation are interlinked such that coping was defined as the regulation

of emotion in a negative or stressful situation (Skinner & Zimmer-Gembeck, 2007). Monat &

Lazarus (1991, p.5) defined coping as “an individual's efforts to master demands (conditions of

harm, threat or challenge) that are appraised (or perceived) as exceeding or taxing his or her

resources”. In sum, coping is the ability to manage stressful situations and is determined by

cognitive and behavior processes. Studies conducted on coping have been more focused on

the relationships between cognitive reappraisal and mental health.

Lazarus and Folkman (1984) stated that coping was the ‘‘constantly changing cognitive and

behavioral efforts to manage specific external and/or internal demands that are appraised as

taxing or exceeding the resources of the person’’ (p. 141). They explained this transactional

model with focus on emotional consequences of appraising situation, and they believed that

appraising a situation in different ways could lead to different emotional and behavioral

consequences. Two types of coping were described: (a) in problem focused coping (acting


directly on the stressor) a person attempts to change the situation itself by using problem

solving strategies such as finding different solutions and (b) emotion focused coping (dealing

with the accompanying emotions) a person displays behavior such as avoidance or a change in

attention which leads to cognitive reappraisal of the situation. Compas, Maclcarne, and

Fondacaro (1988) reported that adolescents and older children who used more problem focused

coping in difficult situation had more positive emotional and behavioral outcome while those who

used more emotional focused coping strategies such as aggressive actions had more

behavioral problems.

A literature search on coping showed gender differences in use of coping strategies with

female using more emotion focused coping whilst male used more problem focused coping

(Brems & Johnson, 1989; Stone & Neale, 1984).

Taylor (2009) mentioned that individuals may cope with stressful events by using avoidant

approach coping styles. Other researchers are of the opinion that coping methods could be

viewed in terms of cognitive and behavioral aspects, due to the broad definition of emotion

regulation and coping methods.

Cognitive processes consist of an individual’s perception and judgment. Perception includes

sensation and intuition while judgment is comprised of thoughts and feelings. Cognition or

cognitive processes help individuals regulate their emotions when facing negative situations.

Cognitive processes can be conscious (e.g., self-blame, other-blame, rumination and

catastrophizing) or unconscious (e.g., denial and projection) (Garnefski, Kraaij, & Spinhoven,

2001).

In recent years, Garnefski et al. (2001) investigated the cognitive emotion regulation theory

with only thought and acting as components of cognitive strategies and excluded behavior

strategies. Their aim was to find out how cognitive emotion regulation functioned in children and


how it affected emotional development. They collected data through a questionnaire which

evaluated only conscious emotion regulations in children when facing negative situations in

daily life.

The concept of cognitive emotion regulation consist of both changing the emotion experience

and a conscious response to stressful situation. Although coping and emotion regulation both

contain regulatory functions, there are some differences between these concepts. Emotion

regulation refers to the experience of both positive and negative emotions whereas coping

refers to adaptive behaviors in negative events or stressful situation. Coping refers to an

individual’s ability to manage and respond in stressful situations and reduce negative emotion

with cognitive and behavioral strategies (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Coping is further

distinguished from emotion regulation by its predominant focus on decreasing negative affect

and by its emphasis on much longer periods of time (e.g., coping with sorrow). Moods are

typically of longer duration and are less likely to involve responses to specific “objects” as

compared to emotions (Parkinson et al., 1996). Defenses usually are involved in regulation of

negative impulses such as aggression and other related negative emotion experience

particularly anxiety (Gross & Thompson, 2007). Defenses usually are unconscious and

automatic and are usually labeled as stable individual differences (Bond, Gardner, Christian, &

Sigal, 1983; Cramer, 2000).

Researchers reported that maladaptive strategies (e.g. rumination, avoidance, and suppression)

are more strongly related to psychopathology than adaptive strategies (acceptance, reappraisal,

and problem solving). They found that the relationship between emotion regulation strategies

and psychopathology vary by type of strategies and type of psychopathology, for example

avoidance has large effect on depression, medium to large effect on anxiety and medium effect

on eating disorders and substance-related disorders (Alado, Nolen-Hoeksman, & Schweizer,

2010). Gross believed coping, mood regulation and physiological defenses are three forms of


affect regulation that could be distinguished within emotion regulation (Gross, 1998).

Figure 2 Emotion regulation and related process (Gross 1998b). Figures added by permission from Prof.

J. Gross.

Researchers found that less adaptive coping was positively correlated with psychopathology

in adolescents or adults (Anderson et al., 1995; Garnefski & Kraij, 2001; Garnefski et al., 2002;

Hoeksema, 2000). Gross (1998) noted emotion regulation can regulate both positive and

negative emotion but coping was mostly focused on regulation of the negative emotions.

Gross et al. (2007) considered appraisal theories to demonstrate how individuals had

different emotional responses, appraisal and coping to the same situation. Studies of the

relationship between cognitive emotion regulation strategies and psychopathology in children

showed that low adaptive or maladaptive coping such as rumination and catastrophizing are

likely to be the cause for depression and anxiety in children (Garnefski & Kraaij, 2006;

Legerstee et al., 2010)., while rumination and self-blame were found to predict internalizing

problems (Garnefski, Kraaij, & Van Etten, 2005). Rumination was also found as a predictor for

depression (Nolen-Hoeksema, 2004; Pourfaraj Omran, 2011) and depression was related to

reduction in emotional clarity (Rude & McCarthy, 2003).


2.2. Factors Affecting Emotion Regulation

2.2.1. Social Factor on Emotion Regulation and Coping in Children

Children’s abilities to perform positive emotion regulation and coping strategies depend on

prior development and social interactions including their culture, caregivers (family or others),

school and peer relationships, socialization processes, developmental status and organization

of the emotion system (Sarrni et al., 1998; Sroufe, 1996).

Super and Harkness (1986) noted that the effects of the differing features of communities on

children’s emotional development could be best conceptualized within the developmental niche

framework. They identified three subsystems of niche framework in order to explain the

processes of emotional development: (a) physical and social settings in which the child lives

(e.g., the architecture and the social demographics), (b) the custom or beliefs of childcare (e.g.,

socialization practices), and (c) the psychology of caretakers (e.g., their socialization goals and

belief).

Models of ecological theory and social learning theory as well as social cognitive theory

supported the fact that children learned behavior, coping skills and management or regulation

emotions by observation, imitation, and modeling of parents or care givers.

2.2.2. Environmental Factors

When studying the adolescent population, it is crucial to pay attention to the family

environment. The family environment is influenced by various factors including ethnic issues,

socio-economic status, cultural background, and perceptions of autonomy and support from the

parents. All of these factors contribute to form a unique environment for the adolescent to grow.


Bronfenbrenner put forward the ecological theory to demonstrate the effect of all these factors

on the individual. This theory concentrates on child’s development within the context of the child

environment. It also defines different levels of environment, each having an effect on the child’s

development with some influences having a direct impact on the child and others having an

indirect impact, for example impact on parenting. Bronfenbrenner’s(1986) named four important

subsystems: 1) Microsystem - includes the relationships and interactions a child has with his

immediate surroundings (Berk, 2000); 2) Mesosystem – influences and comprised of immediate

environment such as family, peer and school and other people or institutions that have direct

influence on a child’s life; 3) Exosystem - consist of structures that do not interact directly with

the child, for instance community influences; 4) Macrosystem - broadest part of influence on

child development and consists of themes such as cultural values and surrounding laws. These

four subsystems are important to the development of a child and have an effect on emotion

regulation in a child. These subsystems combined as one system have an effect on human

development. Bronfenbrenner’s believed each system could have an effect in two ways and

thus called it bi-directional influences. To illustrate this bi-directionality consider how a parent’s

beliefs and behavior affects a child and in parallel how the child’s beliefs and behavior affects

the parent. Bi-directionality in the microsystem level, have the strongest impact on a child’s

cognitive and emotional development and growth. This theory has been applied to a wide array

of developmental topics including emotion development and the risk factors of emotion

regulation.


Figure 3 Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Theory

2.2.4. Family Factor

A literature search on child development showed that parental factors play a great role in

emotional development in children (Thompson, 1994). There are several causes for

dysregulation of emotion (Hilt et al., 2011). Emotion regulation starts from right from infancy with

interactions between the caregiver and environment. Family and culture also play a role on

children development and their emotion regulation. Interactions between a child and his parents

are the first environment guiding the child on how to regulate his emotion. Caregivers are

responsible to help children manage emotion experience with diverse methods such as direct

intervention to reduce distress (Gekoski, Rovee–Collier, & Carulli–Rabinowitz, 1983; Lamb &

Malkin, 1986).


The social learning theory (Bandura, 1977) clarified how social functioning of a child depends

on their parents’ attributes. It is stated that modeling and observation are important to knowing

social context and interaction with another people and observation and modeling help children

learn how to interpret the same situation and behave in similar situations. Mouris et al. (2007)

noted that modeling and imitation transfer the similar experience from parent to the child.

Parents with positive or negative emotions encourage children’s to display the same emotions

such that children with positive emotion have more positive social interaction and vice versa

(Eisenberg et al., 2001).

Emotion regulation also depends on key factors affecting the child and family. Large families

with negative discipline and socioeconomic stress, (Guthman, Sameroff, &Cole, 2003) and

single parents with less support to cope with events (Calkins et al., 2007) are risk factors for

emotion regulation in children and predispose to psychopathology.

Calkins (1994) suggests that there are different factors that influence the development of

emotion regulation skills namely, external factors such as parenting style/practice. The early

development of emotion regulation skills is highly influenced by the quality of parent-child

relationship. There is evidence supporting the interaction between parents and children as the

key factor for regulation of emotion and development of cognition in children. This interaction

also serves as a medium through which children learn useful strategies to reduce emotional

arousal (Sroufe, 1996). Family factors play an important role in behavioral problems in youths.

Among various family factors is attachment. Attachment refers to that affective and close

relationship between children and their parents or caregivers during times of stress or external

threat which provide a sense of security for the infant and significantly influence the child’s

adaptation to a variety of development (Bowlby, 1988). Bowlby (1973) found that there were

individual differences in emotion regulation and attachment system. The sense of attachment

security helps to manage secure emotion regulation which is supportive for healthy relationship


and efficient coping (Shaver & Mikulincer, 2002). A person with a sense of attachment security

and supportive interaction learns to reduce distress, and tries to seek help from others for

problem solving. He is also doted with self-confidence which allows him to open cognitive

structure for new information and deal realistically with the environment as well as has optimistic

mental representations which promote self-soothing reappraisal of aversive events, assist in

problem solving and sustain effective emotion regulation.

As a result a person with secure attachment learns how to adequately express distress and

hence nurtures an increasingly balanced way of experiencing and expressing emotions with a

real goal in mind and without anxiety about loss of relationship (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2003). It

was found that children with constructive coping and successful emotion regulation were

associated with secure attachment (Contreras et al., 2000). Moreover Main & Goldwyn, (1984)

showed that with regards to classification of the attachment between adolescents and their

parents, the adolescents with more secure attachment had higher emotion regulation and were

lower in anxiety and hostility as compared with those with insecure attachment groups (Kobak &

Sceery, 1988). Parents providing low care and acceptance coupled with high level of rejection

induced anxiety in children through development of a dysfunctional cognitive schema with more

influence towards threat and negative outcomes or sense of insecurity (Vasey & dads, 2001).

Research has demonstrated that there are correlations between insecure infant attachment and

later development of mental health problems (Kobak, Sudler, & Gamble, 1991). Internalizing

behavior problems such as depression and anxiety are the result of insecure attachment, for

example adolescents with insecure attachment have low self-worth and negative explanation

which are symptoms of depression (Cumming & Cicchetti, 1990; Kobak, Sudler, & Gamble,

1991). Furthermore, other studies show that externalizing behaviors and delinquent behaviors

such as anger and hostility are consequences of insecure attachments in adolescents (Allen et

al., in press; Greenberg & Speltz, 1988; Patterson, DeBaryshe, & Ramsey, 1989).


The use of different parental disciplinary measures from the first years of life has an effect on

emotion regulation and behavior problem in children. Arnold et al. (1993) discussed three

dysfunctional disciplines between parents and child associated with increased child

misbehavior: overreactivity (responding in an emotionally overcharged manner with threats and

physical punishment), laxness (failure to respond consistently to misbehavior) and verbosity

(lengthy discussion such as lecturing and lengthy verbal reprimand such as nagging, to address

misbehavior). Research showed that mothers using overreactivity was associated with

externalizing behavior disorders in preschool children and children up to 9 years old (O’Leary,

Slep, & Reid, 1999, Arnold et al., 1993, Prinzie et al., 2006). Evidence regarding laxness and

permissive discipline showed association with behavior problems such as oppositional disorders

and conduct disorders (e.g., McCord et al., 1961; Patterson, 1976; Snyder, 1977).Another study

supported contextual risk factor for externalizing behavior in dysfunctional parenting (Dishion &

Patterson, 2006). Baumrind’s (1971) researched about classification of parenting styles on the

dimensions of warmth /responsiveness and demandingness/control effect on children. Her work

identified three parenting styles (authoritarian, authoritative and permissive).

Authoritarian parents are often harsh, exert high levels of control and are lacking in warmth.

Children (5-11 years old) with authoritarian parents were associated with behavior problem such

as aggression (Amato & Fowler, 2002). On the other hand, children of authoritative parents who

are responsive and warm show better adjustment (Baumrind’s, 1996).

A study conducted in Iran demonstrated that authoritative parenting helps children in

developing better short term self-regulation e.g., impulse self-control (Mortezanajad et al.,

2009). Permissive parents fail in maintaining the balance between control and warmth and

were also linked to delinquency and aggression (Haapasalo & Tremblay, 1994). Furthermore,

studies found that positive parental expressions were related to social competency and negative


parental expressions were related to externalizing behavior over the regulation of emotion

(Eisenberg et al., 2001b).

2.3. Psychopathology and Emotion Dysregulation

Emotions can be harmful especially if there is inefficient management of emotions over a

long time period thus resulting in formation of many psychiatric symptoms (Davidson, 2000;

Phillips, Drevets, Rauch, & Lane, 2003). The relevance behind studying emotional regulation

originates from the field of psychopathology on one hand, and the field of cognitive behavioral

therapy on the other hand. Emotion dysregulation is considered as one of the most fundamental

forms of psychopathology (Berenbaum, Raghavan, Le, Vernon, & Gomez, 2003; Bradley, 2003;

Cicchetti, Ackerman, & Izard, 1995). Thompson (1994) defined optimal emotion regulation as

the ability to adjust and succeed in social function, as well as reduce or control arousal

situations, modulate and change emotional experience, when individuals have inability to use of

these behavior means there are dysregulation in emotion.

Emotion dysregulation can be found in mental disorders (fourth edition; American Psychiatric

Association, 1994) with over 50% in Axis I disorders and 100% in Axis II disorders (Gross,

1998). Many childhood disorders or child psychopathology involve difficulty in managing

emotion regulation. Researchers noted disturbance in interpersonal relationships as a key factor

for psychopathology in individuals (See, e.g., Bowlby, 1973; Sameroff & Emde, 1989). A series

of studies reported that children and adolescents with adequate emotion regulation skills have

better relationship and social behavior as compared with children who lack sufficient emotion

regulation skills (Denham et al., 2003; Eisenberg et al., 1995; Rydell, Berlin, & Bohlin, 2003;

Spinard et al., 2006).


Researchers showed that children possessing emotion regulation skill adjust better with

different situations in later development (Denham et al., 2003; Rydell et al., 2003; Spinard et al.,

2006). Evidence also predicts that emotion regulation is related to the development of behavior

problem in children and adolescents. Poor emotion regulation and poor emotional

understanding are responsible for dysregulation of emotion and psychopathology in children.

Children with difficulty in emotion regulation are unsuccessful to regulate of emotion, thus the

term dysregulation of emotion. Emotion dysregulation is defined as the use of inflexible

strategies which might specifically affect the cognitive and interpersonal functioning (Cole et al.,

1994). Dysregulation of emotions occurs an individual responses to situations are too intense

(exhibit over regulation) or too weak (exhibit under regulation) in a continuum (Kennan, 2000).

Emotion dysregulation plays an important role in creating physiological disorders, biological

disorders, stress-induced disorders and psychological disorders (Hilt et al., 2011, Gross, 1998).

It should be pointed out that usually psychological disorders are linked to biology (Macklem,

2008).

Emotion dysregulation has roots in both internalizing and externalizing disorders.

Externalizing disorders refer to difficulty in decreasing negative emotion, inhibiting behavior,

impaired attentional control, weak emotional understanding (appears to be related to general

cognitive development) and expression and focus on negative aspects in situation. Internalizing

disorders refer to emotional problems or mood disorders. Individuals with internalizing problem

show difficulty in decreasing negative emotion, inhibiting emotional expression, understanding

emotional experiences and tend to choose avoidant or aggressive strategies to deal with

negative emotion (Gjone & Stevenson 1997; Martin 2003; Macklem, 2008).

In a study comparing two groups of children with and without anxiety disorder, it was found

that children with poor emotional understanding had problem to adjust or regulate negative

emotion and had anxiety disorder (Southam-Gerow & Kendall, 2000; Suveg & Zeman, 2004).


Poor emotional understanding and difficulty to manage negative situations are related to

different disorders such as aggression and eating disorder (especially in female adolescents),

while reduced ability to manage negative emotion has been linked to depression in adolescents

(Bohnert, Crnic, & Lim, 2003; Dearing et al., 2002; Eisenberg et al., 2000; Shields &Cicchetti,

1998; Sim & Zeman, 2005, 2006; Silk, Steinberg, & Morris, 2003). The early behavioral problem

in children and youths depend on emotion management in childhood with over regulation of

emotions as the cause for internalizing behavior problem such as depression and anxiety and

under regulation of emotion as the cause for externalizing behavior problem such as aggression

(Mullin & Hinshaw, 2007). If an individual is unable to regulate negative emotion such as anger

and acts out, it is indicative of externalizing disorders and difficulty to regulate negative emotion

such as anxiety relates to internalizing disorder (Gross, 1998b). Most research support

suppression as a regulatory strategy in psychopathology. Suppression is a focused response

which directly acts to inhibit emotional expression (Gross & Thompson, 2007). Comparison of

group of nonclinical and clinical group such as patients with generalized anxiety disorder,

patients used more suppression to decrease emotional experience (Mennin et al., 2002).

Some research indicates that suppression has been linked with cognitive maladaptive

strategies and psychological problem such as internalizing and externalizing behavior. For

example individuals with depression have difficulty expressing their emotions and they use more

maladaptive cognitive strategies such as rumination and catastrophizing (Mashhadi et al., 2011;

Garnefski & Kraaij, 2006; Zeman et al., 2004). Research in Iran by Yousefi et al., (2008)

showed that rumination was positively correlated with depression. Zeman et al. (2001)

investigated the relationship between psychopathology and emotional management method

such as (inhibition, suppression of emotional expression, dysregulated expression, and emotion

regulation coping). It was found that maladaptive coping, dysregulation of expression, and

inhibition of expression with negative emotion are symptoms of behavior problem. Thus, anger,


dysregulation of expressions of anger and sadness and maladaptive coping with anger

predicted symptoms of depression and anxiety in contrast to only anger coping and sadness

inhibition were linked to externalizing behaviors such as aggressive behavior (Zeman et al.,

2002). In another research which compared children with anxiety disorder and without anxiety

disorder the result showed more dysregulated expression of worry, sadness and anger in

children with anxiety disorder as compared to children without anxiety. Interestingly, there were

sex differences in emotion management in girls with and without anxiety disorders who reported

less adaptive emotion coping than boys (Zeman et al., 2004).

Recent research undoubtedly points out that difficulty in regulation of emotions play a role in

most forms of psychopathology (Bradley, 1990, 2000; Casey, 1996; Cicchetti et al., 1995).

Fleener (1999) noted that children who later were diagnosed as borderline personality disorder

were primarily unable to regulate their emotions (see more in chapter 2 Emotion Dysregulation).

The symptoms of borderline personality disorder appear in children as from fourth to sixth grade

(see more in chapter 2 Emotion Dysregulation, Crick, Murray-Close, & Woods2005). Moreover,

most physiological symptoms and disorders such as pain, smoking, cutting, eating disorders

and addictions are associated with emotion dysregulation (see more in chapter 2 Emotion

Dysregulation). Still along the lines of psychopathology and emotion dysregulation, we are

going to explain briefly the relationship between internalizing and externalizing disorder in

children with emotion dysregulation.

2.3.1. Internalizing Behavior Problem in Children

Kovacs and Delvin (1998) characterized internalizing disorders as “conditions whose central

feature is disordered mood or emotion” (p.47). Children with internalizing behavior problems had

over-regulation of emotion and showed social withdrawal, somatic complaints, and loneliness


(Cole, Michel, & Teti, 1994, Mullin & Hinshaw, 2007; Zeman, Shipman, & Suveg, 2002).

Previous research had showed that children from second grade have ability to develop

internalizing behavior problem such as anxiety and depression (Hymel et al., 1990).

Internalizing behavior problems affect the child social interaction. Children with internalizing

disorder use more maladaptive cognitive strategies to regulate emotion, and most common

ones are rumination, and suppression. Rumination was strongly positively correlated with

depression and anxiety (Alado, Nolen-Hoeksman, & Schweizer, 2010).

In contrast with recent research, there is also evidence supporting the fact that internalizing

disorder depends on factors such as emotion regulation in infancy, childhood and social factors

as well as interpersonal relationships. Patterns of emotion regulation are strongly associated

with disease symptoms. Gross (1998) found that difficulties in regulating negative emotions

were related to internalizing disorders such as anxiety and depression.

2.3.1.1. Depression

Depression is regarded as an internalizing disorder. A person with depression might have a

variety of symptoms such as low mood, lowered interest in normal activity, hopelessness and

low self-esteem (Blumberg & Izard, 1985). A depressive person also might have physical

symptoms (Segrin, 2000; Wicks-Nelson & Israel, 1997) such as difficulty for eating and sleeping

(Emslie, Mayes, & Hughes, 2000; Carlson, 2000) and weight loss or gain.

Several studies noted that depression was related to suppression and dysfunctional cognitive

emotion regulation strategies (see Ehring et al., 2008; Gross & Muñoz, 1995). There were also

some studies which had shown that the level of depression was related to emotion dysfunction

and emotion dysregulation. Individuals with depression showed dysfunctional cognitive emotion


regulation strategies (e.g., catastrophizing, rumination) and lesser use of functional cognitive

strategies (Positive refocus, positive reappraisal) (Garnefski & Kraaij, 2001, 2006). A recent

experimental study compared individuals suffering from depression and anxiety disorder with

healthy controls and found that the group with depression and anxiety disorder showed higher

level of emotion suppression than the control group when watching a film eliciting negative

mood (Campbell-Sills et al., 2006).Gender differences in rate of depression might be explained

by the tendency to use more rumination by girls than boys. Tennant (2002) found that loss event

had higher association with depression.

2.3.1.2. Anxiety

Anxiety disorder is common in children and adolescents. Studies showed a higher rate of

anxiety disorder in females as compared to males. Moreover, a younger age in females

showed a stronger link between anxiety and emotion dysregulation (Zahn-Waxler et al., 2008).

Research showed that children and adolescents with high levels of negative experience

reported more impairment in the expression of worry and had more anger and sadness as

compared to children without anxiety disorder (Suveg & Zeman, 2004). Children with anxiety

disorder also have problem in psychosocial function, interpersonal relationship, school

performance, and attentional control. They made use of maladaptive cognitive strategies such

as rejection and suppression to experience and express their feelings (Gross & Levenson,

1997). Individuals with anxiety problem were also using other maladaptive cognitive strategies

such as rumination, catastrophizing, self-blame and, other-blame (Martin & Dahlen, 2005;

Garnefski et al., 2001; Amstadter, 2008).


Research based on gender differences in the rate of anxiety disorder showed that females

had more anxiety disorders than males in all types of anxiety disorder (Kashani & Orvaschel,

1990). Another research conducted by Bender et al., (2012) showed that there were more

female adolescents with anxiety disorder in clinical settings than male adolescents and females

reported a higher degree of restriction in accessing effective emotion regulation strategies and

non- acceptance of negative emotion as compared to males.

2.3.2. Externalizing Behavior Problem in Children

Children with externalizing problem have more social problems and difficulty to cope with

situations. These problems are dealt with using verbal aggression and delinquent behavior

which consequently lead to oppositional defiant disorder and conduct disorder.

Children with dysfunctional emotion or under regulation of emotion show externalizing behavior

disorder (e.g., hyperactivity, defiance and aggression) and also have difficulty to adjust with

situations, as well as exhibit an under controlled anger and sadness responses (Zeman et al.,

2002). Eisenberg and colleagues (2001a) in a longitudinal study showed that children with

externalizing behavior problems had difficulty to control the expression and attentional

processes in negative emotion, and also had lower level of effortful regulation or control (e.g.,

attention and voluntary inhibition) and higher impulsivity. Children who experience negative

events are more prone to have externalizing problem and higher levels of antisocial behavior

and aggression in stressful situations. Evidence suggested that externalizing disorder was more

prevalent in boys than in girls (Dubow, Edwards, & Ippolito, 1997; Morales & Guerra, 2006;

Tennant, 2002).


Mediator (e.g., gender)

Mediator (e.g., gender) Mediator (e.g., gender)

Figure 4 Biosocial Interaction Model of Childhood Externalizing Behavior by Raine, Brennan, Farrington, and Mednick (1997)

This figure outlines the conceptual model for studying childhood externalizing behavior. Above

in the figure are the predictors and below is the outcome. Psychosocial and biological factors

are predictors for childhood externalizing behavior. Each factor can give rise directly to

externalizing behavior. And also show that there are some risk factors influence in both

biological factors and social factors. Two examples of externalizing disorders developed by

dysfunctional emotion regulation strategies in children and youth are oppositional defiant

disorder and conduct disorder.


2.3.2.1. Oppositional Defiant Disorder

Studies on children with oppositional defiant disorder found that the children had more

problems with parents and peers as compared to other psychiatric diagnoses, for example

conduct disorder. Children who have Oppositional defiant disorder has difficulty to show

negative emotion such as anger and inability in social function (Frankel F, Feinberg, 2002;

Burke, Pardini & Loeber, 2008). Children diagnosed with oppositional defiant disorder often lose

their temper, argue with adults, are defiant to authority and deliberately disturb others. This

disorder usually starts by the age of six years and is the cause for development of conduct

disorder in adolescents and antisocial personality disorder later in adults. However, this does

not imply that all adolescents with conduct disorder will have antisocial personality disorder or

other serious problem later in life (Hinshaw, 1994; Moffitt, 1993). Hinshaw’s study showed that

the risk factors for oppositional defiant disorder and conduct disorder include family discord,

socioeconomic disadvantages and antisocial behavior in the parents (Hinshaw, 1994).

2.3.2.2. Conduct Disorder

Conduct disorder comprises of a group of behavioral and emotional problems in children and

adolescents. “Children and adolescents with this disorder have difficulty on following rule and

behaving in a socially acceptable way” (American Academy of Adolescent and Child Psychiatry

2004, July). Children and adolescents with conduct disorder show behavioral and emotional

problems, such as aggression, and antisocial behavior. Usually individuals with this disorder

show serious characterized by a persistent misbehavior as a core feature of this disorder. The

behaviors of individuals with conduct disorders consist of: (a) aggression towards people and


animals, (b) destruction of property, (c) deceitfulness or theft, (d) and serious violations of rules.

Aggression is one component of conduct disorder (APA, 1994). In general, aggression is found

to be more common in boys than in girls in conduct disorder (Farrington, 2001). The early

symptoms of conduct disorder are predictors for future antisocial behavior (Loeber, Burke, &

Pardini, 2009). Some disorders are comorbid with conduct disorder such as depression, anxiety,

substance abuse (Drabick et al., 2006). Emotion dysregulation theory noted that individuals with

conduct disorder showed aggressive and antisocial behavior (Davidson, Putnam, & Larson,

2000).

In addition, research on children with externalizing problems such as conduct disorder found

that when compared to age-matched children with internalizing problems they had lower levels

of emotion regulation and control, and also showed insufficient emotion recognition with

attention on their facial expression (Blair et al., 2001; Eisenberg et al., 2001a). Empirical

evidence suggested that aggressive behavior in individuals was as a result of lack of emotion

regulation abilities (Card & Little, 2006; Frick et al., 2003).

2.4. Cross Culture Study

This chapter reviews the literature regarding cultural differences. Focus is laid on the concept

of culture and its importance in the field of emotion, emotion regulation, cognition, and self. The

most important cultural difference between Germany and Iran is the self.


2.4.1. Concept of Culture

There are several definitions of culture. Culture is defined by a set of symbolic meanings or

in context of variables that have been created by humans from different groups. Culture is

viewed as a factor which could explain differences in emotion, cognition, learning and behavior,

action and thinking in different people. Culture in this thesis is defined as shared “attitudes,

beliefs, categorizations, expectations, norms, roles, self-definitions, values, and other such

elements of subjective culture found among individuals whose interactions were facilitated by

shared language, historical period, and geographic region” (Triandis, 1972, p. 3). Usually, such

elements of subjective culture have helped a cultural group adjust to its environment, and as a

result these elements have been transmitted through socialization, modeling, and other forms of

communication from one generation to another. A more popular definition of culture is from

Hofstede. According to him, culture is ‘‘the collective programming of the mind which

distinguishes the members of one human group from another’’ (Hofstede, 1980). Shweder, 1991

believed culture to be the key to how individuals think, feel, behave and interact in a real

situation. In culture or cross cultural study, it is important to know not only about the concept of

cultures but also of individual differences and self.

2.4.2. Dimensions of Culture

Hofsted's 1980 research on different cultures identified four important dimensions: (a)

collectivism versus individualism or orientation toward individual or group (the way in which

people live together and the relationship that exists between individuals and the community); (b)

masculinity versus femininity, the former stressing achievement and material success, the latter


stressing harmony and caring, the extent of social roles in families, schools peer groups and

through the media; (c) power distance, describing the willingness to tolerate differences in

power and authority, and avoiding uncertainty; willingness to tolerate ambiguity demonstrate

peoples’ preference to either structured or unstructured situation; and (d) long versus short term

orientation, referring to the degree to which cultures encourage delayed gratification of material,

social, and emotional needs among its members and the degree to which the society upholds

traditional values. High or low dimensions predispose people to resist or accept change. It has

been found that collectivism is at one end and individualism is at the other end. Most of the

other identified cultural dimensions correlate empirically to those of Hofstede. Cultural

differences in communication by Hall's, (1976) and Gudykunst and Ting-Toomey (1988) showed

that in individualist culture, members used high context communication and emphasized on

indirectness, implicitness and used more nonverbal expression and in individualistic culture,

member used more, low context communication and emphasized on direct explicit and verbal

expressions. The most important dimension explaining cultural differences is individualism

versus collectivism.

2.4.2.1. Differences between individualism and collectivism – Individualism

versus collectivism

Is an important dimension in determining similarities and differences between cultures and

their behavioral patterns? Examples of individualist cultures are the United States of America

and other western countries while Korea and other Asian countries are examples of collectivist

cultures (Triandis, 1988). Triandis (1995) defined individualistic and collectivist cultures with four

attributes namely the self, goals, relationships and antecedents of behaviors. People in different

cultures have different set of values, perceptions, self-construal, behaviors, communication,

emotions, cognition and judgments (Ting-Toomey, 1988; Hofstede, 1980; Triandis, 1988, 1990).


In Individualist cultures, members’ focus is primarily on themselves and their immediate

families. Their communication is subject to changes in specific circumstances with specific in-

groups such as family, religion, profession and social clubs. They have less commitment and

conformity with in- group, and their personal goals are more important than the in- group goals.

In contrast, members in collectivist cultures identify with the in-group, thus more attention is paid

on the well-being of the group rather than their own well-being (e.g., family, work group).

Moreover, in collectivist cultures members cannot separate themselves from the in-groups of

which they are members and they have to adopt with groups, the in-group affects

communication in many different aspects of a person’s life (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). In

collectivist cultures members have deep relationships (Triandis, 1989), strong conformity and

commitment (Bond & Smith, 1996) with the in-group. The group goals are more important than

the personal goals, and there is more consideration and respect to social norms as opposed to

personal or own attitudes (Triandis, 2004).

The group’s priority is on the in-group rather than the out-group, with the distinction more

marked in collectivist cultures than individualist cultures. In collectivist cultures for example in

Japan, classmates and neighbors are important in-group whereas in individualist cultures such

as Australia (Trandis, 1990), and china the important in-group is the family (Bond, 1991).

Hall (1976) put forward a frame work to find differences in individualism and collectivism

culture with high and low context communication. Individuals in individualist cultures use low

context communication which is characterized by being directly explicit with others and

emphasis is on person based information to predict each other’s behavior. On the other hand,

individuals in collectivist cultures use high context communication which is characterized as

being indirect, and emphasize the group based information to predict each other’s behavior

(Gudykunst & Ting-Toomey, 1988; Gudykunst & Nishida, 1986a).


Matsumoto (1991) noted that emotion expression is an important factor characterizing the

differences between individualist and collectivist cultures. Members of collectivist culture display

positive emotions towards in-group to maintain harmony and cohesion. Moreover, Matsumoto

(2008) reported that collectivist cultures had less negative emotion expression towards in-group.

In contrast, members in individualist cultures have more positive and negative emotions

expression towards the in-group.

Triandis (2004) noted members in collectivist cultures see the self as interdependent with the in-

group and any changes in the self change depend on the in-group. Behavior is seen as a result

of external factors such as norms and roles in collectivist cultures while in individualist cultures

behavior is determined by internal factors such as attitudes and personality which are

unchangeable and contribute to stability of the self. Individualist and collectivist cultures show

differences in attributions of similarity between the self and comparison to others, with emphasis

on independent and interdependent self-construal. Members in collectivist cultures (e.g., India)

have interdependent self-construal, and their knowledge about others is being more detailed

and clear as opposed to their knowledge about the self. Members in individualist cultures such

as in America and western countries have independent selves and their self-knowledge is more

elaborated than their knowledge of others (Markus & Kitayama, 1991).

According to Markus & Kitayama, 1991; and Singelis & Sharkey, 1995, people with

independent self-construal from individualist cultures manage their feelings and actions with

reference to self rather those to others. In contrast, individuals with interdependent self-

construal from collectivist cultures manage their behaviors, feelings and actions with respect to

the cognition, emotion and behaviors of others since they have more social relationship, and

their behavior management is defined as per the group norms.


2.4.2.2. The Self

The self is associated with all aspects of human behaviors, thoughts, emotions and cognition

(Triandis 1989). To understand an individual’s behavior in different cultures, it is necessary to

recognize the individual’s characteristics with respect to the tendencies of behaviors in the

cultural level (Gudykunst & Matsumoto, 1996). An individual’s characteristics are shaped by the

individual’s concepts of the self. Self-concept refers to an individual’s self-perception and

depends on (a) how individuals experience and interpret the environment (b) influence from

others’ evaluations and reinforcements (Shavelson & Bolus, 1982). Self- concept is important

and affects an individual’s assumptions, concerns and expectations from the environment as

well as one’s behavior towards others. The influence of self in individualist and collectivist

cultures affect communication, behavior, individual personality orientation, and individual values

(Kashima, 1989; Markus and Kitayama, 1991). It was hypothesized that the different

components of culture such as ideals, values, rules, attitudes, opinions, beliefs, affect self-

construal of its members. Self-construal in individualist and collectivist cultures has different

cognitive, emotional and motivational consequences.

The concept of self needs to be distinguished from the independent and interdependent

views, Markus and Kitayama, 1991 mentioned that individualist cultures (e.g., in western

country, US) had independent self-construal appearing in individuals with personal or private

thoughts or feelings and action. Thus, the self had a delineated uniqueness, and was

autonomous and independent. People in this culture laid emphasis on personal goals and

attributions, expressions of self and were direct with others. Singelis and Brown, 1995 found

that independent construal had low context communication and was negatively correlated with

embarrassment. Meanwhile, people in collectivist cultures (e.g., Asian, Japan, African, Latin

American and Southern European cultures) had interdependent self-construal, and were


associated with values such as harmony, cohesion and cooperation. Individuals in this culture

were part of others, boosted others’ goals, brought realization to the groups’ attribution, and

were indirect with others (Markus and Kitayama, 1991). Singelis and Brown, (1995) identified

interdependent self-construal as having high context communication.

Their model

Culture Self-construa l Cognition, emotion and motivation

(Value, attitudes, behavior, norms, etc.)

The evidence

Country Cognition, emotion and motivation

Figure 5 Comparison of the logic underlying the Markus& Kitayama (1991) model

2.4.3. Cultural differences between Germany and Iran

For the purpose of this research it is important to know cultural differences between Germany

and Iran in emotion, cognition, and communication to understand cultural differences. However,

a detailed account of all cultural differences is beyond the scope of this thesis.

Previous studies showed that Eastern and Asian countries were collectivist cultures while

western countries were individualist cultures (Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Triandis, 1995).

Values, norms and beliefs of western countries such as Germany have laid stress on the

independence and autonomy of the self, and on personal goals. In Middle Eastern countries

such as Iran interdependent construal have emphasized a strong commitment and the values of

cohesiveness. In collective cultures the self was viewed as more committed to the group and

there was focused on harmony and cohesiveness (Diener &Lucas, 2004).


According to Bani-Asadi (1984), Iranian culture was influenced by different cultures. This can

be observed through the three main cultural facets: ancient culture for about 6000 years

followed by the Islamic culture for about 1400 years and finally the western culture for about 200

years. If each time period of the Iranian culture was considered using Hofested dimensions, it

would be concluded that Iran was different because of the influence of these three cultural

facets. Motamedi (2006) and Bani- Asadi (1984) proved that Iran in ancient culture was a

collectivist culture with high power distance, highly masculine and weak in uncertainty

avoidance. Iran in its Islamic culture were individualist and collectivist with low power distance

and both masculine and feminine. However, under the influence of western culture, Iranians

were more individualist with low power distance and strong uncertainty avoidance and more

masculine. Reviewing the whole history of Iran from Hofstede’s (1991) viewpoint, indicates that

in most of the dimensions Iran lies in the middle of the two extremes, that is in the middle of

individualism and collectivism. Yet, the characteristics of power distance and uncertainty

avoidance in Iran makes it a feminine society. Iran in ancient culture was collectivism High

power distance weak in uncertainty avoidance more masculinity.

Based on Hofested's study, German culture scored high in individualism, masculinity,

uncertainty avoidance, and low power distance when compared to Iran (see in figure 6).


Figure 6 Hofested (1980) cultural dimensions score in Iran and Germany

2.4.3.1. Cognition

Several studies in the field of cultural psychology reported cognitive differences between

western and eastern cultures. These differences might be accounted due to differences in social

practice and social structures and might be a consequence of ancient histories, philosophies,

and sociologies. European cultures were heavily influenced by the ancient Greek (e.g.,

Aristotelian) thinking and values. East Asian culture was influenced by Confucian values and

thinking (Lioyd, 1996). There is a difference between the western and eastern philosophy

characterized by pragmatic and intuitive versus formal logic and rational (Lioyd, 1990). Iran was

influenced by Zoroastrian philosophy which is an ethical philosophy based on the primacy of


good thoughts (pendar-e-nik), good words (goftar-e-nik), and good deeds (kerdar-e-nik)

(Kreyenbroek, 2009). Zoroastrianism through the works of Zoroaster had a significant influence

on Greek philosophy and Roman philosophy. Several ancient Greek writers and philosophers

believed Zoroastrian philosophy as "the most famous and most useful" philosophy (Nock, 1929).

Germany is an individualist culture with interdependent dimensions, while Iran is a collectivist

culture with dependent dimensions. Nisbett et al. (2001) reported members in an individualist

culture had different cognitive styles or different patterns of thinking and perception as opposed

to members in a collectivist culture. In the latter, members had more holistic cognitive styles

characterized by (a) thematic and family-resemblance-based categorization of objects, (b) a

focus on contextual information, (c) and relationships in visual attention, and (d) an emphasis on

situational causes in attribution. The holistic way is based on experience –knowledge combined

with dialecticism. In individualistic cultures, members had more analytic cognitive styles

characterized by (a) taxonomic and rule-based classification of objects, (b) low focus in visual

attention, (c) dispositional bias in causal attribution, and(d) use of formal logic in reasoning.

2.4.3.2. Emotion

Emotions help individuals to respond in different situations. In Iranian cultures most of the

negative emotions and physical feelings are termed narahati (Pliskin, 1987). Narahati is used in

different languages to show high range of negative emotions such as not feeling good, troubled,

worried, and feeling nervous. Good (1977) showed that in Iranian culture patients reported more

somatic complaints such as weakness, nervousness, chest pain, and digestive problems. Since

Iranian culture is a collectivist culture it could be speculated that somatization is more common

than psychological distress. In this study, the effects of culture effect on the perception of


emotions, is seen in the light of a dimension differentiating between individualist and collectivist

cultures. In individualist culture, it was easier and more comfortable to express emotions as

compared to collective culture (Matsumoto, 2008).

2.5. Cross-Cultural Studies in Emotion Regulation

2.5.1. Culture, cross cultural studies and psychology

Cultural psychology has a growing emphasis on the effects of sociocultural processes on

human psychology. Through this perspective, researchers studied culture and emotion as being

interdependent, and showed that the effects of culture on emotion influenced the understanding

of cultural processes (Kitayama & Markus, 1994).

Cross culture psychology is a method used to determine the how and whys culture change

human thought and behavior. The first psychologist to identify a relationship between culture

and basic psychological processes was W. H. R. Rivers (1901). In history, psychology and

culture were used to characterize people who shared heritage and in individuals from diverse

cultures to understand abnormal behaviors, social behaviors and modal personality. Berry,

Poortinga, Segall, and Dasen (1992) explained that cross-cultural psychology consisted in

finding the “similarity and differences in individual functioning in various cultural and ethnic

groups; of the relationship between psychological variables and social cultural, ecological, and

biological variables in these variables” (P. 2).

A review of the world's psychological literature during the past century showed that many

psychologists have been interested in culture and cross-cultural studies with culture as an

intervening variable in comparison to human thoughts and behavior. Early sociocultural theories


included Ruth Benedict, Ralph Linton, and Margaret Mead, whose investigations showed that

an individual’s personality development was reflected by the components of society such as

norms, values, ideas, immediate family and other groups. Studies conducted by Westermeyer &

Janca (1977) clarified that there was a relationship between social culture and mental disorders.

They had showed that the pattern of physical and mental disorder would change as there was

change in the sociocultural settings. Researchers in the field of clinical psychology were

interested in cross-cultural studies in the hope of detecting a disorder having the same

symptoms when using the same diagnostic techniques (Kleinman, 1995). A study carried out by

the National Institute of Mental Health examined a group of patient with schizophrenia in India,

Denmark, Colombia, Nigeria and the United Kingdom found similar symptoms in patients as well

as some differences regarding the course of that disorder which was better for developing

countries than developed countries. Research in China showed that somatization was a way to

experience psychic distress (Kleinman, 1982). Cross-cultural studies in depression found

different symptoms in different countries and cultures for example, in Taiwan and China, people

reported low rates of depression and a higher stress level manifesting as physical problems

such as fatigue, weakness and other somatic complaints, whereas in the Western society

depression was a frequent reaction to individual stress (American Psychiatric Association, 1994;

Kaiser, Katz& Shaw, 1998; Kleinman, 1986).

Clinical psychologists are interested in cross-cultural studies as they are keen to understand

the assessment and evaluation of mental disorders, the psychopathology and how emotional

disorders are influenced by culture and different types of treatment in different countries (Lee

&Sue chapter 15 hand books of culture and psychology). Psychologists tried to explain the

relationship between culture and psychology by attention in self (Markus & Kitayama, 1991) and

also the relationship between individuals and the in-group, commonly known as individualism

and collectivism (Hofstede, 1980; Triandis, chapter 3 hand book of culture &psychology). The


important dimension in cultural psychology to understand psychological functioning was the

construct of individualist and collectivist selves (see M. H. Bond&Smith, 1996; Smith &Bond,

1999).

2.5.2. Cross-Cultural Study on Emotion Regulation and Cognitive Emotion

Regulation

Culture and emotion regulation have become important concepts in different field of

psychology such as clinical, personality and social psychology.

Researchers have showed the need to investigate emotion regulation from different cultures

for three main reasons. Firstly, it is believed that human development should be conceptualized

as resulting ongoing transactions between the developing person and their social environment

(Bronfenbrenner, 1986). Individuals learn how to regulate emotions from interactional processes

and these interactions are influenced by culture (Saarni, 1998). Secondly, there is evidence

supporting similarities and differences in adults’ communication and coping with positive and

negative emotions (Mesquita & Frijida, 1992). Finally, studies on cultures and emotions are

important from the developmental psychopathology perspective (Cicchetti et al., 1995; Cole et

al., 1994).

Several studies showed culture differences in emotion regulation as different cultures

approved of different emotion expressions. Emotion regulation strategies are influenced by

different cultures through differing ideals, beliefs, attitudes and values. Researchers found that

emotion regulation strategies in diverse cultures had different social outcomes due to different

prevailing ideals, beliefs and values which regulate thoughts, behaviors and perception of self

and environment (Bulter et al., 2003; Gross, 2002; Gross & John, 2003, John & Gross, 2004).


The processes and outcomes of emotion regulation would depend upon on the conceptions of

self (independent versus interdependent) and goals (promotion and prevention). In Western

cultures, the self was regarded as independent and emphasis is laid on the promotion of

personal goals (Lee, Aaker & Gardner, 2000) while in Asian culture the self was interdependent,

with less self goals so as to preserve group harmony and elude or avoid hurting groups (Heine

& Lehman, 1997). A number of studies have examined cultural differences by related self-

construal differences in emotionality. Markus and Kitayama (1991) showed that there were

culture differences in cognition, emotion and motivation and those differences occurred due to a

variety of self-construal: individualistic cultures had independent self-construal and collective

cultures had interdependent self-construal. Studies also showed that cultural differences could

be observed on a number of cultural dimensions which provide researchers meaningful ways to

understand the elements of culture.

Hofstede (1980) identified different dimensions to compare different cultures (masculinity

versus femininity, power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism versus collectivism, long

versus short term orientation) and investigators mentioned that each dimensions had a direct

effect on emotion and emotion regulation on members of each culture. For instance high

uncertainty avoidance was associated with high level of anxiety because of ambiguous situation

and on the other hand, long term orientation favored long-term relationships thus, increasing the

likelihood of future good relationships through regulated emotional reactions. Matsumoto

reported that culture had different effects on emotion regulation strategies. He showed that

three dimensions of culture namely uncertainty avoidance, long versus short term orientation,

and affective autonomy were significantly associated with emotion regulation. He reported that

members in a culture with high uncertainty avoidance and high long-term orientation used more

suppression and less reappraisal strategies as emotions were seen as threatening with lasting


perspective on interpersonal relationship. Members of collective cultures use more suppression

and less reappraisal in contrast of members in individualistic cultures (Matsumoto, 2008).

Members in cultures with high power distance and high hierarchy experienced problem in

self-regulation and were associated with lowered emotion regulation strategies with less

appraisal and more suppression as in these cultures maintenance of harmony and cohesion

were more important (Matsumoto, 2007b, Matsumoto, et al., 2008).

Other studies showed if attention was paid to ideologies in values and concept of the self in

cultures, cultural differences in emotion regulation strategies, could be distinguished by the

Model process of emotion regulation proposed by Gross and John. The model process consists

of five points (1) situation selection, (2) situation modification, (3) attention deployment, (4)

cognitive change, and (5) modulation of experiential and behavioral or physiological response.

The first four points are related to antecedent focused or reappraisal while the fifth one related

to response focus. Culture could have an effect on antecedent focus as it is dependent on

cognitive reappraisal of members construing in emotion-eliciting situations and their response in

those situations (Markus & Kitayama, 1991, 1998; Matsumoto, 2005; Schwartz, in press;

Schwartz & Bardi, 2001). Matsumoto (2006) showed that there were cultural differences by

modal model. Matsumoto (2006) explained cultural differences in part of his work through the

Gross model. He compared collectivist and individualist cultures on modified situations and

attention deployment, which represented of antecedent, focused responses and found that

differences were due to deferring ideologies.

Members in collectivist cultures had less ability to change or modify situation than members

in individualist cultures. Moreover, members in collectivist cultures showed less anger than

those in individualist cultures.


Furthermore, members in high power distance or high status differentiating cultures were

also affected in attention deployment. Gross and John (2003) focused more on cognitive

change and modulation of response subparts of their model. They defined cognitive changes as

the way to reinterpret a situation which changed the emotional impact, and modulation response

as expressive suppression which represented inhibition of emotion expressive behavior. These

two aspects were important factors in finding cultural differences in emotion regulation.

Researchers used suppression and reappraisal to compare members in individualist and

collectivist cultures. It was found that members in individualist cultures with independent self

and egalitarianism used more reappraisal and less suppression due to the emphasis on the

value emotions and free expression, which was contrary to that in collectivist cultures (Gross &

John, 2003). Asian Americans reported a high level of suppression when compared to

European Americans (Okasaki, 2002; McCare, 2002, McCare, et al., 2005) thus demonstrating

cultural differences on extraversion and neuroticism.

Mutsumato et al., (2005a) found that differences in type of personality such as extraversion

and neuroticism could be used to differentiate cultural differences in emotion regulation. He

compared Japanese and Americans on emotion regulation strategies, and found that Japanese

had more suppression than Americans and Americans had more reappraisal strategies. There

are cultural differences in emotional expression (example, facial expression) as well. Friesen

(1972) conducted an experiment with a group of Japanese and a group of European. Both

groups were showed the same facial expressions through a movie and it was found that

Japanese showed more positive expressions and less negative expressions as compared to

European. It was concluded that Japanese might be using more suppressed emotion than

European.

Matsumoto et al. (2008) compared the dimensions of collectivism and individualism

dimension and found that individualism was characterized by greater emotional expressivity.


Heinrichs, et al., (2006) compared the effect of social values on social anxiety in Japan, South

Korea and Spain as representatives of collectivist cultures and Australia, Canada, Germany,

Netherlands and the United States as representatives of individualist cultures. They found that

collectivist cultures with strict social norms had an effect on social anxiety. Comparison was also

made to other collectivist cultures namely East Asian and Latin American countries and it was

found that Latin Americans reported less social anxiety than East Asians as in Latin America

social harmony was not necessary to increase self-consciousness and therefore could not lead

to increased social anxiety.

Arrindell et al. (2005) compared Latin American and East Asian as collectivist countries with

North American and European as individualist countries, and reported more social anxiety in

collectivist cultures. However, Repee et al. (2004) reported that an impaired quality of life by

social anxiety was higher in individualist cultures than in collectivist cultures (East Asian

countries) as it was culturally acceptable for members in collectivist cultures to have more

socially reticent behaviors. It should be pointed out that only differences in social anxiety were

not sufficient to explain the differences between collectivist and individualist cultures.

A review of several studies showed that there were cultural differences on positive and

negative emotions expression. Majority of research on emotion regulation was in Western

countries with more focus on positive emotions and less on negative emotions.

Most researchers agreed that Western countries laid more focus on positive emotions (pride

& self-esteem) and less on negative emotions (anxiety & depression), (Trommsdorff &

Rothbaum, 2008). Members in individualist cultures used more positive emotions (Pride, self-

esteem) and less negative (Anxiety, depression) versus members of collectivist culture (Asian

countries) (Campos et aI., 1989). Other studies showed that collectivist cultures concealed both

positive and negative emotions as compared to individualist cultures. In a study, comparing


Iranian and Dutch, Novin et al., 2008 found that Iranians people concealed more positive and

negative emotion with close family than peer as compared Dutch people.

There is also evidence showing cultural differences in cognitive emotion regulation strategies

and coping styles. One study comparing English speaking from western countries to English

speaking from Asian countries showed that people in Western countries used more external

target coping strategies. External target refers to changes in the environment to cope with

stressful situation. On the other hand, people in Asian countries used more internal target

coping strategies. Internal target coping refers to changes within the self to cope with stressful

situation (Tweed, white, Lehman, 2004). Resent research showed that different countries used

different cognitive emotion regulation strategies. For instance, Zhu and colleagues (2008)

compared their results from China with those from an America by Martin & Dahlen, 2005. It was

found that China as a collectivist culture reported higher levels of self-blame and blaming others

while America as an individualist culture reported high levels of rumination, catastrophizing,

positive reappraisal, focus on planning, and putting in to perspective.

Triandis (1995) noted that individualism and collectivism shared differences in four

dimensions namely, goals, self, relationships and determinant of behaviors. Collectivist cultures

laid more emphasis on in- group and used more blaming others to increase social harmony

while in individualist cultures the personal goal was more important thus the members used

more putting into perspective , refocus on planning and positive reappraisal. These strategies

helped in self- motivation and goal achievement. In another research by Wong Kai Yan (2009)

compared cognitive emotion regulation strategies between North America and Hong Kong.

Participants from North America demonstrated high levels of positive reappraisal and

acceptance whereas participants from Hong Kong demonstrated high levels of self-blame, other

blame and catastrophizing.


Research on culture and cognition is aimed at finding how individuals obtain knowledge of

objects in their environment and which processes are involved (recognition, labeling analysis

categorization, thinking reasoning and planning). All aspects of cultures exert an influence on

members in society, and parents or caregivers transmit the roles and norms of culture in

children to help children manage and regulate their emotion and behaviors.

Definitions of emotion regulation prove that it is dependent on the nature and emotion

generation (Campos et aI., 1989). Trommsdorff and Rothbaum (2008) showed that cultural

differences in child-rearing had an effect on development of self, goals and emotion regulation.

They mentioned that there was a difference in rearing (nurturing) children in Western and Asian

cultures in terms of positive and negative emotions, self-esteem, promotion and prevention of

goals, independent and interdependent self and expression and suppression of emotions.

Result from their research showed that the development of emotion regulation in nonwestern

culture was related to empathy, interpersonal adjustment and norm assimilation whereas in

western culture, the development of emotion regulation was related to self-expression and

autonomy. In Western culture, emotion expression was assumed to be open while in Asian

culture it was assumed that expression of emotion was inhibited at least in formal public context

so as not to disturb others. Japanese children expressed more distress and anxiety with

intimate others (family) in a pronounced nonverbal manner, while members from Western

culture verbally expressed distress in public (Trommsdorff & Friedlmeier, 1993, 1999). Studies

also showed that when comparing preschool children from Germany and India, German children

were able to show and only express frustrations and problems in contrast with Indian children

who had less display of emotions (Trommsdorff, 2006; Trommsdorff et al., 2006).

In the United States, suppression of emotion is considered as a maladaptive form of regulation

(Gross, 1999, 2002; Gross & John, 2003; John & Gross, 2004) which is in direct contrast with

cultures with interdependent self suppression which are more tolerant and accept such


strategies to attain and maintain social harmony. Chinese children used inhibition as an

adaptive behavior supported by their culture (Chen et al., 1998). Suppression, particularly of

negative emotions was more common in nonwestern countries and resulted in more distress in

nonwestern countries (see more Trommsdorff et aI. 2007, for children). Suppression was more

associated with avoidant attachment and social withdrawal and less trust to others while for

Western Europeans suppression was for self-protection and associated with fear and anger

(Gross & John, 2003). Based on Western socialization, this could be explained by self-esteem

as the core of a child development and the child self-esteem was supported by a range of

positive parenting practices such that the child had a sense of autonomy and uniqueness

amongst other aspects of an independent self (Chao, 1994).

Asian parents when compared to Western parents were less likely to provide positive and

stable parenting practices for children’s behavior (Trommsdorff & Kornadt, 2003). They focused

more on development of self-critical attributions and self- improvement and tried to convey

sense of an interdependent self. For instance, European American mothers believed that self-

esteem was important for health development. Taiwanese mothers viewed it as unimportant or

indicated sense of frustration, obstinacy and unwillingness (Miller, Wang, sandel & Cho, 2002).

Emotion regulations also include processes of cognition. Members in collectivist cultures used

more suppression and this strategy was correlated with use of dysfunctional cognitive strategies

or coping which in turn correlated with internalizing behavior problem.


2.5.3. Goal of Cross Cultural Studies

Several researchers suggested that cross-cultural research could increase the knowledge on

differences in human behavior and emotional development, and hence generate ideas about

what caused normal and abnormal behavior (Weisz et al., 1997). Most studies on human

development conducted by cross cultural psychologists were focused on culturally mediated

psychological differences in emotion, motivation, social cognition, personality, somatic

functioning, moral evaluation and self-organization (Shweder & Sullivan, 1993). To understand

the essential psychological functioning of humans, the concept of a universal psychology needs

to be put forward. As example is human aggression (Lonner, 1980). The core perspective in

cross-cultural psychology is its focus on culture and individual behavior as one entity to explore

differences in different individuals (Miller, 1997).

Cross cultural studies help to improve or develop psychological theories by testing validity of

one or more theories in different cultures, for example determining the relationship between

collectivist cultures and moral development. It was found that collectivist cultures had a different

degree in collectivity and moral development (Triandis & Brislin, 1984). Cross cultural theories

also discussed culture as an antecedent to behavior or cause of behavior in members of a

culture (Lonner & Adampoulos, 1997). Researchers Since culture could not be controlled or

manipulated, it was used as an independent variable and it was found that several aspects of

culture reflected on an individual’s thoughts and behaviors. It was tested and confirmed that

psychological theories in perception, cognition, development, personality, social and clinical

psychology were universal (Triandis et al., 1980). Stevenson-Hinde (1998) produced a model

for cross cultural development research on parenting. Cross cultural human development

reviews the similarities and differences in development processes through expressed behavior

in individuals and groups (Gardiner, 1999). Berry (2000) proposed that the goals of cross-


cultural psychology were “to transport current hypotheses and conclusions about human

behavior to other cultural contexts in order to test their validity”, “to explore new cultural systems

to discover psychological phenomena not available in the first culture”, and “to integrate

psychological knowledge gained from these two activities, and to generate a more pan-human

psychology that would be valid for all people” (p. 198).

2.5.4. Summary

This chapter has presented brief description about different approaches of emotion, emotion

regulation, psychopathology and cultural dimensions. It has reviewed relevant studies with

regard to cultural differences between one Asian country, Iran, and one European country,

Germany, respectively. The reviews contain cross-cultural comparisons of emotional

expression, coping, parent discipline and psychopathology. Cultural systems contain values,

beliefs and norms and therefore members have a similar theory about how they express their

emotions and understand the behaviors of others. Previous studies introduced general patterns

of Iranian culture exhibiting more collectivism, obedience, hierarchy and harmony. The core

characteristics of German culture include individualism, low context communication and

objectivism. Different cultural values impact on how individuals express emotions in different

situations, how they evaluate them and recognize symptoms of behavior problems of

themselves and others. For example, in Iranian culture, modulation of one’s behavior to keep

respect to older and social harmony are valued.

As a result, the direct expression of negative emotions is inhibited and use of suppression is

common between individuals and indirect communication is commonly applied. According to

research by clinical psychologists, inhibition or suppression of emotions are the important

factors for individuals to use dysfunctional coping and develop symptoms of psychopathology.


Although previous research has shown that cultural values and norms impact on individual

behavior, studies of different cultures are known which could contribute to the understanding of

signs and reactions against behavioral problems among individuals according to their cultural

values . We need to consider more the fact that cultural scripts guide how people choose to

regulate their emotions.

In sum, we demonstrate how children from two different cultures, the German and the Iranian

one, express anger and sadness emotions and how they cope with negative situations. We also

evaluate the relation between psychopathology and types of emotion regulation strategies.

Since the family background of children from two countries is different, parents’ disciplines are

factors which influence symptoms of behavior problems in children, and therefore the parents

are also involved in this study. As parents are known as the most important source of

observation of their children, we also evaluated parenting views about the symptoms of

behavior problems of their children.

In order to compare the roles of dysfunctional emotion regulation and psychopathology in

German children and Iranian children, I used self-report questionnaire experiences filled in by

children from both countries as well as a parent self- report questionnaire about which discipline

they have. In addition to that, I reported their views about the symptoms for behavior problems

of their children with the help of another questionnaire.

I attempted to provide a framework to detect symptoms of behavior problems in children

influenced by different factors, such as cultural background, parents’ discipline, types of

regulation of emotions and coping strategies to assist treatment of children from different

cultures.


3. Hypotheses

The goal of the current cross-cultural study was to find the relation between emotion

dysregulation and cognitive coping strategies and negative parenting discipline with

psychological problems (including internalizing and externalizing symptoms) in children.

In this study, we investigated emotion regulation strategies, coping strategies and influence

of parenting discipline on psychopathology in German and Iranian school-children using self-

report questionnaires.

In order to control the influence of the social and cultural environment, we included two

additional groups of Iranian children living in Germany and German children living in Iran. The

same questionnaires CDI, CERQ, YSR, CBCL and Ps were used to evaluate outbreak of

internalizing and externalizing symptoms and type of emotion regulation strategies in these

participants compare to children living in their home country to clear that culture, environment

and relationship influence on regulation of emotions and symptoms of behavior problems in

children. According to several studies children from Asian country with collective culture showed

more internalizing and externalizing symptoms and showed more inhibition and suppression

than European children with individualistic culture (Campos et aI., 1989; Arrindell, et al., 2005;

Trommsdorff & Rothbaum, 2008; Matsumoto, 2007, Matsumoto, et al., 2008; Gross & John,

2003; Okasaki, 2002; McCare, 2002, McCare, et al., 2005). Due to previous studies it was

expected that Iranian children would show more internalizing and externalizing symptoms as

well as more inhibition or suppression than German children. Concerning the association

between emotion regulation and psychopathological symptoms, it was assumed the association

was greater in Iranian children than German children.


The Hypotheses of the Current Study are:

1. There are differences in regulation or management of expressive emotion (CEMS; Zeman, et

al., 2001) between German children and Iranian children.

2. There are differences in cognitive emotion regulation strategies (CERQ; Garnefski et al.,

2001; Garnefski, Kraaij, & Spinhoven, 2002) between German children and Iranian children.

3. There are differences in parenting discipline (PS; Arnold, O'Leary, Wolff, and Acker, 1993)

between German children and Iranian children.

4. There are differences in internalizing and externalizing symptoms (YSR, CBCL; T.M.

Achenbach, 1991) between German children and Iranian children and their parents.

5. There are correlation between parenting discipline (PS; Arnold, O'Leary, Wolff, and Acker,

1993) and CEMS (Zeman, et al., 2001), CERQ (Garnefski et al., 2001; Garnefski, Kraaij, &

Spinhoven, 2002) and psychopathology (YSR, CBCL; T.M. Achenbach, 1991) in both countries.

It is expected that negative parental discipline, dysfunctional cognitive strategies and type of

regulation of emotion on development of internalizing and externalizing symptoms in both

groups.

6. There is a correlation between parent and child measures of psychopathology (YSR, CBCL;

T.M. Achenbach, 1991) indicating parent-child agreement regarding symptoms. At the same

time children report more symptoms than their parents on average.

7. Dysfunctional strategies in emotion regulation (Zeman, et al., 2001), cognitive emotion

regulation (Garnefski et al., 2001; Garnefski, Kraaij, & Spinhoven, 2002) and parenting

discipline (PS; Arnold, O'Leary, Wolff, and Acker, 1993) predict psychopathology (YSR, CBCL;

T.M. Achenbach, 1991) in children and youth in a multivariate regression model.


These hypotheses were based on previous cross cultural studies (Matsumoto, 2007,

Matsumoto, et al., 2008; Gross & John, 2003; Okasaki, 2002; McCare, 2002, McCare, et al.,

2005) reporting that Asian children displayed more emotional suppression which results in more

internalizing symptoms than European children (Campos et aI., 1989; Arrindell, et al., 2005;

Trommsdorff & Rothbaum, 2008).

4. Methods

4.1. Participants and Procedures

The Iranian sample in Iran was collected between September and November 2010. The

German sample collected in Germany from December 2010 till May 2011. The German sample

in Iran was collected in September 2011 while the Iranian sample in Germany was collected

between February and June 2012. The age of all participants ranged from eleven to fourteen

years.

The Iranian sample in Iran consisted of N= 103 children of which n= 47 were girls and n= 56

were boys and the German sample in Germany contained N= 118 children comprising of n= 80

girls and n= 38 boys. Parents of children from both these groups participated in this study.

German student sample in Iran consisted of n= 24 children and Iranian student sample in

Germany were n= 23 children.

300 children and parents were originally selected to participate in the study in Iran and also 300

in Germany. We received 103 completed questionnaires from Iranian children and their parents,

and 118 from the German group. As for German children in Iran as well as Iranian children in


Germany, 40 children got questionnaires. From these groups we obtained 24 and 23 completed

responses.

The entire sample was derived from the normal population and the children were native

speakers. There are however non-negligible differences between the types of schools in Iran

and Germany. Iranian schools cater only single-sex education while German schools provide

mixed gender education. All participants were explained about the nature and goals of this study

and all willingly signed informed consents.

4.2. Measures

4.2.1. Children’s Emotion Management Scale (CEMS).

The Children’s Emotion Management Scale (CEMS; Zeman, et al., 2001) was employed in

this study to measure children’s perceptions of their anger, sadness, happiness, and pride

management styles. Cronbach’s alpha was used to measure the internal consistency. The

Cronbach's alpha for the overall CEMS in our sample was α = .764. The Cronbach's alpha for

the overall CEMS in sadness and anger in our samples showed good reliability. The Cronbach's

alpha in Iranian children in Iran was α = .713, for German children in Germany was α = .785, for

German children in Iran was α = .715 and for Iranian children in Germany was α = .672. The

normal acceptable level of Cronbach’s α is .6 (Nunnally, 1978).

The CEMS includes three subscales: (a) inhibition (b) dysregulated expression (c) emotion

regulation coping. The inhibition scale assesses over-controlled outward emotional expression

such that a child might be feeling (e.g., sad or angry) but doesn’t show it externally. The

dysregulated expression scale assesses under-controlled expression or inappropriate


expression of emotions (e.g., screaming). The emotion regulation coping scales assesses a

child’s ability for adaptive and controlled emotions and response to emotions in a healthy

manner.

Children’s Emotion Management Scale (CEMS) Anger (CEMA)

The CEMS anger is comprised of 13 items. Children responded to the questionnaire using a

3 point likert scale: 1 (hardly ever), 2 (sometimes), and 3 (often). The children were asked to

think of a time when they felt angry and then answer the questions. Items covered all three

subscales: (a) inhibition evaluated by four questions (e.g., “I hide my anger”), (b) dysregulated

expression evaluated by three questions (e.g., “I do things like slam doors when I'm mad”), and

(c) emotion regulation coping management evaluated by four questions (e.g., “When I am

feeling sad, I do something totally different until I calm down”). Examination of the psychometric

properties of the CEMS indicated alpha coefficients ranging from 0.62 to 0.77 and test-retest

reliability ranged from 0.61 to 0.80 for the individual scales (Zeman et al., 2001).

Children’s Emotion Management Scale (CEMS) Sadness (CEMS)

The sadness management scale is similar in structure and content as the anger

management scale. Likewise, it uses the same 3 point response scale and measures inhibition,

dysregulated expression, and emotion regulation coping. The children’s sadness management

scale consists of 14 questions. Four questions assess sadness inhibition (e.g. “I hold my sad

feeling in”), three questions measure sadness dysregulation (e.g. “I whine/fuss about what’s

making me sad”), and four questions assess sadness coping (e.g. “I try to calmly deal with what

is making me sad”).


4.2.2. Cognitive Emotion Regulation Questionnaire long –Version (CERQ)

The cognitive emotion regulation questionnaire long version was developed by Garnesfski

and colleagues (Garnefski et al., 2001; Garnefski, Kraaij, & Spinhoven, 2002). The CERQ is a

self-report questionnaire measuring nine cognitive coping strategies (five functional and four

dysfunctional emotion regulation strategies) in both normal and clinical population of children

and adolescents. Subjects are assessed after they have thought of a negative experience or

stressful event. This questionnaire is very useful to explore the relationship between cognitive

coping strategies/emotional dysfunction and different kinds of psychopathology. Literature

search revealed that dysfunctional coping strategies were positively correlated with behavioral

disorders such as anxiety and depression (e.g., Garnefski et al., 2001a; Garnefski et al., 2001b;

Garnefski et al., 2002 a). Cronbach’s alpha was used to measure the internal consistency (The

Cronbach's alpha for the overall CERQ in our samples showed good reliability.

The Cronbach's alpha for Iranian children in Iran was α =0.843, for German children in

Germany was α =0.891, for German children in Iran was α =0.829 and for Iranian children in

Germany was α =0.916. The normal acceptable level of Cronbach’s α was set at 0.6 (Nunnally,

1978).

The CERQ contains 36 items for assessing cognitive coping strategies. All CERQ subscales

consist of 4 items, subjects answer in from a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (never), 2

(sometimes), 3 (regularly), 4 (often), 5 (always), with higher scores indicating higher levels of

using a particular cognitive emotion regulation strategy. The nine subscales are self-blame (e.g.,

“I feel that I am the one who is responsible for what has happened”), other blame (e.g., “I feel

that others are responsible for what has happened”), rumination (e.g., “I often think about how I

feel about what I have experienced”), catastrophizing (“I keep thinking about how terrible it is

what I have experienced”), putting into perspective (e.g., “I tell myself there are worse things in


life”), positive refocusing (e.g., “I think about pleasant experiences”), positive reappraisal (e.g., “I

look for the positive sides to the matter”), acceptance (e.g., “I think that I have to accept the

situation”) and refocus on planning (e.g., “I think about a plan of what I can do best”). The

questionnaire demonstrated good internal consistencies, test-retest reliabilities, factorial and

construct validities (Garnefski, Kraaij, & Spinhoven, 2002). The CERQ is an established

instrument in clinical settings. CERQ in its Iranian version was validated by Hassani (2010). The

German version was used by Mohr, (2006) and validated in a sample of N = 136 non-clinical

participants (Ehring, in preparation). The factor structure could be replicated using a principal

component analysis (PCA) with varimax rotation. Apart from planning (α= .53), all subscales

showed adequate internal consistencies (.75 < α < .89). The construct validity of the measure

was supported by significant correlation with other emotion regulation measures. Internal

consistencies were adequate in the current study (.72 < α < .85).

4.2.3. Youth Self-Report (YSR)

Youth self-report questionnaire was developed by T.M. Achenbach for adolescent’s

between11 and 18 years old. The YSR is a self-report questionnaire divided into two parts 1)

Competencies and 2) Problems (T.M. Achenbach, 1991). The questionnaire contains items

concerning activities, social relationships and academic performance as well as items assessing

emotional and behavioral problems during the preceding 6 months, and 16 socially desirable

items. The response format for the problem item is 0 (not true), 1 (somewhat true) and 2 (very

true). The YSR consists of eight subscales: withdrawn, somatic complaints, anxious/depressed,

rule-breaking behavior or delinquent behavior, aggressive behavior, social problems, thought

problems and attention problems. The YSR also allows examination of two groups of

syndromes: internalizing problems and externalizing problems. Internalizing problems


comprises of social withdrawal, somatic complaints, and anxiety/depression scales, while

externalizing problems include delinquent behavior and aggressive behavior scales. The

German translation did by Döpfner et al., (1998) and translated into Farsi by Minaei (2003).

Cronbach’s alpha was used to measure the internal consistency. The Cronbach's alpha for the

overall YSR in our samples had excellent reliability α =.929. The Cronbach's alpha in Iranian

children in Iran sample was α =.950, for German children in Germany was α =.930, for German

children in Iran was α =.874 and for Iranian children in Germany was α =.948. The normal

acceptable level of Cronbach’s α was set at .6 (Nunnally, 1978).

4.2.4. Children Behavior CheckList (CBCL)

The Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL; Achenbach, 1991, parent report version for 4-18 year

old children) is widely validated instrument with adequate reliability and validity when describing

child behavior (Achenbach, 1991). The Cronbach's alpha for the overall CBCL in our samples

showed good reliability α =.971. The Cronbach's alpha in Iranian children in Iran sample was α

=.972, for German children in Germany was α =.928.

The Child Behavior Checklist/4-18 (CBCL/4-118) was the first of what later became a

multiaxial empirically based set of measures for assessing children through parents. This form

includes two sections; the first section contains 13 questions assessing children's competence

in four areas of educational, social, overall activities and competence; the second part is about

behavioral and emotional problems in the past 6 months and includes 113 items which are

scored as 0 (not true), 1 (somewhat true) and 2 (very true).The instrument measures the

following eight syndromes: social withdrawal, somatic complaints, anxiety/depression, social

problems, thought problems, attention problems, rule-breaking behavior or delinquent behavior,


and aggressive behavior. The CBCL is the only measure that contains the sex problems scale.

In addition to focusing on a child’s behavior as defined by one of the eight syndrome scales, the

CBCL also allows the examination of two broad groupings of syndromes: internalizing problems

and externalizing problems. Internalizing Problems combines of three syndromes, Social

Withdrawal, Somatic Complaints, and Anxiety/Depression scales. While Externalizing combines

the Delinquent Behavior and Aggressive Behavior scales. The questionnaire translated in

German by Döpfner et al., (1998) and translated into Farsi by Minaei (2003).

4.2.5. Children Depression Inventory (CDI)

Children depression inventory was developed by Kovacs (Kovacs, 1985, 1992). The

children’s depression inventory is comprised of 27 items and is a self-report questionnaire for

the assessment of depression in children and adolescents aged between 7 and17 years. Each

CDI item consists of three choices, scored from 0 to 2 in the direction of increasing severity.

The children choose the answer that best fit how they have been feeling over the past two

weeks. The CDI showed high internal consistency and stability, and was validated for both

normal and clinical samples. The questionnaire translated in German language by Stiensmeier-

Pelester et al. (2000) and translated in Farsi by institute Azmonyar Poya. Cronbach’s alpha was

used to measure the internal consistency. The Cronbach's alpha in Iranian children in Iran was

α =.806, for German children in Germany was α =.820, for German children in Iran was α =.694

and for Iranian children in Germany was α =.638. The Cronbach's alpha for the overall CDI in

our samples showed good reliability, Cronbach’s α ≥.6 (Nunnally, 1978).

4.2.6. Parenting Scale (PS)


Parenting Scale (Arnold, O'Leary, Wolff, and Acker, 1993) is a 30-item self-report

questionnaire originally developed to assess the disciplinary practices of parents of preschool

children, and was also used to assess disciplinary measures of parents of middle school

children.

The original scale contains 30 items on a seven-point Likert scale, ranging from a high

probability to use an effective discipline strategy to a high probability of making a discipline

mistake. The questionnaire measures three dysfunctional subscales (a) overreactivity, (b)

laxness, (c) verbosity, the overreactivity subscale contains 10 items, laxness subscale has 10

items and verbosity consists of 7 items.

The questionnaire has adequate test–retest reliability and was validated against behavioral

observations of parenting (Arnold et al., 1993). Cronbach’s alphas was 0.78 for mothers and

0.76 for fathers. The German version translated by Naumann, et al. (2010) and they add five

questions to the original questionnaire and the questionnaire had good reliability to use. Farsi

version of parenting scale translated by institute Azmonyar Poya. The questionnaire showed

good reliability to use in Iran too.

4.2.7. Psychometric Properties

Reliability indicates the quality of measurement repeatable and constancy in the research

result if it were to be repeated. Namely, if measurements under similar conditions (by similar

observation unit and measurement tool) at different places and times were performed, results of

the measurement should be similar. To determine the measurement reliability, Cronbach Alpha

method was used. This method to examine inner adjustment questionnaire questions was used


and more questions and component of measurement scale be more adjustment to each other,

that scale was more reliable.

Value of this coefficient was varying between zero to one, and values of upper than 0.7

indicate proper reliability of measurement tool. Reliability test by Cronbach Alfa method was

conducted on scales, if scale had little reliability; we increased value of reliability by elimination

and / or correction of its components. Examination of measurement scales reliability showed

that most of them had proper reliability (see Table 1).


Variables Number of

Items Cronbach’s

Alfa

Depression 27 0.81

P-Internalizing Iran 33 0.91

Germany 31 0.88

P-Externalizing Iran 35 0.93

Germany 33 0.85

C-Internalizing Iran 33 0.9

Germany 31 0.88

C-Externalizing Iran 35 0.86

Germany 30 0.86

CEMS

Sadness inhibition 4 0.7

Sadness dysegulation 3 0.72

Sadness coping 5 0.63

Anger inhibition 4 0.68

Anger dysegulation 3 0.67

Anger coping 4 0.76

CERQ

Rumination 4 0.7

Catastrophizing 4 0.67

Self-blame 4 0.64

Other-blame 4 0.65

Acceptance 4 0.63

Positive reappraisal 4 0.67

Putting into perspective 4 0.64

Positive refocusing 4 0.79

Planning 4 0.71

PS

Laxness Iran 11 0.7

Germany 9 0.75

over reactivity Iran 10 0.7

Germany 13 0.81

Verbosity Iran 7 0.69

Germany 5 0.62

Table 1 Psychometric properties of the scale


5. Results

In this project SPSS20 and LISREL software ver. 8.5 for data analysis were used. The

analysis used frequency, percentage, mean and standard deviation values to describe the

variables.

To relate inferential statistic and hypothesis spearmen correlation test, one way variance

analysis test, multivariable and regression test were employed. A confidence level of 95% was

considered, the alpha level to test the hypothesis was 0.05.

The study used a sample size of 269 subjects’ Iranian sample in Iran (II) 103, German sample in

Germany (GG) 118, and German resident in Iran (GI) 24, Iranian resident in Germany (IG) 23.

5.1. Descriptive Findings

In order to better understand the nature of the population and being more familiar with

research variables and choose the right statistical methods, it was necessary to describe the

statistical data before analyzing them. Also, statistical description of the data was one step

towards discriminating pattern governs for those and bases to make clear links between

variables being applied (Khorshidi & Ghoreishi, 1381: 254).


5.1.1 Description of Background Variables

5.1.1.1 Gender Variables Description

Results in table 2 showed the gender distribution among the German and Iranian test

subjects.

GENDER Germany Iran

% Frequency % Frequency

Female 5656 87 6555 67

Male 5656 64 6556 66

Total 411 441 411 415

Table 2 Frequency of gender variable

5.1.1.2. Description of Parent Educational Level Variable

The parent education level was reported in table 3. It should be mentioned that this variable has

been described only amongst the Iranian children parent population since most of German parents did

not answer this question. According to the result, 69% of fathers and 53.4% of mothers had a college

education. We received answers from 103 fathers and 101 mothers of which 2 did not answer.


Table 3 Description of parent educational level variable

5.1.1.3. Description of Parent Occupation

Table 4 shows the information regarding the type jobs parents held at the time of this

analysis. The German student parents did not elect to answer this question description of parent

occupation pertains to the parents of Iranian children. The results showed that among fathers,

57 (%55) had self-employee, 38 (%37) were employees and 7 persons (%7) were retired.

Mothers were categorized into two groups, housewife (home maker) and having a self-

employee. 71 (%70) mothers were self-employed and 30 mothers were qualified as housewife

(home maker) (%30). 2 of the mothers did not mention their occupation.

Education Level

Mother Father


High School Attended 7558 78 4756 41

High School Diploma 7157 74 4755 45

Some College 7657 76 7757 71

Bachelor Degree 7757 75 5154 54

Master Degree 7 7 657 5

PhD 5 5 651 6

Total 411 414 411 415

Unclear 7


Table 4 Description of parent occupation

5.1.1.4. Description of the Children Age

The mean and standard deviation of the age variable was shown in table 5. Those two

variables were separately presented for Iranian and German children. According to this the

mean age of the Iranian children was 12.31 years with a standard deviation of 0.80. The mean

age and standard deviation amongst the German student’s was 12.89 and 0.85 respectively.

Table 5 Age of Iranian and German children

5.1.2. Description of Main Variables of the Research

Job

Mother Father


Self Employed 70.3 81 55.3 68

Employed 57 36.9 ـــ ـــ

Retired 8 6.8 ـــ ـــ

Home maker 29.7 51 ـــ ـــ

Other 4 4 ـــ ـــ

Total 411 414 411 415

Unclear 7

Variable

Germany Iran

Mean SD Mean SD

Age 12.89 .85 12.31 .80


5.1.2.1. Description of Emotion Regulation Variables

The emotion regulation variable included six components which were examined for their mean

and standard deviation in table 6. The six components include sadness inhibition, sadness

dysregulation, sadness coping, anger dysregulation and anger coping.

Variables II GG IG GI

Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD

Sadness

Inhibition 1.79 .51 1.60 .40 1.88 .48 2.09 .63

Sadness

Dysregulation 4558 .48 7511 .48 4588 .55 4510 .50

Sadness

Coping 4515 .61 7518 .47 7544 .41 7547 .48

Anger

Inhibition 4581 .46 4575 .51 4584 .55 4568 .51

Anger

Dysregulation 4566 .42 4577 .45 4571 .63 7577 .54

Anger Coping 7514 .49 7545 .44 7515 .67 4581 .45

Iranian children in Iran(II), German children in Germany(GG), Iranian children in Germany(IG), German children in Iran (GI) Table 6 Groups differences in CEMS subscales

5.1.2.2. Description of Cognitive Emotion Regulation Strategies Variables

The cognitive emotion regulation strategies were described in table 7. According to this table,

the mean and standard deviation of the nine components of this variable were reported. The

components include rumination, catastrophizing, self-blame, other-blame, acceptance, positive

reappraisal, putting into perspective, positive refocusing and planning.


Iranian children in Iran(II), German children in Germany(GG), Iranian children in Germany(IG), German children in Iran (GI) Table 7 Groups differences in CERQ subscales

5.1.2.3. Description of Children Depression Inventory (CDI), Parenting

scale (PS), Youth Self Report (YSR) and Child Behavior Check List (CBCL)

Variables

The results in table 8 pertain to description of depression among all 4 subject groups, the

parenting scale which includes subcategories of parental laxness, parental overreactivity and

parental verbosity were measured among Iranian children in Iran and German Children in

Germany. Child Behavior Check List with its subscales Internalizing and Externalizing was

measured among Iranian parents in Iran and German parents in Germany. The Youth Self

Report with its subscales related to Internalization and Externalization was measured amongst

all 4 groups.



Depression .47 .26 .38 .22 .73 .19 .46 .18

PS- laxness 3.57 .71 2.50 .72 ــ ــ ــ ــ

PS- over reactivity 3.33 .92 3.19 .81 ــ ــ ــ ــ

PS- verbosity 4.31 .92 4.21 .87 ــ ــ ــ ــ

CBCL

Internalizing .32 .27 .15 .18 ــ ــ ــ ــ

Externalizing .25 .26 .11 .12 ــ ــ ــ ــ

YSR Internalizing .39 .28 .27 .21 .35 .34 .39 .24

Externalizing .42 .23 .30 .21 .47 .21 .51 .28




Depression .47 .26 .38 .22 .73 .19 .46 .18

PS- laxness 3.57 .71 2.50 .72 ــ ــ ــ ــ

PS- over reactivity 3.33 .92 3.19 .81 ــ ــ ــ ــ

PS- verbosity 4.31 .92 4.21 .87 ــ ــ ــ ــ

CBCL Internalizing .32 .27 .15 .18 ــ ــ ــ ــ

Externalizing .25 .26 .11 .12 ــ ــ ــ ــ

YSR Internalizing .39 .28 .27 .21 .35 .34 .39 .24

Externalizing .42 .23 .30 .21 .47 .21 .51 .28

Iranian children in Iran(II), German children in Germany(GG), Iranian children in Germany(IG), German children in Iran (GI), PS-laxness= Parent-laxness, PS-overreactivity=Parent-overreactivity, Ps-verbosity=Parent-verbosity. Table 8 Groups differences in CDI, PS, YSR, and CBCL subscales

5.2. Inferential Findings

To test the hypothesis of comparison groups on research variables one way analysis of

variance test or ANOVA was used. We compared between two and four groups per test and

noted the number of the comparing groups. Results were reported in tables 9 to 12.

5.2.1. Group Comparison on Emotion Regulation Variables (CEMS)

The test for country differences regarding emotion regulation variables (CEMS; Hypothesis 1)

Four groups were compared and results documented in table 9. Results showed that mean of

variables Sadness inhibition (F [3,254] = 4.172, p= .007, 2=.05) Sadness dysregulation (F


[3,254] =7.949, p= .005, 2=.08), Anger inhibition (F [3,250] = 4.350, p= .005, 2=.05), anger

dysregulation (F [3,250] =33.234, p< .005, 2=.28) variables and Anger coping variable (F

[3,250] =3.458, p= .017, 2=.04) were different among the comparing group. The analysis

showed that mean of all studied variables except “sadness coping” were significantly different

among the comparing groups. At least there was a mean difference between two groups in each

of the variables.

Note. **p<.01, *p<.05

Table 9 Summary of analysis of variance to compare groups on the variables CEMS

Results of those variables with significant differences between groups were reported in table 10.

We used POST HOC to compare pair groups of variables, and because the numbers of groups

were not equal we applied the Scheffe’s test. Figure 7 presented the mean of variables of all

comparing groups.

In four of the five variables with significant differences we demonstrated differences between

the groups of Iranian children and German children in Iran, while the fifth, anger coping showed

it between German children and German children in Iran. The variables sadness dysregulation,

Variable Source Df Sum of square

Mean square

F P value

Sadness inhibition

Between Groups 5 5547 4516 6548 .007

Within Group 761 5555 .25

Sadness dysregulation

Between Groups 5 6577 4557 8516 .000


Sadness coping

Between Groups 5 4575 .42 4517 .116


Anger inhibition

Between Groups 5 7577 .961 6556 .005


Anger dysregulation

Between Groups 5 7657 8.27 5557 .000


Anger coping Between Groups 5 8551 1.01

5566 .017 Within Group 761 8551 .292


anger inhibition and anger dysregulation additionally exhibited significant variances between the

groups of Iranian children and German children. For the variable anger dysregulation we found

statistical proven differences between Iranian children and all three other groups as well as

between Iranian children in Germany and German children in Iran.

Variables Groups compared Mean

difference P value

Sadness inhibition

Iranian children vs. German children resident Iran -.38 .010

Sadness dysegulation

Iranian children vs. German children -.27 .000


Anger inhibition

Iranian children vs. German children .198 .044

Iranian children vs. German children resident Iran .32 .003

Anger dysegulation

Iranian children vs. German children -.62 .000


Iranian children vs. Iranian children resident Germany

-.43 .004

German children resident Iran vs. Iranian children resident Germany

.41 .049

Anger coping

German children vs. German children resident Iran .38 .023

Note. **p<.01, *p<.05

Table 10 Scheffe's test for paired comparison groups


Figure 7 Comparison of four groups mean on components of (CEMS)

5.2.2. Group Comparison on Cognitive Emotion Regulation Variables

(CERQ)

The test for country differences regarding cognitive emotion regulation variables (CERQ;

Hypothesis 2) four groups were compared and results documented in table 11, cognitive

emotion regulation variables among four research groups (Iranian children, German children,

German children resident in Iran, and Iranian children resident in Germany were examined and

compared. Figure 7 showed the mean of variables of the comparing groups.

Our analysis revealed significant mean differences among comparing groups rumination

(F[3,250]=6.207, p< .05, 2=.07), catastrophizing (F[3,252]=3.808, p= .011, 2=.04), other-

blame (F[3,252]=10.77, p< .005, 2=.11), positive reappraisal (F[3,252]=5.274, p= .002,

2,01

1,7 1,55

1,38

1,79

2,16

1,83 1,82 2

1,6 1,7 1,47

2,22

1,9 2,09 2,06

1,71 1,81

1,38

1,88

Anger coping Anger inhibition Anger dysregulation Sadnessdysregulation

Sadness inhibition

CEMS Iranian German Iranian in Germany Germans in Iran


2=.06) variables and planning variable (F[3,252]=3.603, p= .014, 2= .04). At least two groups

of those variables exhibited different means.

Means of comparing groups of the variables self-blame, acceptance and putting into perspective

displayed no significant differences.

Variable Source Df Sum

squares Mean

squares F P value

Rumination Between Group 3 4654 6584

5571 .000 Within Group 250 47151 .76

Catastrophizing Between Group 3 8571 7565

5571 .011 Within Group 252 45157 .638

Self-blame Between Group 3 0.97 .326

.68 .563 Within Group 252 47154 .477

Other-blame Between Group 3 4656 6576

4154 .000 Within Group 252 47157 .477

Acceptance Between Group 3 5565 4546

4551 .188 Within Group 252 48156 .712

Positive reappraisal

Between Group 3 4754 6515 6578 .002


Putting into perspective

Between Group 3 7541 .703 .96 .412


Positive refocusing

Between Group 3 7756 8561 8556 .000

Within Group 252 76851 4517

Planning Between Group 3 7518 7511

5551 .014 Within Group 252 71154 .83

Note. **p<.01, *p<.05

Table 11 Summary of analysis of variance to compare groups of the variables CERQ

According to the Scheffe’s test as reported in table 12 there were statistically significant

differences between the groups of Iranian children and German children for all variables except

the other blame variable. Nevertheless, other blame showed significant differences between

German children in Iran and the three groups of Iranian children, Iranian children in Germany

and also German children.


Note. **p<.01, *p<.05

Table 12 Scheffe's test for paired comparison groups

Variable Groups compared Mean

difference p.value

Rumination Iranian children vs. German children

.51 .001

Catastrophizing Iranian children vs. German children

.36 .014

Other-blame German children resident Iran vs. Iranian children

.62 .002

German children resident Iran vs. German children

.84 .000

German children resident Iran vs. Iranian children resident in Germany

.69 .009


Iranian children vs. German children

.85 .003

Positive refocusing

Iranian children vs. German children

.70 .000

Planning Iranian children vs. German children

.38 .033


Figure 8 Groups mean comparison of cognitive emotion regulation variables (CERQ)

5.2.3. Groups Comparison of Component of Parent Scale (PS)

The test for country differences regarding parenting discipline (PS; Hypothesis 3) in table 13,

PS- verbosity, PS- over-reactivity, and PS-laxness variables were examined and compared

between the two research groups of Iranian and German children. To evaluate the significance

of differences, ANOVA test or One Way variance analysis was used. Means of the compared

groups were presented in Figure 9. Results showed that the mean of the PS- laxness variable

(F [1,190] =108.183, p< .001, 2=.36) was statistically different between the two groups, while

the other two variables had p > .05 and were therefore not significantly different.

2,92

2,39

2,12

3,2 3,15

3,47

2,41

2,28

1,89

2,54

2,68

3,09

2,44

2,24

2,74 2,63

3,1

3,45

2,66

2,23 2,04

2,91 2,89 3,08

0

0,5

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

3,5

4

Rumination Catastrophising Other-blame positive refocus Positivereappraisal

Planning

CERQ Iranian German Iranian in Germany Germans in Iran


Variable Source df Sum of square

Mean square

F p Value

PS- laxness Between Group 1 665644 665644 108.183 .000

Within Group 190 .97.317 .512

PS- over reactivity

Between Group 1 .873 .873 1.182 .278

Within Group 191 4615557 .739

PS- verbosity Between Group 1 .465 .465 .578 .448

Within Group 190 4675185 .805

Note. **p<.01, *p<.05, PS-laxness = Parent-laxness, PS-overreactivity=Parent-overreactivity, Ps-verbosity=Parent-verbosity.

Table 13 Summary of analysis of variance to compare the two groups on the variables Parent discipline

Figure 9 Comparison of German children & Iranian children in PS-laxness

5.2.4. Group Comparison on Components of Depression, CBCL and YSR

Variables

The test for country differences regarding in internalizing, depression and externalizing

symptoms (YSR, CDI, CBCL; Hypothesis 4) in table 14, depression and YSR variables were

examined and compared among the research groups. The comparison of groups on CBCL

(internalizing, externalizing) variables included only two groups of Iranian and German children.

3,57

2,5

0

0,5

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

3,5

4

Iranian German

Laxness


All other variables were comparing the same four groups of Iranian children, German children,

German children resident in Iran and Iranian children in Germany.

To test for significance the ANOVA test or One Way variance analysis was used. In Figure 10,

the mean of variables of the compared groups were presented.

Our analysis confirmed that, there were significant mean differences among groups of the

depression variable(F [3,259] = 15.353, p< .001, 2=.15) as well as internalizing (CBCL)

variable (F [1,198] = 23.313, p< .001, 2=.12), externalizing (CBCL) variable (F[1,197]=23.313,

p< 0.001, 2=.11), Internalizing (YSR) variable (F [3,263] = 5.209, p= .002, 2=.06) and finally

on externalizing (YSR) variable (F [3,258] = 9.948, p< .001, 2=.1).

Variable Source Df Sum of square

Mean square

F p Value

Depression Between Group 3 7567 0.82 4655 .000

Within Group 259 4551 0.05

P-Internalizing Between Group 1 4561 4561 7851 .000


P-Externalizing Between Group 1 0.97 0.97 7555 .000


C-Internalizing Between Group 3 0.99 0.33 6571 .002


C-Externalizing Between Group 3 4564 0.50 1516 .000


Note. **p<.01, *p<.05 P-Internalizing= Parent- Internalizing (CBCL), P-Externalizing= Parent- Externalizing (CBCL), C-Internalizing= children- Internalizing (YSR), C-Externalizing= children- Externalizing (YSR). Table 14 Summary of analysis of variance to compare groups on the variables CDI, YSR, CBCL


Figure 10 Mean differences between groups

Results of the Scheffe test were displayed in table 15. Examination of groups mean on

depression variable showed significant differences in the means among the following groups:

The depression variable for Iranian children in Germany showed an increased mean compared

to all other groups. Also the results of Iranian children were higher than German children.

For the on internalizing (CBCL) variable German parents conveyed decreased values

compared to the other three groups.

0,47

0,39 0,42

0,32

0,25

0,38

0,27 0,3

0,15 0,11

0,46

0,39

0,51

0,73

0,35

0,47

0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

0,8

Depression C-Internalizing C-Externalizing P-Internalizing P-Externalizing

CDI, YSR, CBCL Iran Germany Germans in Iran Iranian in German


Variables Groups compared Mean

differences p Value

Depression Iranian children vs. German children .09 .024

Iranian children vs. Iranian children resident in Germany

-.26 .000

German children vs. Iranian children resident in Germany

-.35 .000

German children resident in Iran vs. Iranian children resident in Germany

-.27 .002

C-Internalizing Iranian children vs. German children .13 .004

C-Externalizing

Iranian children vs. German children .12 .002

German children vs. German children resident in Iran

-.21 .001

German children vs. Iranian children resident in Germany

-.17 .013

Note. **p<.01, *p<.05 C-Internalizing= children- Internalizing (YSR), C-Externalizing= children- Externalizing (YSR) Table 15 Scheffe's test for paired comparison groups

5.2.5. Examination of Research Variables Correlation from CEMS, CERQ,

PS, YSR, CBCL, CDI

There are correlation between parenting discipline (PS; Arnold, O'Leary, Wolff, and Acker,

1993) and CEMS (Zeman, et al., 2001), CERQ (Garnefski et al., 2001; Garnefski, Kraaij, &

Spinhoven, 2002) and psychopathology (YSR, CBCL; T.M. Achenbach, 1991) in both countries.

It is expected that negative parental discipline, dysfunctional cognitive strategies and type of

regulation of emotion have an influence on development of internalizing and externalizing

symptoms in both groups (Hypothesis 5).

There is a correlation between parent and child measures of psychopathology (YSR, CBCL;

T.M. Achenbach, 1991) indicating parent-child agreement regarding symptoms. At the same

time children report more symptoms than their parents on average (Hypothesis 6).

In tables 16 to 20 correlation among research variables were examined.


To examine the correlation and the relationship among these research variables, Spearman

correlation coefficient or Spearman rank was used.

Results of the correlation among components of cognitive emotion regulation and emotion

regulation strategies were reported in table 16.

Among Iranian children:

Among Iranian children there were correlations between the catastrophizing variable and the

sadness inhibition variable (.224), positive reappraisal variable and the sadness coping (0.390),

anger inhibition (.215), anger dysregulation (-.292) and anger coping (.407), the putting into

perspective variable and anger dysregulation variable (-.262), the positive refocusing and

sadness coping (.220), anger dysregulation (-.285) and anger coping (.264), between planning

variable and sadness coping (.269), and lastly anger dysregulation (-.258) and anger coping

(.372).

Among German children:

Correlations were observed between rumination variable and sadness dysregulation (.262),

catastrophizing and sadness dysregulation (.225), the acceptance variable with the sadness

inhibition (.286) and sadness coping (.414).


Note. **p<.01, *p<.05. AC - Anger Coping, SC – Sadness Coping, AD – Anger Dysregulation, SD – Sadness Dysregulation, AI – Anger Inhibition, SI – Sadness Inhibition Table 16 Correlation between CEMS and CERQ

In table 17 correlations amongst the components of cognitive emotion regulation strategies with

basic variables of research were examined. To examine correlations between variables,

Spearman correlation coefficient was used.

Variables AC AD AI SC SD SI

Rumination Iran .063 -.067 .110 .042 .128 .180

Germany -.003 .177 -.096 -.022 .262** -.029

Catastrophizating Iran -.132 .006 -.059 .011 .185 .224*

Germany -.003 .144 -.035 -.055 .225* .007

Self-blame Iran .140 -.099 .130 .019 .066 .067

Germany -.016 .057 -.053 .046 .051 .141

Other-blame Iran .082 .021 .037 -.041 .063 .034

Germany -.096 .134 -.070 -.044 .132 .124

Acceptance Iran .187 .028 .126 .190 .157 .165

Germany .331 .002 .089 .414** -.079 .286**

Positive reappraisal Iran .407** -.292** .215* .390** -.082 .114

Germany -.004 .003 -.027 .103 .003 -.050

Putting into perspective Iran .166 -.262* .071 .148 .094 .052

Germany .177 -.082 .004 .178 .035 .022

Positive refocusing Iran .264** -.285** .157 .220* -.132 .019

Germany .130 .039 -.050 .080 .096 .028

Planning Iran .372** -.258* .154 .269** -.121 .092

Germany .021 .079 -.084 .155 .106 .047


Among Iranian children: According to the results, rumination and internalizing (YSR) (0.209),

catastrophizing and depression (0.219), other-blame and depression (0.254) as well as positive

reappraisal and depression (-0.347) showed statistically significant correlations.


Among German children rumination and PS verbosity were significantly, yet negatively

correlated (-.297). Additionally there were correlations between catastrophizing and depression

(-0.296), internalizing (YSR) (.299) and PS verbosity (-.322), self-blame and depression (.329),

internalizing (YSR) (.226) and externalizing (YSR) (.204), other-blame and depression (0.272),

acceptance and PS laxness (.224), positive reappraisal and externalizing (YSR) (.236) and PS

laxness (-.299) variable, positive refocusing and PS verbosity (-.205), as well as planning and

PS verbosity (-.246) proved to be statistically significant.


Variables PS-V PS-O PS-L C-Ext

C- Int

P-Ext

P- Int

Dep

Rumination Iran .117 .178 1765- .471 .209* 1775- .151 .451

Germany .297** -.062 -.108 .183 .089 .028 .128 .183

Catastrophizating Iran .012 .105 .027 .153 .189 .069 .061 .219*

Germany .322** .098 -.151 .183 .299** .079 .069 .296 **

Self-blame Iran -.120 .014 .008 .122 .164 .042 .050 .092

Germany -.088 .056 -.055 .204* .226* .072 .199 .329**

Other-blame Iran .127 .088 -.058 .029 .071 .014 .020 .254*

Germany -.090 .001 -.067 .198* .179 .025 .106 .272**

Acceptance Iran -.121 .086 .075 .048 .062 .105 .002 .254

Germany -.070 .136 .224* .051 .009 .125 .122 .026


Iran -.007 .058 .059 .188 .012 .140 .056 .347**

Germany -.156 -.064 .299** .027 .001 .236* .017 .017

Putting into perspective

Iran -.143 .068 .076 .106 .161 .015 .072 .097

Germany -.187 .201 .120 .075 .036 .081 .022 .046

Positive refocusing

Iran -.013 .167 .129 .099 .085 .068 .111 .288

Germany -.205* .095 .058 .113 .020 .043 .163 .097

Planning Iran -.027 .158 .217* .166 -.006 -.027 -.093 -.278

Germany -.246* -.138 -.149 .043 -.017 .099 1145/- .073

Note. **p<.01, *p<.05. PS-V= PS-Verbosity, P-Int= Parent- Internalizing (CBCL), P-Ext= Parent- Externalizing (CBCL), C-Int= children- Internalizing (YSR), C-Ext= children- Externalizing (YSR), PS-l= Parent-laxness, PS-o=Parent-overreactivity, Ps-v=Parent-verbosity. Table 17 Correlation between CERQ with PS, CDI, YSR, CBCL

In table 18, correlations between the emotional regulation variables with other research

variables were examined. To examine the relationship between these variables, Spearman

correlation coefficient was used. Results of the correlation were separately described in the

Iranian and German student sections.


Among Iranian children:

There was a statistically significant correlation between depression variable and sadness

dysregulation (0.346), sadness coping (-.333), anger dysregulation (.271) variables and anger

coping (-.228) variable.

There was also a correlation between internalizing (CBCL) and sadness dysregulation (.293)

variable, between externalizing (CBCL) variable and sadness dysregulation (.310) as well as the

anger dysregulation (.332) variables.

This study also showed correlations between internalizing (YSR) variable and sadness

dysregulation (.373), sadness coping (-.241), anger dysregulation (.243) variables.

Finally correlations between externalizing (YSR) variable and sadness dysregulation (.344) and

anger dysregulation (.407) variables were found to be significant.


There was correlation between depression variable and sadness inhibition (.225) variables,

sadness dysregulation (.240) variable, between Internalizing (CBCL) variable and sadness

inhibition (.289) variable, with externalizing (YSR) variable and sadness dysregulation (.213),

anger inhibition (-.211), anger dysregulation (.223) and anger coping (-.254) variables. There

was a correlation between PS laxness and anger coping (-.202) variable.


Note. **p<.01, *p<.05. AC - Anger Coping, SC – Sadness Coping, AD – Anger Dysregulation, SD – Sadness Dysregulation, AI – Anger Inhibition, SI – Sadness Inhibition, P-Internalizing= Parent- Internalizing (CBCL), P-Externalizing= Parent- Externalizing (CBCL), C-Internalizing= children- Internalizing (YSR), C-Externalizing= children- Externalizing (YSR), PS-laxness= Parent-laxness, PS-overreactivity=Parent-overreactivity, Ps-verbosity=Parent-verbosity. Table 18 Correlation between CEMS with CDI, PS, CBCL, YSR

In table 19, the correlation matrix among research variables and at statistic sample of Iranian

children were listed. The result showed that, there was significant correlation between following

variables:

Variables AC AD AI SC SD SI

Depression Iran -.228** .271** 1575- **5555- **565 . .448

Germany 4655- .741 .167 4855- .240*. .225

P-Internalizing Iran -.004 .116 .129 -.194 .293** .058

Germany 1445- .471 .481 .176 .167 .289**

P-Externalizing Iran 4175- .332** 184 1775- .310** .477

Germany 4785- .444 .157 .146 1675- .455

C-Internalizing Iran 114. .243* 117. *7645- **585 . .467

Germany 4745- .178 .161 4465- .487 .488

C-Externalizing Iran 7115- .407** 4665- 4115- .344** .185

Germany **7665- .223* *7445- 1645- .213* .447

PS laxness Iran .454 1545- .175 .181 4185- 1555-

Germany *7175- 4415- 4575- 4645- 4475- 4755-

PS over reactivity Iran .165 .478 .165 1155- .456 1515-

Germany 4165- .447 .447 .174 1475- .461

PS verbosity

Iran .187 .115 .476 .447 1455- .185

Germany 4815- .171 .118 .157 4575- .467


The results showed there were significant correlations between the depression variable and

internalizing (CBCL) (.419), externalizing (CBCL) (.399), internalizing (YSR) (.527), externalizing

(YSR) (.389) and PS overreactivity (.264) variables.

Statistically significant interactions noted between internalizing (CBCL) variable with

externalizing (CBCL) (0.656) variables, internalizing (YSR) (.726), externalizing (YSR) (.386)

variables.

Externalizing (CBCL) variable was shown to significantly related to internalizing (YSR) (.622)

variable, externalizing (YSR) (.540) variable and PS overreactivity (.207) variable.

There were significant correlations between internalizing (YSR) variable with externalizing

(YSR) (0.681) and PS overreactivity (.204) variables.

There was significant correlation between PS overreactivity with PS verbosity (.233) variable.

Finally, there was significant correlation between externalizing (YSR) variable with PS

overreactivity (.240) variable.


Note. **p<.01, *p<.05. P-Internalizing= Parent- Internalizing (CBCL), P-Externalizing= Parent- Externalizing (CBCL), C-Internalizing= children- Internalizing (YSR), C-Externalizing= children- Externalizing (YSR), PS-laxness= Parent-laxness, PS-overreactivity=Parent-overreactivity, Ps-verbosity=Parent-verbosity. Table 19 Correlation matrix of research variables in Iran

In table 20, the correlation matrix among research variables and of a statistic sample of German

children were shown. Results displayed that significant statistical correlations exist between the

following variables: There were significant correlations noted between depression variable with

internalizing (CBCL) (.387), externalizing (CBCL) (.399), internalizing (YSR) (.494), externalizing

(YSR) (.499) and PS overreactivity (.244) variables.

Also significant correlations were seen between internalizing (CBCL) variable with externalizing

(CBCL) (0.558), internalizing (YSR) (.650), externalizing (YSR) (.294) and PS overreactivity

(.236) variables.

There were statically significant correlations between externalizing (CBCL) variable with

internalizing (YSR) (-.287), externalizing (YSR) (.384) and PS- overreactivity (.239) variables.

Also there were significant correlations between PS- laxness variable and PS- overreactivity

(.278) and PS- verbosity (.265) variables.

Variable 4 7 5 6 6 5 8 7

1. Depression ــ

2. P-internalizing .419** ــ

3. P-externalizing .399** .656** ــ

4. C.Internalizing .527** .726** .622** ــ

5. C.Externalizing .389** .386** .540** .681** ــ

6. Ps-laxness -.111 -.097 -.044 -.048 -.035 ــ

7. Ps-overreactivity .264** .172 .207** .204* .240* .169 ــ

8. Ps-verbosity -.164 -.102 -.062 -.121 -.107 .200 .233* ــ


Note. **p<.01, *p<.05 P-Internalizing= Parent- Internalizing (CBCL), P-Externalizing= Parent-Externalizing (CBCL), C-Internalizing= children-Internalizing (YSR), C-Externalizing= children-Externalizing (YSR), PS-laxness= Parent-laxness, PS-overreactivity=Parent-overreactivity, Ps-verbosity=Parent-verbosity.

Table 20 Correlation matrix of research variables in Germany

5.3. Multivariate Regression Test

Dysfunctional Strategies in Emotion Regulation (Zeman, et al., 2001), cognitive emotion

regulation (Garnefski et al., 2001; Garnefski, Kraaij, & Spinhoven, 2002) and Parenting

Discipline (PS; Arnold, O'Leary, Wolff, and Acker, 1993) predict Psychopathology (YSR, CBCL;

T.M. Achenbach, 1991) in Children and Youth in a multivariate regression model (Hypothesis 7).

5.3.1. Examination of Predictor Variable Effect on Internalizing (YSR)

among Iranian Children.

With the multivariate regression analysis, dependent variable variance through relative

participation and linear combination of two or multi dependent variable was estimated and

Variable 4 7 5 6 6 5 8 7

1. Depression ــ

2. P-internalizing .387** ــ

3. P-externalizing .399** .558** -

4. C.Internalizing .494** .650** .287** ــ

5. C.Externalizing .494** .294** .384** .424** ــ

6. Ps-laxness -.104 -.036 -.179 .123 .050 ــ

7. Ps-overreactivity .244* .236* .239* .213* .180 .278** ــ

8. Ps-verbosity .196 .197 .107 .127 .018 .265** .166 ــ


explained. Therefore, with the multivariate regression analysis, there was no dependent variable

and set of independent variable.

In this section, using the multivariate regression test, we examined simultaneous effects of

rumination, overreactivity, sadness dysregulation, sadness coping and anger dysregulation

variables on internalizing (YSR) variable. It should be mentioned that on regression test only set

of variables as a predictor variable enter into test that displayed a significant correlation with

dependent variable internalizing (YSR).The results were documented in table 21. In this table,

value of non-standardized regression coefficient (β), standardized regression coefficient (Beta),

standard error (SE), significance level (P-value) and determination coefficient value (R2) were

reported. Method of regression test conduct was simultaneous method (Enter). The "Enter"

method enters all variables at the same time.

Dependent variable

Independent variable

B SE Beta Sign R2

C-Internalizing

Constant .136 .222

.54 .16

Rumination .037 .032 .117 .253

Overreactivity .05 .031 .164 .109

Sadness Dysreg. .043 .075 .063 .571

Sadness Coping -.116 .060 -.202 .057

Anger Dysreg. .106 .065 .181 .105

n = 90 C-Internalizing= children- Internalizing (YSR), Sadness Dysreg= Sadness Dysregulation, Anger Dysreg= Anger Dysregulation Table 21 Multiple regression analysis to predict internalizing (YSR) in Iranian children


Analysis of variables simultaneously (enter method) effect showed that none of independent or

predictors variables that entered into regression test, exposed a meaningful effect on

internalizing (YSR) variable. The results of the correlation indicated an existence of a

meaningful relation between independent variables and internalizing (YSR). But, results of the

regression test revealed that, when assess effect of all above variables, there was no significant

effect on the dependent variable internalizing (YSR) (p> .05).

5.3.2. Examination of Predictor Variables Effect on Internalizing (YSR)

Variable among German Children

In this section, using multivariate regression test, we examined simultaneous effect of

variables among German children. For this regression test only a set of variables as predictor

variables enter into test that had a significant relation with the dependent variable internalizing

(YSR). The results were documented in table 22. In this table, values of non-standardized

regression coefficient (β), standardized regression coefficient (Beta), standard error (SE),

significance level (P-value) and the determination coefficient value (R2) were stated. Method of

regression test conduct was simultaneous method (Enter). The "Enter" method enters all

variables at the same time.

Dependent variable


B SE Beta Sign R2

C-Internalizing

Constant -.121 .103 .243 .19

Rumination .064 .033 .206 .055


Sadness Dysreg. .022 .025 .084 .38

n = 95 C-Internalizing= children- Internalizing (YSR), Sadness Dysreg= Sadness Dysregulation, Anger Dysreg= Anger Dysregulation Table 22 Multiple regression analysis to predict internalizing (YSR) in German children


Examination of variable simultaneously effects with the multivariate regression test showed that

among predictor variables that entered into regression model (rumination, overreactivity,

sadness dysregulation), only the overreactivity variable revealed a significant effect (p=.009) on

internalizing (YSR), while other predictor variable indicated no significant effect (p>.05). Results

showed that, the effect value (regression standardized coefficient or Beta) of the overreactivity

variable on the internalizing (YSR) variable among German children was equal to .28. Out of

those facts we concluded that the overreactivity variable had an effect on the internalizing (YSR)

variable and its direction was positive.

5.3.3. Examination of Predictor Variables Effect on Externalizing (YSR)

Variable among Iranian Children

Continued, using multivariate regression test, we analyzed the simultaneous effect of

sadness dysregulation, anger dysregulation, overreactivity variables on externalizing (YSR)

variable among Iranian children. It should be mentioned that for the regression test only that set

of variables as a predictor variable was entered into the test which had significant relations with

the dependent variable externalizing (YSR). Results of the multivariate regression test were

displayed in table 23. Values of non-standardized regression coefficient (β), standardized

regression coefficient (Beta), standard error (SE), significance level (R2) were reported. Method

of regression test conducted was simultaneous method (Enter). The "Enter" method enters all

variables at the same time.


n = 88 C-Externalizing= children- Externalizing (YSR), Sadness Dysreg= Sadness Dysregulation, Anger Dysreg= Anger Dysregulation Table 23 Multiple regression analysis to predict externalizing (YSR) for Iranian children

Analysis of variables simultaneously (enter method) effect indicates that among predictor

variables entered into regression model (anger dysregulation, overreactivity, sadness

dysregulation), only sadness dysregulation variables (p=.042), anger dysregulation (p=.005)

displayed a significant effect on the externalizing (YSR) variable, while overreactivity predictor

variable in presence of other predictor variables, had no significant effect (p>.05). Results

showed that the effect value of (regression standardized coefficient or Beta) anger dysregulation

variable on externalizing (YSR) variable among Iranian children equal to (.302) and direction of

this effect was positive. Also value of standardized regression coefficient for sadness

dysregulation variable equals to (.215) and its direction was positive. As a result it can be said

that among predictor variables entered into the regression model (anger dysregulation,

overreactivity, sadness dysregulation) sadness dysregulation, anger dysregulation variables had

a direct effect on externalizing (YSR) variable. Additional the value of the determination

coefficient (R2) equals to (.12), thus it can be concluded that the predictor variables of this model

could explain and predict 12 percent of externalizing (YSR) variable change.

Dependent variable


B SE Beta Sign R2

C-Externalizing

Constant -.071 .117

.546

.22 Sadness Dysreg .121 .059 .215 .042

Anger Dysreg .015 .052 .302 .005



5.3.4. Examination of Predictor Variables Effect on Externalizing (YSR)

Variable among German Children

Again using multivariate regression test the simultaneous effect of self-blame, other-blame,

sadness dysregulation, anger, inhibition, anger dysregulation and anger coping variables on

externalizing (YSR) variable among German children was examined.

As previous it should be known that on regression test the only set of variable used as a

predictor variable entering into test had a significant relation with dependent variable

externalizing (YSR). All mentioned predictor variables had significant relation with dependent or

criterion variable externalizing (YSR). Results of the multivariate regression test were listed in

table 24. In this table, values of non-standardized regression coefficient (β), standardized

regression coefficient (Beta), standard error (SE), significance level (P-value) and determination

coefficient value(R2 )has been reported. Method of regression test conducted was simultaneous

methods (Enter). The "Enter" method enters all variables at the same time

Dependent variable


B SE Beta Sign R2

C-Externalizing

Constant .133 .169

.434

475/

Self-blame .030 .027 .108 .273

Other blame .027 .033 .084 .403

Sadness Dysreg .023 .047 .049 .654

Anger Inhibition -.033 .055 -.063 .542

Anger Dysreg. .081 .045 .182 .077

Anger Coping -.050 .047 -.109 .294

n = 114 C-Externalizing= children- Externalizing (YSR), Sadness Dysreg= Sadness Dysregulation, Anger Dysreg= Anger Dysregulation Table 24 Multiple regression analysis to predict externalizing (YSR) in German children


Examination of the variables simultaneously (enter method) effect indicated that among

predictor variables entered into regression model (self-blame, other-blame, sadness

dysregulation, anger inhibition, anger dysregulation, anger coping) none of them had a

significant effect on externalizing (YSR) dependent variable.

5.3.5. Examination of Predictor Variables Effect on Depression Variable

among Iranian Children

Using multivariate regression simultaneous (enter method) effect of PS-laxness, PS-

overeactivity and PS-verbosity on depression variable among Iranian children was investigated.

As previous it should be mentioned that on regression test only the set of variables were used

as predictor variable entering in to test which had a significant correlation with the dependent

variable or criterion variable depression. Results of the regression test were shown in table 25.

In this table, values of non-standardized regression coefficient (β), standardized coefficient

(Beta), standard error (SE), significance level (P-value) and determination coefficient value (R2)

were reported. Method of regression test performed was simultaneous methods (Enter).

Dependent variable


B SE Beta P-

value R2

Depression

Constant .716 .172

.000

.13 Laxness -.064 .036 -.176 .082


Verbosity -.066 .029 -.236 .023

n = 95

Table 25 Multiple regression analysis to predict Depression in Iranian children


Examination of variables simultaneously (enter method) effect indicated that among predictor

variables entered into regression model (PS-laxness, PS- overeactivity and PS-verbosity), PS-

overreactivity variable (p= .006), PS-verbosity variable (p= .023) had a significant effect on

depression variable and PS-laxness predictor variable in presence of other predictor variables,

had no significant effect on depression (p< .05). Results concluded that the effect value of the

regression standardized coefficient or Beta PS-overreactivity on depression among Iranian

children equal to (.292) and direction of this effect was positive. Also value of standardized

regression coefficient for verbosity variable equal to (-.263) and direction of this effect was

negative. As a result can be said that among predictor variables entered in to regression model

(PS-laxness, PS-overeactivity and PS-verbosity), PS-overeactivity and PS-verbosity had a

directed effect on depression variable. Also, the value of determination coefficient (R2) equals to

(0.13) that indicates that predictor variables of this model could explain and predict 13 percent

of depression variable change.

5.3.6. Examination of Predictor Variables Effect on Depression Variable

among German Children

By using multivariate regression, simultaneous (enter method) effect of PS-laxness, PS-

overeactivity and PS-verbosity on depression variable among German children was conducted.

On the regression test only the set of variable as predictor variable entering in to the test which

had a significant correlation with dependent variable or criterion variable depression. Results of

regression test can be reviewed in table 26. In this table, values of non-standardized regression

coefficient (β), standardized coefficient (Beta), standard error (SE), significance level (P-value)

and determination coefficient value (R2 ) were been reported. The method of regression test


performed was simultaneous methods (Enter). The "Enter" method enters all variables at the

same time.

Dependent variable


B SE Beta P-

value R2

Depression

Constant .118 .134

.38

.11 Laxness -.067 .032 -.215 .043

over reactivity .058 .028 .214 .037

Verbosity .054 .026 .212 .044

n = 95 Table 26 Multiple regression analysis to predict Depression in German children

Examination of variables simultaneously (enter method) effect indicated that among predictor

variables entered into regression model (PS-laxness, PS-overeactivity and PS-verbosity)

PS_overreactivity variable (p= .037), PS-verbosity variable (p= .044) and PS-laxness (p= .043)

had a significant effect on the depression variable. Results exhibited that the effect value of

regression standardized coefficient or Beta PS-overreactivity on depression among German

children equal to (.214). Also the value of standardized regression coefficient for verbosity

variable was equal to (.212) and the value of standardized regression coefficient for laxness

variable equal to (-.215). As a result can be said that among predictor variables entered in to

regression model PS-laxness, PS-overeactivity and PS-verbosity, had a direct effect on the

depression variable. Also, value of determination coefficient (R2) equals to (.11) that shows that

predictor variables of this model could explain and predict 11 percent of depression variable

change.


6. Discussion

The goal of this study was to investigate the relationship between dysfunctional strategies in

emotion regulation and psychopathology in children and youth. To examine the fact, this

research compared the different effective variables in Iranian and German children.

The study population included 269 children between 11-14 years in total which were divided in 4

groups. The first 2 groups with the bigger sample size included Iranian children based in Iran

(n= 103; F= 47%, M= 53%) and German children based in Germany (n=119; F=66%, M=34%).

There were also two other smaller groups of participants including: German children resident in

Iran (n=24) and Iranian participants resident in Germany (n=23).

To find differences in emotion regulation strategies, Children emotion management scale

(CEMS) was used as well as cognitive emotion regulation questionnaire (CERQ) to determine

the cognitive emotion regulation strategies. To determine the negative parental discipline

between Iranian and German parents, parenting discipline questionnaire was used. Youth self-

report, child behavior check list and child depression inventory were also used to find the

symptoms of internalizing and externalizing behavior problems as well as depression

differences in both countries. In this section, the results of the current study will be discussed,

and conclusions will be drawn. To confirm the hypothesis considered above, the results of the

data analysis will be discussed one by one.

As noted before, there are several reasons behind the behavioral problems in children such as

parents discipline, peers, environment, regulation of emotions, etc. (Gross,1998; Suveg &

Zeman, 2004; Zeman et al., 2002; Mullin & Hinshaw, 2007; Zeman et al., 2001; Bradley, 1990,

2000; Casey, 1996; Cicchetti et al., 1995 Oftadehal, 2012; Garnefski et al., 2005; Wood et al.,

2003; Oh et al., 2002; Coplan et al., 2002; Barber & Harmon 2002; Samany, 2001;,Samay &

Sadeghi, 2011; Lovibond and Lovibond, 1995; See more, Arnold et al., 1993). We investigated


variables to determine the influence of cultural differences in individualistic as well as collective

cultures.

The data from different studies confirms that there are cultural differences in the expression and

regulation of emotion and coping strategies (Matsumoto, 2007, Matsumoto, et al., 2008; Gross

& John, 2003; Okasaki, 2002; McCare, 2002, McCare, et al., 2005; Bulter et al., 2003; Gross,

2002; Gross & John, 2003, John & Gross, 2004; Zhu & colleagues ,2008).

The primary goal of this study was to determine the cultural differences in emotion regulation

behavior, coping strategies, parenting discipline and rate of symptoms of behavior problem in

children between 11-14 years old.

To determine the fact of cultural differences in emotion regulation behavior (Hypothesis 1), the

children emotion management scale (CEMS) (Zeman et al., 2001) was used. The results

supported the hypothesis that German and Iranian children have significant differences in

sadness and anger inhibition as well as anger and sadness dysregulation. Analysis of data

showed that II reported more anger inhibition than GG (p= .044).

GG showed higher level of anger and sadness dysregulation compare to II (p< .005, p< .005).

These differences in anger inhabitation and express anger could depend on cultural norms

apart of race. For example, express anger as a part of emotional behavior in German culture is

freer than Asian culture (Morelen & Zeman, 2008). Finally GI had a higher sadness inhibition

level compare to II (p= .010). This result supported the hypothesis that there are differences to

regulate of emotion in children ages 11-14 years from different countries. Comparison of all

groups indicated that even GI and IG showed significant differences with children lives in same

country as they born. The goal of comparison between these two samples was to determine, if

the acculturate or residency in living in another country rather than the place they born, has an

effect on the use of emotion regulation strategies. The results also elucidated this question.


It is noticeable that the children who live in another country as they born are influenced by the

new country’s culture. Research by Bronfenbrenner’s (1986) showed the structures of the

macro system have an influence on child’s social behavioral, cultural values, national customs

and surrounding laws development. Another research also found that Indian immigrant children

in Britain had the habit of sharing emotions and express emotions with others (e.g., friend,

sibling, parent and grandparent) which was totally different from children who live in India.

These findings confirmed that Indian children residing in Britain express emotions as like as

people with individualistic culture and children residing in India express emotions as like as

people with collective culture (Singh-Manoux & Finkenauer, 2001).

The results of previous researches on emotion regulation strategies in different countries,

confirm the result of our study in case of inhibition and dysregulation in emotion expression. For

example Matsumoto (2008) reported that people with collective culture use more suppression

strategies compare to people with individualistic culture. He also reported that the culture of

people with long term orientation was related to lower level emotion expression. This research

has been shown that suppression is usually related with inhibition emotion while in Asian

cultures it might be not associated with negative emotion. However research has been noted

that the daily use of inhibition is associated with reduction of relationship with peers and

closeness with others and the people who use this strategy showed fewer emotions with others

(Matsumoto 2007). In contrast, expression emotions emphasize the interdependence and

closeness with others. Although in Western European countries, suppress or inhibition of

emotions are same as self- protective aims (Gross, 2002; Gross & John, 2003; John & Gross,

2004). A research by Scherer (1977) reported that social emotion and appraisal are different by

cultural context .In Asian culture most of the times, inhibition expression is a normal behavior in

public because they don’t like to disturbing harmony or upsetting others which can be explained

with formal context of Asian cultures (Taylor et al., 2004). Despite this fact, some other


researches in china as a country with collective culture indicated a negative association

between inhibition and social adjustment (Chen, Cen, Li, & He, 2005; Trommsdorff &

Rothbaum, 2008). Inhibition expression has been seen as an adaptive behavior in Chinese

children (Chen et al., 1998). In Western countries such as Germany, preschool children

express their anger or distress easier than Indian children (Trommsdorff, 2006b; Trommsdorff,

Mishra, von Suchodoletz, Heikamp, & Merkel, 2006). Results of these researches confirmed our

results, as we found that Iranian children use more inhibition strategies compared to German

children. Moreover, people with collectivist cultures showed less anger than those in

individualist cultures (Matsumoto 2008). Research by Novin et al., (2008) reported that Iranian

children concealed anger by more attention to pro-social motives. This is important for Iranian

children to regulate their emotions within the family and to ensure positive outcomes for

themselves and others.

The current study also found that there are cultural differences in the use of cognitive emotion

regulation strategies CERQ (Hypothesis 2), in children age 11-14 years.

To prove those differences existed on cognitive emotion regulation strategies such as functional

and dysfunctional strategies we used the Scheffe traceable test. The analysis showed a

significant difference between German and Iranian children. The II group reported higher level

of rumination (p= .001), catastrophizing (p= .001), positive reappraisal (p= .003), positive

refocusing (p< .000) and planning (p= .033) variables compared to the GG group.

There were also some significant differences on the other-blame variable among groups where

we examined the mean differences. The outcome was that only the GI group reported

statistically higher values than the other groups. Compared with II (p= .002), GG (p< .001) and

IG (p= .009). The strongest mean difference was seen between GI and GG.

These results supported the hypothesis that individuals with different cultural contexts have

different perception of events and learn how to express their emotions.


The result of our study is concurred with other studies like Markus and Kitayama, 1991;

Matsumoto, 2008 which argued that expressing of emotions and use of different emotion

strategies depend on cultural context and how individuals sense and experience events. In

collective groups individuals must learn to conceal or suppress their expression themselves.

Earlier studies supported cognitive emotion regulation should be examined by the role of

cultural values (Zhu & colleagues, 2008; Triandis1995). In collective cultures individuals use

catastrophizing strategies (Kitayama et al., 2006) when premise that it would not harm and had

no effect on interpersonal relationships. It seems that individuals from collective cultures predict

others feedback and seek help and attention from them. Research by Lévesque et al., (2002)

supported this idea that catastrophizing actually brings individuals together and increases

interpersonal relationships.

Other results of the current study were cultural differences in parenting disciplines (Hypothesis

3). The comparison of parenting disciplines between German and Iranian parents, showed

differences just in the PS- laxness and not on the PS- overreactivity or PS- verbosity. The

results indicated that the two groups of German and Iranian parents had very strong differences

(p<.000) between each other on PS_ laxness variable. The mean for Iranian parents was

significantly greater than for German parents. Another research by Blair Irvine et al., 1999

reported that the parents had greater differences in PS-laxness and PS- overreactivity discipline

than PS- verbosity, which had no real differences.

Some other researches indicated that there are differences in parenting disciplines in Asian

countries compare to European and American countries. In fact, American parents were more

similar to European parents (Dornbusch et al., 1987; Steinberg, Dornbusch, & Brown, 1992;

Pong, Hao, &Gardner, 2005). According to previous researches on different values and beliefs

of individuals in different cultures (Markus& Kitayama, 1991; Matsumoto1991, Ting-Toomey,

1988; Hofstede, 1980; Triandis, 1988, 1990, 2004) the concept of parental disciplines such as


laxness, overreactivity and verbosity had not the same meaning and cannot be equally

explained in non-western countries. For example, a research by Nelson et al., 2006 indicated

that parental psychological control had different meanings for parents and children in different

cultures.

(Hypothesis 4), There are differences in internalizing and externalizing symptoms YSR, CBCL

between German children and Iranian children and their parents.

German children residing in Iran reported higher externalizing symptoms than German children

living in Germany (p=.001) and Iranian children residing in Germany (p=. 013).

Our results about children living in another country than were they born, along with some other

findings proved that the problems scores of immigrant’s children were higher than those

obtained by children in the host country, as well as by children in the native country, on both

parent and self-reports. These findings may help us to understand the individual’s problems

within a cultural context and may guide more diagnosed treatment strategies (Verhulst et al,

2003) Comparison of self-reports symptoms of behavior problems in German and Iranian

children showed that Iranian children in Iran reported more internalizing and externalizing

behavioral symptoms. Cultural differences can be a reason for children to report behavior

problems differently. Evaluation studies in seven countries (Australia, China, Israel, Jamaica,

The Netherlands, Turkey and the United States) on behavioral problems of youth ages 11-18

years revealed that culture context had an effect on the report of youth’s behavioral problems.

For example, Chinese and Jamaican youths reported higher internalizing values while Israeli

and Dutch had the lowest internalizing problems compared to other countries in study group

(Verhulst et al., 2003). Sandoval, et al. (2006) added the comparison of Spanish individuals to

the Verhulst et al. (2003) study with their higher levels of psychopathology because of cultural

differences.


In our study adolescent’s behavioral and emotional problems were measured by child behavior

check lists (CBCL). The analysis of the child behavior check lists showed cultural differences

between parent’s reports of symptoms of internalizing and externalizing behavior. The data

reported confirmed that Iranian children have more symptoms of internalizing (MD= .17) and

externalizing (MD=.14) behavior problems. The comparison of data in a cross-national research

on CBCL, collected from American, Dutch, French Canadian and Chilean parents, indicated that

there are differences in details of parental explanation of children problems depending on their

nationalities (Achenbach et al., 1987). Another research by Duhig et al. (2000) found that the

parents with moderate socio-economic status reported higher internalizing and externalizing

symptoms. A Turkish study also showed that Turkish parents scored their children more anxious

and depressed than Dutch parents (Mijnke, et al., 2003; Bengi-Arslan et al., 1997). These data

confirmed the result of Duhig study. However, Bengi-Arslan et al. (1997) described the

differences in parental reports with cultural differences, because the influence of a collective

culture gives a higher value to obedience and conformity than to autonomy.

Hypothesis 5. There are correlation between parenting discipline (PS; Arnold, O'Leary, Wolff,

and Acker, 1993) and CEMS (Zeman, et al., 2001), CERQ (Garnefski et al., 2001; Garnefski,

Kraaij, & Spinhoven, 2002) and psychopathology (YSR, CBCL; T.M. Achenbach, 1991) in both

countries. It is expected that negative parental discipline, dysfunctional cognitive strategies and

type of regulation of emotion have an influence on development of internalizing and

externalizing symptoms in both groups.

The target of this study was to examine the correlation and influence of emotion regulations,

cognitive emotion regulation strategies and parental disciplines on the psychopathology

development in children ages 11-14 in Iran and Germany (Hypothesis; 5).


It was expected that negative parental discipline, dysfunctional cognitive strategies and type of

regulation of emotion have an influence on the development of internalizing and externalizing

symptoms in both groups but calculation of Spearman rank correlation (correlation coefficient) of

our data showed that only some subscales of parenting discipline, CEMS and CERQ with

psychopathology in both groups were moderately or weakly correlated. The results of CEMS

indicated that in Iranian children there were moderate positive correlation between depression

(r= .27; r= .35), internalizing(r= .24; r= .37) and externalizing (r= .42; r= .34) with anger

dysregulation and sadness dysregulation respectively. There were also a moderate negative

correlation between depression with sadness coping (r= -.33) and anger coping (r= -.23) and a

weak negative correlation between sadness coping and internalizing behaviors (r=-.24) which

confirms that in Iranian children increasing the coping with anger and also coping with sadness

were reduced the level of depression and internalizing behaviors. However, In German children

the correlations between depression with sadness inhibition (r= .23) and with sadness

dysregulation (r= .24) were weak. Moreover there were also some positive correlations between

externalizing behaviors with sadness dysregulation (r= .21) and anger dysregulation (r= .22) in

these children. In contrast negative correlation were found between externalizing behavioral

problems with coping with anger (r= -.25) and anger inhibition (r= -.21). Regarding to our

findings, some other studies concurred that dysfunctional emotion regulation strategies

increases internalizing and externalizing symptoms in individuals (Gross, 1998; Suveg & Zeman

2004; Zeman et al., 2002; Mullin & Hinshaw, 2007; Zeman et al., 2001; Bradley, 1990, 2000;

Casey, 1996; Cicchetti et al., 1995). Cognitive regulation is which depends on human life and

can help manage emotions in negative and difficult events (Garnefski et al., 2007, 2009). To

know more about the relation between cognitive emotion regulation and symptoms of

psychopathology in children we examined correlation between CERQ and YSR between

German and Iranian children. The result showed a positive correlation in Iranian children


between rumination and internalizing and also a positive correlation between catastrophizing

and other-blame with depression. Moreover, positive reappraisal had negative correlation with

depression in these children. A research by Oftadehal et al. (2012) on Iranian youths also

reported that the other- blame is associated with anxiety related symptoms while stress has

negative correlation with positive refocusing and positive reappraisal.

Other study in Iran by Mashhadi et al. (2011) compared functional and dysfunctional cognitive

emotion regulation strategies with internalizing behavior problems development. The result of

this study indicated that self-blame, other-blame, Catastrophizing and rumination had positive

correlation with depression and anxiety. Although self-blame, positive refocus, Catastrophizing

and rumination were associated with anxiety. Moreover, other-blame, Catastrophizing,

rumination, positive refocus, acceptance and planning were also associated with depression in

children.

Oftadehal (2012) clarified why Iranians do not seem to relate the adverse events to their own

responsibility with cultural schemas. He explains that the root in their deterministic beliefs

denoting the adversity is not necessarily under their control and receives influence from other

sources. Therefore the act of blaming others for one’s own weaknesses possibly stems from the

cultural schemas (Oftadehal et al., 2012).

In German children some other variables were correlated such as catastrophizing with

internalizing behavior problems and also depression, internalizing and externalizing with self-

blame and finally, other-blame had correlation with depression.

Western studies result are in contrast with eastern studies result in case of other-blame

correlation with depression which can be explained with differences in cultural background of

study populations.

A research stated that, there is a positive relationship between other-blame and

psychopathology for e.g. depression, anxiety, hostility, neuroticism, and obsession-compulsion


(Garnefski et al., 2002). To support the results of our study, earlier experimental researches

showed that other-blame capably were associated with depression, anxiety and suicidality

(Garnefski, et al., 2001, 2002, 2002; Wijk-Herbrink et al., 2011). Another studies have stated

that, dysfunctional cognitive coping methods such as self-blame and catastrophizing were

positively correlated with depression (Garnefski et al., 2001; Shaver& Drown, 1986).

The result of our study also showed that dysfunctional cognitive strategies had relation with

internalizing and externalizing problems. Therefore, cognitive strategies can be the basis for

mental health problems development (Samany, 2003; Samany & Sadeghi, 2012; Lovibond and

Lovibond, 1995; Garnefski et al., 2002, 2004, 2009, 2005). Some other studies in Iran (Samany,

2003; Samany & Sadeghi, 2012) also showed that dysfunctional cognitive emotion strategies

were positively correlated with internalizing and externalizing behavior problems. Therefore,

functional cognitive emotion strategies were negatively correlated with internalizing and

externalizing behavior problems.

Our result also confirmed this hypothesis that there are correlations between depression,

internalizing and externalizing with Ps-overreactivity in Iranian children. The same correlations

also exist for German children’s data. Research has shown that, negative parental disciplines

are also causes of developing behavior problem in children (Arnold et al., 1993).

Hypothesis 6.There is a correlation between parent and child measures of psychopathology

(YSR, CBCL; T.M. Achenbach, 1991) indicating parent-child agreement regarding symptoms. At

the same time children report more symptoms than their parents on average.

The comparison of data reported by parents about their children with children report of

themselves about internalizing and externalizing behavior symptoms in both countries (Iran vs..

Germany) showed that children report significantly more behavioral problems than their parents.

The other researches in Turkey (Stanger, et al., 1993; Mijnke, et al., 2003), Jamaica and US

(Lambert, et al.,1998) also confirmed that children report their problems significantly more than


their parents. The comparison between parental reports (CBCL/4–18) and self-reports (YSR) of

individuals 11-19 years in a normal Dutch population exposed that youth, reported many more

problems than their parents which were significantly more in case of externalizing than

internalizing problems (Verhulst & van der Ende.,1992). There were several explanations why

children reported more behaviors problems compared to their parents; Usually self- reports

depend on the conception, individuals satisfaction of his/her behavior and self- judgment,

feelings and fantasies in different situation while parental reports are based on their

discussions, children behavior at home and what teacher and peer report about their children.

However, children control their emotions at home as they grow up (Žukauskienė, et al., 2004).

Adolescence and puberty is a time that individuals have more attention on their peers than

parents and their focus shifts from parents to peers. They prefer to spend more time with age-

mates and escape from parents. Spending fewer hours at home prevents

Parents from observing the problems, therefore many psychological mechanisms like emotional

and behavioral problems are unfolded dynamically when they are with peers. It seems that

adolescents tend to keep their problems to themselves and do not share them with their parents

anymore (Begovac et al., 2004).

Our study also found that the children report significantly more behavioral and emotional

problems than their parents which can generate the knowledge for further researches. However,

the parents who try hard to create a secure, stable and positive sense of self for their children,

link them more with internalizing behavior problem and increase the risk of low self-esteem and

depression in them (Barber, 1996).

Hypothesis 7: Dysfunctional Strategies in Emotion Regulation (Zeman, et al., 2001), cognitive

emotion regulation (Garnefski et al., 2001; Garnefski, Kraaij, & Spinhoven, 2002) and Parenting

Discipline (PS; Arnold, O'Leary, Wolff, and Acker, 1993) predict Psychopathology (YSR, CDI;


T.M. Achenbach, 1991) in Children and Youth in a multivariate regression model and thus are

supported as risk factors.

Test the hypothesis 7 from analysis of variables the calculation of our data from Iranian sample

with regression analyze was failed to predict Internalizing symptoms and in German groups

internalizing predicted by sadness dysregulation, externalizing symptoms in Iranian sample

predicted by sadness and anger dysregulation but in German sample externalizing symptom

was not predict by emotion regulation strategies. Researched by (Zeman et al., 2001; Suveg &

Zeman 2004; Zeman et al., 2002) showed that different strategies of emotion, coping,

expressive or inhibition is related to the different behavior disorders. For example poor anger

coping and sadness inhibition predicted externalizing also shown that dysfunctional emotion

strategies predicted of internalizing and externalizing symptoms of behavior problem in children.

Garnefski et al. (2005) had confirmed that dysfunctional cognitive emotion regulation strategies

are associated with internalizing and externalizing problems. Despite this findings, the

calculation of our data with regression analyze was failed to find any association between

Internalizing, externalizing and depression with cognitive emotion strategies which can be

explained with differences in study population.

Our study data were collected from healthy children who had not real internalizing and

externalizing problems to predict internalizing and externalizing problems from dysfunctional

cognitive and emotion regulation strategies.

Moreover, regression analysis of data predicted the depression from PS-overreactivity and PS-

verbosity in Iranian children while in German children depression predicted from three negative

disciplines PS-laxness, PS-overreactivity and PS- verbosity. Several researches indicated

authoritarian parenting (PS-overreactivity) linked to anxiety in western cultures but not usual in

non-western culture (Wood et al., 2003; Oh et al., 2002). Other studies have also shown


negative parental disciplines are also causes of developing behavior problem in children

(Dishion & Patterson, 2006; Arnold et al., 1993).

Conclusion:

The results of current study showed the importance of raising knowledge about emotional and

behavioral problems in children from different cultures and the effect of culture on children

residing in other country rather than where they born. The comparison of our study results on

individuals relationship, values, beliefs and the role of emotion expression in individualistic and

collectivistic cultures with other studies in these areas, indicated that in Iranian children with

collectivistic dimension, the use of sadness and anger dysregulation can be a reason of braking

the role and harmony in group and might ended up with their rejection from family and society

as a result of developed internalizing and externalizing symptoms in children.

In contrast, when the children use sadness and anger coping or inhibition, they are more

accepted by family, peer and society and they do not show the symptoms of behavioral

problems. The result confirmed that family is an important part of children's development to

avoid mental health problem. The sum up of our data and the result of series of studies on

psychopathology which had been mentioned before, indicated that there are many factors like

family socio-economic status, social and cultural role of country where the people live and peer

or classmates which might influence the way in which children grow healthy and learn. We can

conclude that the family and environment together play a strong role to shape children's

emotion and behavior to build up a successful life.

Therapeutic challenges by help of clinical psychologist in children with dysfunctional emotion. A

clinical psychologist can help children deal with stress and behavioral or emotional problems. A


large number of studies have been conducted on the treatment of children and adolescents with

externalizing and internalizing disorder. Investigators reported more psychological disorders

such as depression and anxiety disorders resulting from dysregulation of emotion or deficit in

emotion regulation or insufficient emotion regulation skills. Therefore, based on these reasons,

psychotherapists believed that it was important to help individuals learn to cope with negative

emotions such that they can reappraise and modulate their emotion in a more positive way.

By means of observation learning, psychotherapists showed patients how to regulate their

emotions. The modeling hypotheses suggest that children learn from parents and others

regarding the expression and management of emotions. Parents taught children which emotions

were acceptable and expected in the family environment, and how to manage the experience of

those emotions (Denham et al., 1997). Treatment by cognitive behavior therapy helps the

patient to regulate his emotion and change cognition to a positive emotion thereby reducing the

symptoms of negative emotion. Cognitive behavioral therapy is the most suitable treatment for

internalizing disorders in children. Research in cognitive behavioral treatment showed that 60-

70% of children with anxiety disorder with this treatment had reductions in anxiety symptoms

(Kendall et al., 2005). Cognitive behavioral therapy is also an effective treatment for depression

(e.g., Rush, Beck, Kovacs, Weissenburger, & Hollon, 1982). In cognitive behavioral therapy,

aims are also in aiding patient to change dysfunctional attitude and automatic thought

(DeRubeis et al., 1990) change into attributional style (Seligman et al., 1988)

Dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) developed by Linehan (1993) consists of a series of steps of

this therapy which are connected with increasing the emotion regulation strategies in patient

and decreasing maladaptive behavior and dysfunctional emotion, this therapy use in many

disorder (e.g., borderline personality and self-injury).


Limitations

There were some limitations in the current study which might have affected the result. First of

all, the study collected data from non-clinical samples (ordinary children in Germany and Iran)

and the prevalence of internalizing and externalizing behavioral problems in both countries

cannot be referred to individuals who suffered from any clinical problem.

Additionally, the political situation and security concerns during the data collection, made the

sample size of Iranian children in Germany and German children in Iran, relatively small

compared to the German children in Germany and Iranian children in Iran.

Secondary, the current data were conducted using self-report questionnaires which might cause

that participants have not reported accurate psychological symptoms in relation to the current

study.

Moreover, most of questionnaires were developed for western societies. It means that some of

the items might have been designed for western rather than non-western countries. The

questionnaires we used for our study were translated from English to German and Farsi to

determine their validity in various groups. However, the methodologies of translations in cross

cultural studies are very important and might make huge differences from one culture to

another. For example, some part of questionnaires might change during the translation because

of language limitations or personal decision of researchers or translators. Despite these facts,

questionnaires used in the current study were valid enough to be used in further studies in

related areas.

Finally, considering the theoretical backgrounds instead of a questionnaire which can

demonstrate the differences between individualistic and collective cultures in Germany and Iran

might result some errors in final data.


Considering these limitations might provide more accurate results in further studies which need

to directly explain the effect of parenting discipline on children, different emotion regulation

strategies and cognitive emotion regulation strategies divided by functional and dysfunctional

strategies in regards to psychopathology.

Despite some limitations, the current cross-cultural study showed a high prevalence of

internalizing and externalizing in Iran and that parenting discipline plays as a similar role as

predicted in the processes of emotion regulation to internalizing, externalizing and depression

symptoms in German as well as Iranian children.


References Achenbach, T.M., Verhulst, F. C., Dana Baron, G., & AKKERHUIS, G. W. (1987).

Epidemiological Comparisons of American and Dutch Children: I. Behavioral/Emotional Problems

and Competencies Reported by Parents for Ages 4 to 16. Journal of the American Academy of

Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 26, (3), 317-325.

Aldao, A., Nolen-Hoeksema, S., & Schweizer, S. (2010). Emotion regulation strategies across

psychopathology: A meta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 30(2), 217-237.

Allen, J. P. Kuperminc, G. P., & Moore, C. M. (1997). Developmental approaches to understanding

adolescent deviance. In: Luthar, S. S., Burack, J. A., Cicchetti, D., Weisz, J., editors.

Developmental psychopathology. Perspectives on risk and disorder. Cambridge University Press.

Amato, P.R., & Fowler, F. (2002). Parenting practices, child adjustment, and family diversity. Journal

of Marriage and Family, 64(3), 703–716.

American Academy of Adolescent and Child Psychiatry. (2004, July). Conduct disorder: Facts for families.

http://www.aacap.org/cs/root/facts_for_families/conduct_disorder

American Psychiatric Association. 4th ed. Washington, DC: Author; 1994. Diagnostic and statistical

manual of mental disorders.

Amstadter, A. (2008). Emotion regulation and anxiety disorders. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 22(2),

211–221.

Singh-Manoux, A., & Finkenauer, C. (2001). Cultural Variations in social sharing of emotions: An

intercultural perspective on a universal phenomenon. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32,

647–661.

http://www.aacap.org/cs/root/facts_for_families/conduct_disorder


Anderson, C. A, Miller, R. S, Riger, A. L, Dill, J. C., & Sedikides, C. (1994). Behavioral and characterological

styles as predictors of depression and loneliness: review, refinement, and test. J Pers Soc

Psychol, 66, 549–558.

Arnold, D. S., O'Leary, S. G., Wolff, L. S., & Acker, M. M. (1993). The Parenting Scale: A measure of

dysfunctional parenting in discipline situations. Psychological Assessment, 5, 137-144.

Arrindell, w. A., Eisemann, M., Oei T. P. S., Caballo, V. E., Sanavio, E., Sica, C., et al. (2004). Phobic anxiety

in 11 nations: Part II. Hofstede's dimensions of national cultures predict national- level

variations. Personality and Individual Differences, 37, 627-643.

Bani-Asadi, H. (1984) ‘Interactive Planning on the Eve of the Iranian Revolution’, PhD Dissertation, The

University of Pennsylvania.

Barber, B. K. (1996). Parental psychological control: Revisiting a neglected construct. Child Development,

67, 3296–3319

Barber, B. K., & Harmon, E. L. (2002). Violating the self: Parental psychological control of children and

adolescents. In B. K. Barber (Ed.), Intrusive parenting: How psychological control affects children

and adolescents (pp. 15–52). Washington, DC: APA.

Bargh, J. A., & Williams, L. E. (2007). The case for non-conscious emotion regulation. In J. J. Gross (Ed.),

Handbook of emotion regulation (pp. 429–445). New York: Guilford Press.

Baumrind, D. (1971). Current patterns of parental authority. Developmental Psychology;

Developmental Psychology, 4 (1), 99-102.

Begovac, I., Rudan, V., Skočić, M., Filipović, O., & Szirovicza, L. (2004). Comparison of Self- Reported and

Parent-Reported Emotional and Behavioral Problems in Adolescents from Croatia. Coll. Antropol.

1, 393–401.


Bender, P.K., Reinholdt-Dunne, M. L., Esbjorn, B. H., & Pons, F. (2012). Emotion dysregulation and

anxiety in children and adolescents: Gender differences. Personality and Individual Differences.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.03.027.

Bengi-Arslan,L., Verhulst, F. C., van der Ende, J., & Erol, N. (1997). Understanding childhood (problem)

behaviors from a cultural perspective: comparison of problem behaviors and competencies in

Turkish immigrant, Turkish and Dutch children. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 32, 477–484.

Berenbaum, H., Raghavan, C., Le, H., Vernon, L. L., & Gomez, J. J. (2003). A taxonomy of emotional

disturbances. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 10, 206–226.

Berk, L.E. (2000). Child Development (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. 23-38.

Berry, J. W. (2000). Cross-cultural psychology: A symbiosis of cultural and comparative approaches.

Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 3, 197-205.

Berry, J. W. (2006). Stress perspectives on acculturation. In D. L. Sam & J. W. Berry (Eds.), The Cambridge

handbook of acculturation psychology (pp. 43-57). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Berry, J. W., Poortinga, Y. H., Segall, M. H., & Dasen, P. R. (1992). Cross –cultural psychology: Research

and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Blair, R. J. R., Colledge, E., Murray, L., & Mitchell, D. G. V. (2001). A selective impairment in the

processing of sad and fearful expressions in children with psychopathic tendencies. Journal of

Abnormal Child Psychology, 29, 491−498.

Blumberg, S. H., & Izard, C. E. (1985). Affective cognitive characteristics of depression in 10- and 11-year-

old children. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, (1), 194-202.

027%22http:/dx.doi.org/HYPERLINK%20%22http:/dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.03.027%2210HYPERLINK%20%22http:/dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.03.027%22.HYPERLINK%20%22http:/dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.03.027%221016HYPERLINK%20%22http:/dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.03.027%22/j.paid.HYPERLINK%20%22http:/dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.03.027%222012HYPERLINK%20%22http:/dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.03.027%22.HYPERLINK%20%22http:/dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.03.027%2203HYPERLINK%20%22http:/dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.03.027%22.HYPERLINK%20%22http:/dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.03.027%22027


Bond, M., Gardner, S. T., Christian, J., & Sigal, J. J. (1983). Empirical study of self-rated defense styles.

Archives of General Psychiatry, 40, 333- 338.

Bond, R., & Smith, P. B. (1996). Culture and conformity: A meta-analysis of studies using Asch’s (1952b,

1956) line judgment task. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 111-137.

Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss: Vol. 2. Separation: Anxiety and anger. New York: Basic Books.

Bowlby, J. (I980). Attachment and loss, Vol. 3: Loss, sadness and depression. New York:

Basic Books.

Bradley, S. (1990). Affect regulation and psychopathology: Bridging the mind-body gap. Canadian

Journal of Psychiatry, 35, 540-547.

Bradley, S.J. (2003). Affect regulation and the development of psychopathology. New York: Guilford.

Brems, C, & Johnson, M. E. (1989). Problem-solving appraisal and coping style: The influence of sex-role

orientation and gender. Journal of Psychology, 123, 187-194.

Breuer, J., & Freud, S., (1957) .Studies on hysteria (J. Strachey, Trans.). New York: Basic Books. (Original

work published 1895).

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986). Ecology of the family as a context of human development: Research

perspectives. Developmental Psychology, 22, 723–742.

Burke, J, D., Pardini, D, A., & Loeber, R. (2008). Reciprocal relationships between parenting behavior and

disruptive psychopathology from childhood through adolescence. J Abnorm Child Psychol, 36,

679- 692.


Butler, E. A., Egloff, B., Wilhelm, F. H., Smith, N. C., Erickson, E. A., & Gross, J. J. (2003). The social

consequences of expressive suppression. Emotion, 3, 48–67.

Calkins, S. D., Blandon, A. Y., Williford, A. P., & Keane, S. P. (2007). Biological, behavioral, and relational

levels of resilience in the context of risk for early childhood behavior problems. Development

and Psychopathology, 19(3), 675- 700.

Calkins, S.D. & Johnson, M. C. (1998). Toddler regulation of distress to frustrating events:

Temperamental and maternal correlates. Infant Behavior and Development, 21, 379-395.

Campbell-Sills, L., Barlow, D. H., Brown, T. A., & Hofmann, S. G. (2006). Acceptability and suppression of

negative emotion in anxiety and mood disorders. Emotion, 6, 587–595.

Campos, J. J., Campos, R. G., & Barrett, K. C. (1989). Emergent themes in the study of emotional

development and emotion regulation. Developmental Psychology, 25, 394-402.

Campos, J. J., Mumme, D. L., Kermoian, R., & Campos, R. G. (1994). A functionalist perspective on the

nature of emotion. In N. A. Fox (Ed.). The development of emotion regulation: Biological and

behavioral considerations Vol. 59 (2–3, Serial No. 240). Monographs of the Society for Research

in Child Development.

Card, N. A., & Little, T. D. (2006). Proactive and reactive aggression in childhood and adolescence: A

meta-analysis of differential relations with psychosocial adjustment. International Journal of

Behavioral Development, 30, 466−480.

Carlson, G. A. (2000). The challenge of diagnosing depression in childhood and adolescence. Journal of

Affective Disorders, 61, S3-S8.


Casey, R. J. (1996). Emotional competence in children with externalizing and internalizing disorders. In

M. Lewis & M. W. Sulivan (Ed.), Emotional development in atypical children (pp. 161-184).

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Chao, R. K. (1994). Beyond parental control and authoritarian parenting style: Understanding Chinese

parenting through the cultural notion of training. Child Development, 65, 1111-1119.

Chen, X., Cen, G., Li, D., & He, Y. (2005). Social functioning and adjustment in Chinese children: The

imprint of historical time. Child Development, 76, 182- 195.

Chen, X., Hastings, P. D., Rubin, K. H., Chen, H., Cen, G., & Stewart, S. L. (1998). Child-rearing attitudes

and behavioral inhibition in Chinese and Canadian toddlers: A cross-cultural study.

Developmental Psychology, 34, 677-686.

Cicchetti, D. (1984). The emergence of developmental psychopathology. Child Development, 55, 1–7.

Cicchetti, D., & Cohen, D. J. (Eds.). (1995). Developmental psychopathology: volume I. Theory and

methods. New York: Wiley.

Cicchetti, D., Ackerman, B., & Izard, C. (1995) Emotions and emotion regulation in developmental

psychopathology. Psychological Review, 98, 224–253.

Cicchetti, D., Ackerman, B.P., & Izard, C. E. (1995). Emotion and emotion regulation in developmental

psychopathology. Development and Psychopathology, 7, 1-10.

Cicchetti, D., Ganiban, J., & Barnett, D. (1991). Contributions from the study of high-risk populations to

understanding the development of emotion regulation. In J. Garber & K. A., Dodge (Eds.), The

development of emotion regulation and dysregulation (pp. 15-48). New York Cambridge

University Press.


Cole, D. A., Michel, M. K., & Teti, L. O. (1994). The development of emotion regulation and

dysregulation: A clinical perspective. Monographs for the Society for Research in Child

Development, 59, 73-100.

Cole, P. M., Michel, M. K., & Teti, L. O. (1994). The development of emotion regulation and

dysregulation: A clinical perspective. In N. A. Fox (Ed.), The development of emotion regulation:

Biological and behavioral considerations (pp. 73–100). Monographs of the Society for Research

in Child Development, 58 (2–3, Serial No. 240).

Cole, P.M., Luby, J., & Sullivan, M.W. (2008). Emotions and the development of childhood depression:

Bridging the gap. Child Development Perspectives, 2, 141–148.

Compas, B. E., Malcarne, V. L., & Fondacaro, K. M. (1988). Coping with stressful events in older children

and young adolescents. Journal of consulting and clinical psychology, 56, 405-411.

Contreras, J. M., Kerns, K. A., Weimer, B. L., Gentzler, A. L., & Tomich, P. L. (2000). Emotion regulation as

a mediator of associations between mother-child attachment and peer relationships in middle

childhood. Journal of Family Psychology, 14,111–124. [PubMed: 10740686].

Coplan, R. J., Hastings, P. D., Lagace-Seguin, D. G., & Moulton, C. E. (2002). Authoritative and

authoritarian mothers parenting goals, attribution, and emotions across different children

contexts. Parenting: Science and Practice, 2, 1-26.

Cummings, E. M., Cicchetti, D. (1990). Toward a transactional model of relations between attachment

and depression. In: Greenberg, M., Cicchetti, D., Cummings, E. M., editors. Attachment in the

preschool years: Theory, research, and intervention. University of Chicago Press.


Davidson, R J. (2000). Affective style, psychopathology, and resilience: brain mechanisms and plasticity.

The American Psychologist, 55(11), 1196-1214.

Davidson, R. J., Putnam, K. M., & Larson, C. L. (2000). Dysfunction in the neural circuitry of emotion

regulation: A possible prelude to violence. Science, 289, 591−594.

Denham, S. A, Mitchell-Copeland, J., Strandberg, K., Auerbach, S., & Blair, K. (1997). Parental

contributions to preschoolers’ emotional competence: Direct and indirect effects. Motivation

and Emotion, 21:65–86.

Denham, S. A., Zoller, D., & Couchoud, E. A. (1994). Socialization of preschoolers’ emotion

understanding. Developmental Psychology, 30, 928-936.

DeRubeis, R. J., Evans, M. D., Hollon, S. D., Garvey, M. J., Grove, W. M., & Tuason, V. B. (1990). How does

cognitive therapy work? Cognitive change and symptom change in cognitive therapy and

pharmacotherapy for depression. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 58, 862-869.

Diefendorff, J.M., Hall, R.J., Lord, R.G. & Strean, M.L. (2000). Action-state orientation: Construct validity

of a revised measure and its relationship to work-related variables. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 85, 250-63.

Dishion, T.J., & Patterson, G.R. (2006). The development and ecology of antisocial behavior in children

and adolescents. In Cohen, D.J. & Cicchetti D. (Eds.), Developmental Psychopathology (pp. 503–

541). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Dodge, K. A., & Garber, J. (1991). Domains of emotion regulation. In J. Garber and K.A. Dodge (Ed.), The

Development of emotion Regulation and Dysregulation (pp.3-10). New York: Cambridge

University Press.


Döpfner, M., Plück, J., Bölte, S., Lenz, K., Melchers, P., & Heim, K. (1998). Child behavior checklist;

Elternfragebogen über das verhalten von Kindern und Jugendlichen. 2. Auflage KJFD, Köln.

Döpfner,M., Plück, J., Bölte,S., Lenz, K., Melchers,P., & Heim,K. (1998). Youth self report; Fragebogen für

Jugendliche. 2. Auflage. KJFD, Köln.

Dornbusch, S., Ritter, P., Leiderman, P., Roberts, D., & Fraleigh, M. (1987). The relation of parenting style

to adolescent school performance. Child Development, 58, 1244-1257.

Drabick, D, A, G., Gadow, K.D., & Sprafkin, J. (2006). Co-occurrence of conduct disorder and depression

in a clinic-based sample of boys with ADHD. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 47, 766–

774.

Dubow, E. F., Edwards, S., & Ippolito, M. F. (1997). Life stressors, neighborhood disadvantage, and

resources: A focus on inner-city children’ adjustment. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 26,

130-144.

Duhig, A., Renk, K., Epstein, M., & Phares, V. (2000). Interparental agreement on internalizing,

externalizing, and total behavior problems: A meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology: Science and

Practice, 7, 435–453.

Dwairy, M., & Menshar, K. E. (2006). Parenting style, individuation, and mental health of Egyptian

adolescents. Journal of Adolescence, 29, 103-117.

Ehring, T., Fischer, S., Schnülle, J., Bösterling, A., & Tuschen-Caffier, B. (2008). Characteristics of emotion

regulation in recovered depressed versus never depressed individuals. Personality and Individual

Differences, 44, 1574–1584.


Eisenberg, N., & Morris, A. S. (2002). Children’s emotion-related regulation. In R. Kail (Ed), Advances in

child development and behavior, 30, 190-229.

Eisenberg, N., Cumberland, A., Spinrad, T. L., Fabes, R. A., Shepard, S. A., Reiser, M., et al. (2001a). The

relations of regulation and emotionality to children's externalizing and internalizing problem

behavior. Child Development, 72, 1112−1134.

Eisenberg, N., Gershoff, E. T., Fabes, R., Shepard, S. A., Cumberland, A. J., Losoya, S. H., et al. (2001a).

Mother’s emotional expressivity and children’s behavior problems and social competence:

Mediation through children’s regulation. Developmental Psychology, 37, 475–490.

Eisenberg, N., Losoya, S., Fabes, R. A., Guthrie, I. K., Reiser, M., Murphy, B., et al. (2001b). Parental

socialization of children’s dysregulated expression of emotion and externalizing problems.

Journal of Family Psychology, 15, 183–205.

Ekman P. (1993). Facial expression and emotion. American Psychologist, 48, 384–392. [PubMed]

Emslie, G. J., Mayes, T. L., & Hughes, C. W. (2000). Updates in the pharmacological treatment of

childhood depression. The Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 23 (4), 813-835.

Farrington, D. P. (2001). Predicting adult official and self-reported violence. In: Pinard GF, Pagani L,

editors. Clinical assessment of dangerousness: Empirical contributions (pp. 66–88). New York:

Cambridge University Press.

Frankel, F., Feinberg, D. (2002). Social problems associated with ADHD vs.. ODD in children referred for

friendship problems. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 33,125–146.

Freud, A. (1946). The ego and the mechanisms of defense. New York: International Universities Press.


Frick, P. J., Cornell, A. H., Bodin, S. D., Dane, H. E., Barry, C. T., & Loney, B. R. (2003). Callous-unemotional

traits and developmental pathways to severe conduct problems. Developmental Psychology, 39,

246−260.

Frijda, N. H. (1986). The emotions. Cambidge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Frijda, N. H. (1988). The laws of emotions. American Psychologist, 43, 349-358.

Gardiner, H. W. (1999). Future directions in cross-cultural human development. Unpublished

manuscript.

Garnefski, N, Kraaij, V. (2006) Relationships between cognitive emotion regulation strategies and

depressive symptoms: a comparative study of five specific samples. Personality and Individual

Differences, 40, 1659–1669.

Garnefski, N., Koopman, H., Kraaij, V., & Cate. R.T. (2009). Breif report: cognitive emotion regulation

strategies and psychological adjustment in adolescents a chronic disease. Journal of

Adolescence, 32, 449-454.

Garnefski, N., Teerds, J., Kraaij, V., Legerstee, J., & Van-Den-Kommer.T. (2004). Cognitive emotion

regulation strategies and depressive symptoms: differences between males and females

Personality and Individual differences, 39, 1249-1260.

Garnefski, N., Kraaij V., & Spinhoven, P.H. (2001). Gedrag en Gezondheid, 29, 166-176.

Garnefski, N., Kraaij, V., & Spinhoven, P. (2001). Negative life events, cognitive emotion regulation and

emotional problems. Personality and Individual differences, 30(8), 1311–1327.


Garnefski, N., Kraaij, V., & van Etten, M. (2005). Specificity of relations between adolescents’ cognitive

emotion regulation strategies and internalizing and externalizing psychopathology. Journal of

Adolescence, 28, 619-631.

Garnefski, N., Legerstee, J., Kraaij, V., Van-Den-Kommer. T., & Teerds. J. (2002). Cognitive coping

strategies and symptoms of depression and anxiety: a comparison between adolescents and

adults. Journal of Adolescence, 25, 603-611.

Garnefski, N., Rieffe, C., Jellesma, F., Terwogt, M. M., & Kraaij, V. (2007). Cognitive emotion

regulation strategies and emotional problems in 9–11-year-old children: the development

of an instrument. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 16, 1-9.

Garnefski, N., Van den Kommer, T., Kraaij, V., Teerds, J., Leger-Stee, J., & Onstein, E. (2002).

European Journal of Personality, 16, 403-420.

Gekoski, M. J., Rovee–Collier, C. K., & Carulli– Rabinowitz, V. (Jul 1983). A longitudinal analysis of

inhibition and infant distress: The origins of social expectations? Infant Behavior and

Development, 6, 339–351.

Gjone, H., & Stevenson, J. (1997). A longitudinal twin study of temperament and behavior problems:

Common genetic or environmental influences. Journal of the American Academy of Child and

Adolescent Psychiatry, 36, 1448-1456.

Good, B. J. (1977). The Heart of What’s the Matter: The Semantics of Illness in Iran. Culture, Medicine

and Psychiatry, 1, 25-58.

Greenberg, MT., & Speltz, ML. (1988). Attachment and the ontogeny of conduct problems. In: Belsky, J.;

Nezworski, T., editors. Clinical implications of attachment. Erlbaum; Hillsdale, NJ: p. 177-218.


Gross, J. J. (1998). The Emerging Field of Emotion Regulation: An Integrative Review. Review of General

Psychology, 2(3), 271-299.

Gross, J. J. (1999). Emotion regulation: Past, present, future. Cognition & Emotion, 13, 551-573.

Gross, J. J. (2002). Emotion regulation: Affective, cognitive, and social consequences. Psychophysiology,

39, 281-291.

Gross, J. J., & John, O. P. (1998). Mapping the domain of expressivity: Multimethod evidence for a

hierarchical model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 170–191.

Gross, J. J., & John, O. P. (2003). Individual differences in two emotion regulation processes: Implications

for affect, relationships, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85,348-

362.

Gross, J. J., & Levenson, R. W. (1997). Hiding feelings: The acute effects of inhibiting negative and

positive emotion. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 106(1), 95- 103.

Gross, J. J., & Muñoz, R. F. (1995). Emotion regulation and mental health. Clinical Psychology: Science

and Practice, 2, 151–164.

Gross, J. J., & Thompson, R. (2007). Emotion regulation: Conceptual foundations. In J. J. Gross (Ed.),

Handbook of Emotion Regulation (pp. 3–24). New York: Guilford Press.

Gross, J.J., & Levenson, R.W. (1993). Emotional suppression: Physiology, self-report, and expressive

behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 970-986.

Gross, J.J., & Muñoz, R.F. (1995). Emotion regulation and mental health. Clinical Psychology: Science and

Practice, 2, 151-164.


Gross, J.J., Richards, J.M., & John, O.P. (in press). Emotion regulation in everyday life. In D.K. Snyder, J.A.

Simpson, & J.N. Hughes (Eds.). Emotion regulation in families: Pathways to dysfunction and

health. Washington DC: American Psychological Association.

Gudykunst, W. B., & Matsumoto, Y. (1996). Cross- cultural variability of communication in personal

relationships. In W. B. Gudykunst, S. Ting-Toomey & T. Nishida (Eds.), Communication in

personal relationships across cultures (pp. 19-55). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.

Gudykunst, W. B., Ting- Toomey, S., & Chua, E. (1988). Culture and interpersonal communication.

Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Gutman, L. M., Sameroff, A. J., & Cole, R. (2003). Academic growth curve trajectories from 1st grade to

12th grade: Effects of multiple social risk factors and preschool child factors. Developmental

Psychology, 39(4), 777-790.

Haapasalo, J., & Tremblay, R. E. (1994). Physically aggressive boys from ages 6 to 12: Family background,

parenting behavior, and prediction of delinquency. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,

62, 1044-1052.

Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond culture. New York: Doubleday. Handy (Eds.). Behavior modification and

families (p. 267-316). New York: Brunner-Maazel, Inc. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Heine, S. J., Lehman, D. R., Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1999). Is there a universal need for positive

self-regard? Psychological Review, 106, 766-794.

Heinrichs, N., Rapee, R. M., Alden, L. A, et al. (2006). Cultural differences in perceived social norms and

social anxiety. Behavior Research and Therapy, 44, 1187-1197.


Hilt, L.M., Hanson, J.L., Pollak, S.D. (2011). Emotion dysregulation. Encyclopedia of Adolescence, 3, 160-

169.

Hinshaw, S.P. (1994). Conduct disorder in childhood: Conceptualization, diagnosis, comorbidity, and risk

status for antisocial functioning in adulthood. In Fowles, D. C. Sutker, P., & Goodman, S. H.

(Eds.), Progress in experimental personality and psychopathology research. New York: Springer.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Irvine, A. B., Biglan, A., Smolkowski, K., & Ary, D. V. (1999). The value of the Parenting Scale for

measuring the discipline practices of parents of middle school children. Behaviour Research and

Therapy, 37, 127-142

Janssen. M. M. M., Verhulst F. C., Bengi-Arslan .L., Erol. N., Salter .C. J., & Crijnen .A. A. M. (2004).

Comparison of self-reported emotional and behavioral problems in Turkish immigrant, Dutch

and Turkish adolescents. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol, 39, 133–140

John, O. P., & Gross, J. J. (2004). Healthy and unhealthy emotion regulation: Personality processes,

individual differences, and life span development. Journal of Personality, 72, 1301–1333.

Karahanna, E., R. Evaristo., & M. Srite, M. (2005). Levels of culture and individual behavior: An

integrative perspective. Journal of Global Information Management, 13(2), 1–20.

Kashani, J., & Orvaschel, H. (1990). A community study of anxiety in children and adolescents. American

Journal of Psychiatry, 147, 313-318.

Kashima, Y. (1989). Conceptions of person: Implications in individualism/collectivism research. In C.

Kagitcibasi (Ed.), Growth and progress in Cross-cultural psychology (pp. 104-112) Amsterdam.

Swets and Zeitlinger.


Keenan, K. (2000). Emotional dysregulation as a risk factor for child psychopathology. Clinical

Psychology: Science and Practice, 7(4), 418-434.

Keltner, D., & J. J. Gross (1999). "Functional accounts of emotions. Cognition & Emotion. Special Issue:

Functional accounts of emotion 13(5), 467-480.

Kendall, P. C., Hudson, J., Choudhury, M., Webb, A., & Pimentel. S. (2005). Cognitive-behavioral

treatment for childhood anxiety disorders. In E. D. Hibbs & Jensen (Eds.), psychosocial

treatments for child and adolescent disorders: Empirically based strategies for private practice.

Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Kendler, K. S., Myers, J., & Prescott, A. (2000). Parenting and adult mood, anxiety, and substance use

disorders in female twins: an epidemiological, multi-informant, retrospective study.

Psychological Medicine, 30,281–294.

Kitayama, S., Mesquita, B., & Karasawa, M. (2006). Cultural affordances and emotional experience:

Socially engaging and disengaging emotions in Japan and the United States.

Kleinman, A. (1982). Neurasthenia and depression: A study of somatization and culture in china. Culture,

Medicine, and Psychiatry, 6, 117-190.

Kleinman, A. (1995). Do psychiatry disorder different in different cultures? The methodological

questions. In Goldberger, N. R. & Veroff, J. B. (Eds.), the culture and psychology reader (pp.631-

651). New York University Press.

Kobak, R, Sceery, A. (1988). Attachment in late adolescence: Working models, affect regulation, and

representations of self and others. Child Development, 59,135–146. [PubMed: 3342708].


Kobak, R., Sudler, N., & Gamble, W. (1991). Attachment and depressive symptoms in adolescence: A

developmental pathway analysis. Development and Psychopathology, 3, 461–474.

Kopp, C. B. (1989). Commentary: The codevelopments of attention and emotion regulation. Infancy, 3,

199-208.

Lamb, M. E., & Malkin, C. M. (1986). The development of social expectations in distress-relieve

sequences: A longitudinal study. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 9, 235–249.

Lambert, C. L., Lyubansky. M., & Achenbach, T.M. (1998). Behavioral and emotional problems among

adolescents of Jamaica and the United States: parent, teacher, and self-reports for ages 12 to

18. Journal Emotional Behavior Disorder, 6,180–187.

Laurence J., & Kirmayer, M.D. (2001). Cultural variations in the clinical presentation of depression and

anxiety: Implications for diagnosis and treatment. J Clin Psychiatry, 62(suppl 13)22–28.

Lazarus, R. S. (1991a). Emotion and adaptation. New York: Oxford University Press.

Lazarus, R.S. (1991).Progress on a cognitive-motivational-relational theory of emotion. American

Psychologist, 46, 819-834.

LeDoux, J. (1996). The emotional brain. New York: Simon& Schuster.

Lee, A. Y., Aaker, J. L., & Gardner, W. L. (2000). The pleasures and pains of distinct self-construals: The

role of interdependence in regulatory focus. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78,

1122-1134.

Lee, K., Xu, F., Fu, G., Cameron, C. A., & Chen, S. (2001). Taiwan and mainland Chinese and Canadian

children’s categorization and evaluation of lie- and truth-telling: A modesty effect. British

Journal of Developmental Psychology, 19, 525–542.


Levesque, M. J., Steciuk, M., & Ledley, C. (2002). Self-disclosure pattern among well-acquainted

individuals: Disclosure, confidents and unique relationships. Social Behavior and Personality, 30,

579-592.

Lloyd, G. E. (1990). Demystifying mentalities. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Lloyd, G.E.R. (1996). Science in antiquity: The Greek and Chinese cases and their relevance to the

problems of culture and cognition. In Olson, D.R. & Torrance, N. (Eds.), Modes of thought:

Explorations in culture and cognition (pp. 15–33). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Loeber, R., Burke, J, D., & Pardini, D, A. (2009). Development and etiology of disruptive and delinquent

behavior Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 5:291-310.

Lonner, W. J. (1980). The search for psychological universals. In Triandis, H. C., & Lambert, W. W. (Eds),

Handbook of cross cultural psychology: Vol. 1. Perspective (PP. 143-204). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Lonner, W. J., & Adamopoulos, J. (1997). Culture as antecedent to behavior. In J. W. Berry, Y. H.

Poortinga, & J. Pandey (Eds.), Handbook of cross cultural psychology: Vol. 1. Theory and method

(pp.43-83).

Luthar, S. S., Burack J. A., Cicchetti D., & Weisz J. R. (Eds.). (1997). Developmental psychopathology:

perspectives on adjustment, risk, and disorder. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.

MACKLER, JENNIFER S. M.A. (2009). The Role of Emotion Regulation in Children’s coping with

Environmental Stress. Directed by Calkins. S. D. 69 pp.

MacLeod, C., Mathews, A., & Tata, P. (1986). Attentional bias in emotional disorders. Journal of

Abnormal Psychology, 95, 15-20.


Main, M; Goldwyn, R. (1984). Adult attachment classification system. Berkeley: University of California.

Unpublished manual.

Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and

motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224–253.

Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991).Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and

motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224-253.

Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1998). The cultural psychology of personality. Journal of Cross-Cultural


Martin, R. C., & Dahle, E. R. (2005). Cognitive emotion regulation in the prediction of depression,

anxiety, stress, and anger. Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 1249- 1260.

Masters, J. C. (1991). Strategies and mechanisms for the personal and social control of emotion. In J.

Garber & K. A. Dodge (Eds.), The development of emotion regulation and dysregulation (pp. 182-

207). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Matsumoto, D. (2005). Culture and cultural worldviews: Do verbal descriptions of culture reflect anything

other than verbal descriptions of culture? Manuscript submitted for publication.

Matsumoto, D., Nezlek, J. B., & Koopmann, B. (2007). Evidence for universality phenomenological

emotion response system coherence. Emotion, 7, 57-67.

Matsumoto, D., Yoo, S, H., Nakagawa, S. (2008). Culture, Emotion Regulation, and Adjustment. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 6, 925-937.

Matsumoto, D., Yoo, S. H., Hirayama, S., & Petrova, G. (2005). Development and validation of a measure

of display rule knowledge: The display rule assessment inventory. Emotion, 5, 23–40.


Matsumoto, D., Yoo, SH., & FONTAINE, J. (2008). Mapping expressive differences around the world: The

relation between emotional display rules and Individualism versus collectivism. Journal of Cross-

Cultural Psychology, 39, 55-74

Mauss, I. B., Cook, C. L., Cheng, J. Y. J., & Gross, J. J. (2007). Individual differences in cognitive

reappraisal: Experiential and physiological responses to an anger provocation. International

Journal Psychophysiology, 66, 116–124.

Mauss, I.B., Levenson, R.W., McCarter, L., Wilhelm, F.H., & Gross, J.J. (2005). The tie that

McClure, Kelly S.; Halpern, Jacqueline; Wolper, Pamela A. Donahue, John J. (2009). Emotion regulation

and intellectual disability; Journal on Developmental Disabilities, 15, (2), 38-44. [Journal Article]

McCord, W, McCord, J, & Howard, A. (1961). Familial correlates of aggression in non-delinquent male

children. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 62, 79-93.

McKeown, R. E., Garrison, C. Z., Jackson, K. L., Cuffe, S. P., Addy, C. L., & Waller, J. L. (1997). Family

structure and cohesion, and depressive symptoms in adolescents. Journal of Research on

Adolescence, 7, 267–281. doi:10.1207/s15327795jra0703_2.

Mennin, D.S. (2004). Emotion regulation therapy for generalized anxiety disorder. Clinical psychology &

psychotherapy, 11, 17-29.

Mesquita, B., & Frijda, N. H. (1992). Cultural variations in emotions: A review. Psychological Bulletin,

112, 179-204.

Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P.R. (2003). The attachment behavioral system in adulthood: Activation,

psychodynamics, and interpersonal processes. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advanced in experimental

social psychology (Vol. 35, pp. 53-152). New York: Academic Press.


Miller, J. G., (1997). Theoretical issues in cultural psychology. In J. W. Berry, Y. H. Poortinga, & j. Pandey

(Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology: Vol. 1. Theory and method (pp. 85-128). Boston:

Allyn & Bacon.

Miller, P. J., Wang, S., Sandel, T., & Cho, G. E. (2002). Self-esteem as folk theory: A comparison of

European American and Taiwanese mothers' beliefs. Parenting: Science and Practice, 2, 209-

239.

Monat, A., & Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Stress and coping: an anthology. New York: Columbia University

Press.

Moore, S. A., Zoellner, L. A., & Mollenholt, N. (2008). Are expressive suppression and cognitive

reappraisal associated with stress-related symptoms? Behaviour Research and Therapy, 46,

993–1000.

Morales, J. R., & Guerra, N. G. (2006). Effects of multiple context and cumulative stress on urban

children’s adjustment in elementary school. Child Development, 77, 907-923.

Morelen, D., Zeman, J. (2008). Broad and Narrow Cultural Comparisons of Children’s Emotion

Regulation: Studies of Ghana and the United States. The College of William and Mary.

http://hdl.handle.net/10288/524

Mullin, B. C., & Hinshaw, S. P. (2007). Emotion regulation and externalizing disorders in children and

adolescents. In J. J. Gross (Ed.), Handbook of emotion regulation (pp. 523-541). New York:

Guilford Press.

Muris, P., Meesters, C. M. G., & Van den Berg, S. (2003b). Internalizing and externalizing problems as

correlates of self-reported attachment style and perceived parental rearing in normal

adolescents. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 12, 171–183.

524%22http:/hdl.handle.net/HYPERLINK%20%22http:/hdl.handle.net/10288/524%2210288HYPERLINK%20%22http:/hdl.handle.net/10288/524%22/HYPERLINK%20%22http:/hdl.handle.net/10288/524%22524


Murray, S. L. (2005). Regulating the risks of closeness: A relationship-specific sense of felt security.

Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 74-78.

Nelson, D. A., Hart, C. H., Yang, C., Olsen, J. A., & Jin, S. (2006). Aversive parenting in China: Associations

with child physical and relational aggression. Child Development, 77, 554–572.

Nisbett, R.E., Peng, K., Choi, I., & Norenzayan, A. (2001). Culture and systems of thought: Holistic vs..

analytic cognition. Psychological Review, 108: 291–310.

Nock, A. D. (1929), "Studien zum antiken Synkretismus aus Iran und Griechenland by R. Reitzenstein, H.

H. Schaeder, Fr. Saxl". The Journal of Hellenic Studies, 49, 1, 111-116 [111].

Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (1990). Sex differences in depression. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (2000). The role of rumination in depressive disorders and mixed

anxiety/depressive symptoms. J Abnorm Psychol 109:504–511.

Nolen-Hoeksema, S., Wisco, B. E., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2008). Rethinking rumination. Perspectives on

Psychological Science, 3, 400–424.

Novin, S., Rieffe, C., Dadkhah, A., &. Banerjee, R. (2008).Self- reported use of emotional display rules in

the Netherland and Iran: Evidence for sociocultural influence. J Social Development, 18, (2).

O’Leary SG, Slep AMS, Reid MJ. (1999). A longitudinal study of mothers’ overreactive discipline and

toddlers’ externalizing behavior. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 27(5), 331–347.

[PubMed: 10582835]

Oatley K, & Johnson-Laird P.N. (1987). Towards a cognitive theory of emotions. Cognition and Emotion,

1, 29–50.


Oftadehal. M., Mahmoodi KahrizA. B., & Torabi Nami. M. (2012). Cognitive emotion regulation

depression and stress in Iranian children. Neuroscience Research Letters 3 (1), 39-42.

Oh, K. J., Shin, Y. J., Moon, K. J., Hudson, J. L., & Rapee, R. M. (2002). Child-rearing practices and

psychological disorders in children: Cross-cultural comparison of Korea and Australia. Yonsei

medical journal, 43 (4), 411-419.

Okazaki, S. (2002). Self-other agreement on affective distress scales in Asian Americans and White

Americans. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 49, 428–437.

Parrott, W. G. (1993). Beyond hedonism: Motives for inhibiting good moods and for maintaining bad

moods. In D. M. Wegner & J. W. Pennebaker (Eds.), Handbook of mental control (pp. 278-308).

Patterson, G. R. (1976). The aggressive child: Victim and architect of a coercive system. In E. J. Mash, L.

A. Hamerlynck, & L. C. Handy (Eds.), Behavior modification and families (pp. 267-316). New York:

Brunner/Mazel.

Patterson, G. R., DeBaryshe, B. D, Ramsey, E. A. (1989). Developmental perspective on antisocial

behavior. American Psychologist, 44,329–335.

Philip G. Kreyenbroek (2009). "Morals and Society in Zoroastrian Philosophy" in "Persian Philosophy".

Companion Encyclopedia of Asian Philosophy: Brian Carr and Indira Mahalingam. Routledge.

Phillips, M. L., Drevets, W. C., Rauch, S. L., & Lane, R. (2003). Neurobiology of emotion perception II:

Implications for major psychiatric disorders. Biological Psychiatry, 54(5), 515-528.

Pliskin, K.L. (1992). Cross-cultural Medicine a decade later: Dysphoria and somatization in Iranian

culture. Western Journal of Medicine, 157, 295-300.


Pong, S., Johnston. J., Chen, V. (2010). Authoritarian Parenting and Asian Adolescent School

performance: Insights from the US and Taiwan. International Journal of Behavioral

Development, 34(1), 62-72.

Pong, S.L., Hao, L., & Gardner, E. (2005). The roles of parenting styles and social capital of immigrant

Asian and Hispanic adolescents. Social Science Quarterly, 86(4), 928–949.

Porges, S. W. (2007). The polyvagal perspective. Biological Psychology, 74, 116-143

Pourfaraj Omran, M. (2011).Relationships between cognitive emotion regulation strategies with

depression and anxiety. Open Journal of Psychiatry, 1 (3), 106-109.

Prinzie, P., Onghena, P., & Hellinckx, W. (2006). A cohort-sequential multivariate latent growth curve

analysis of normative CBCL aggressive and delinquent problem behavior: Associations with

harsh discipline and gender. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 30, 444–459.

Repee, R. M, Spence, S. H. (2004). The etiology of social phobia: empirical evidence and an initial model.

Journal of Clinical Psychology, 24, 737-767.

Rivers, W. H. R. (1901). Introduction and vision. In A. C. Haddon (Ed.), Reports of the Cambridge

anthropological expedition to the Torres Stairs: Vol. 2, Pt. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Roemer, L., Litz, B. T., Orsillo, S. M., & Wagner, A. W. (2001). A preliminary investigation of the role of

strategic withholding of emotion in PTSD. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 14, 149-156.

Rude, S. S., & McCarthy, C. T. (2003). Emotional functioning in depressed and depression vulnerable

college children. Cognition and Emotion, 17, 799-806.


Rush, A. J., Beck, A. T., Kovacs, M., Weissenburger, J., & Hollon, S. D. (1982). Comparison of the effects of

cognitive therapy and pharmacotherapy on hopelessness and self-concept. American Journal of

Psychiatry, 139, 862-866.

Saarni, C. (1989). Children’s understanding of strategic control of emotional expression in social

transactions. In C. Saarni, & P. Harris (Eds.), Children’s understanding of emotion (pp. 181–208).

New York: Cambridge University Press.

Saarni, C., Mumme, D.L., & Campos, J.J. (1998). Emotional development: Action, communication, and

understanding. In W. Damon (Ed.), & N. Eisenberg, Handbook of Child Psychology, Vol. 3, (5th

Ed.), Social, emotional and personality development (pp. 237-309). New York: Wiley.

Sameroff, A. J., & Emde, R. N. (Eds.) (1989). Relationship disturbances in early childhood: A

developmental approach. New York: Basic Books.

Sandoval. M., Lemos, S., & Vallejo, Y.G. (2006). Self-reported competences and problems in Spanish

adolescents: A normative study of the YSR. Psicothema, 18 (4), 804-809.

Sapolsky, R. M. (2007). Stress, stress-related disease, and emotional regulation. In J. J. Gross (Ed.)

Handbook of emotion regulation. New York: Guilford Press

Sartorius, N., Davidian, H., Ernberg, G., Fenton, E, Fuki, I., Gastpar, M., Gulbinat, W., Jablensky, A.,

Kielholz, P., Kehmann, H., Naraghi, M., Shimizu, N., Shinfuku, N., & Takahashi, R. (1983).

Depressive disorders in different cultures: Report on the WHO Collaborative Study on

Standardized Assessment of Depressive Disorders. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health

Organization.

Scherer, K.R. (1977). The role of culture in emotion-antecedent appraisal. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 73(5), 902-922.


Schwartz, S. H. (2004).Mapping and interpreting cultural differences around the world. In H. Vinken, J.

Soeters & P. Ester (Eds). Comparing Cultures. Dimension of Culture in a Comparative

Perspective. Leiden. The Netherland: Brill

Schwartz, S. H., & Bardi, A. (2001). Value hierarchies across cultures: Taking a similarities

perspective. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32, 268-290.

Segrin, C. (2000). Social skills deficits associated with depression. Clinical Psychology Review, 20 (3),

379-403.

Seligman, M. E. P., Castellon, C., Cacciola, J., Schulman, P., Luborsky, L., Ollove, M., et al. (1988).

Explanatory style change during cognitive therapy for unipolar depression. Journal of Abnormal


Shavelson, R. L., & Bolus, R. (1982). Self-concept: The interplay of theory and methods. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 74(1), 3-17.

Shaver K.G., & Drown D. (1986). On causality, responsibility, and self-blame: A theoretical note.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 697-702.

Shaver, P.R., & Mikulincer, M. (2002). Attachment-related psychodynamics. Attachment and Human

Development, 4, 133-161.

Shweder, R. A. (1991). Thinking through cultures-Expeditions in cultural psychology. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press.

Shweder, R. A., & Sullivan, M. A (1993). Cultural psychology: Who needs it? Annual Review of



Singelis, T. M., & BROWN, W. J. (1995). Culture, self, and collectivist communication: Linking culture to

individual behavior. Human Communication Research, 21, 354-389.

Singh-Manoux, A., & Finkenauer, C. (2001). Cultural variations in social sharing of emotions - An

intercultural perspective. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32 (6) 647.

Skinner, E. A., & Zimmer-Gembeck, M. J. (2007). The development of coping. Annual Review of


Snyder, J. J. (1977). Reinforcement analysis of interaction in problem and non-problem families. Journal

of Abnormal Psychology, 86, 528-535.

Southam-Gerow, M. A., & Kendall, P. C. (2002). Emotion regulation and understanding: Implications for

child psychopathology and therapy. Clinical Psychology Review, 22, 189–222.

Sroufe, L. A. (1996). Emotional development: The organization of emotional life in the early years. New

York: Cambridge University Press.

Sroufe, L. A., & Rutter, M. (1984). The domain of developmental psychopathology. Child Development,

55, 17–29.

STANGER, C., LEWIS, M., Clin, J. (1993). Agreement among parents, teachers and children on

internalizing and externalizing behavior problems. J Clin Child Psychol, 22:107–115

Stiensmeier-Pelster, J., Schürmann, M., & Duda, K. (2000). Depressions-Inventar für Kinder und

Jugendliche (DIKJ), 2. überarbeitete und neunormierte Auflage. Göttingen: Hogrefe.

Stone, A. A., & Neale, J. M. (1984). Effects of severe daily events on mood. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 46, 137-144.


Super, C. M., & Harkness, S. (1986). The developmental niche: A conceptualization at the interface of

child and culture. International Journal of Behavior Development, 9, 545–569.

Suveg, C., & Zeman, J. (2004). Emotion regulation in anxiety disordered children. Journal of Clinical Child

and Adolescent Psychology, 33, 750–759. doi:10.1207/s15374424jccp3304_10.

Taylor, S. E. (2009). Health Psychology (7th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Taylor, S. E., Sherman, D. K., Kim, H. S., Jarcho, J., Takagi, K., & Dunagan, M. S. (2004). Culture and social

support: Who seeks it and why? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 354-362

Tennant, C. (2002). Life events, stress, and depression: A review of recent findings. Australian and New

Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 36, 173-182.

Thompson, R. A. (1990). Emotion and self-regulation. In R. A. Thompson (Ed.), Socioemotional

development. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 36, pp. 367-467. Lincoln: University of

Nebraska Press.

Thompson, R. A. (1991). Emotional regulation and emotional development. Educational Psychology

Review, 3, 269-307.

Thompson, R. A. (1994). Emotion regulation: A theme in search of definition. Monographs of the Society

for Research in Child Development, 59, 25–52.

Thompson, R. A., & Meyer, S. (2007). Socialization of emotion regulation in the family. In J. J. Gross (Ed.),

Handbook of emotion regulation (pp. 249–268). New York:

Ting-Toomey, S. (1988). A face negotiation theory. In Y. Y. Kim & W.B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Theory in

intercultural communication (pp. 213-238). Newbury Park, CA: sage.


Toob y, J., & Cosmides, L. (1990). The past explains the present: Emotional adaptations and the structure

of ancestral environments. Ethology and Sociobiology, 11, 375-424.

Tortorella, B. E. (2008). Parent Child Concordance on Children’s Emotion Regulation: Influence of Age,

Gender, and Type of Emotion. The college of William and Mary.

Triandis, H. C. (1989). The self and social behavior in differing cultural contexts. Psychological Review,

96, 506-517.

Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, Co: West view Press.

Triandis, H. C. (1990). Cross-cultural studies of individualism and collectivism. In J. Berman (Ed.),

Nebraska Symposium on motivation, 1989(pp.41-133), Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Triandis, H. C., & Brislin, R. W. (1984). Cross-cultural psychology. American Psychologist, 39, 1006-1016.

Triandis, H.C (1988). Collective versus individualism: A reconceptualization of a basic concept in cross-

cultural social psychology. In G. K. Verma & C. Bagley (Eds.), Cross-cultural studies of personality,

attitudes and cognition (pp. 60-95). London: Macmillan.

Triandis, H.C (1993).Collectivism and individualism as cultural syndromes. Cross- Cultural Research, 27,

155-180.

Triandis, H.C (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Trommsdorff, G. (2006). Development of emotions as organized by culture. ISSBD Newsletter, 49, 1-4.

Trommsdorff, G., & Friedlmeier, W. (1993). Control and responsiveness in Japanese and German

mother-child interactions. Early Development and Parenting, 2, 65-78.


Trommsdorff, G., & Friedlmeier, W. (1999). Emotionale Entwicklung im Kulturvergleich [The cultural

comparison of emotional development]. In W. Friedlmeier & M. Holodynski (Eds.), Emotionale

Entwicklung: Funktion, Regulation und soziokultureller Kontext von Emotionen (pp. 275-293).

Heidelberg: Spektrum.

Trommsdorff, G., & Kornadt, H.J. (2003). Parent-child relations in cross-cultural perspective. In L.

Kuczynski (Ed.), Handbook of dynamics in parent-child relations (pp. 271-306). Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage Publications.

Trommsdorff, G., Friedlmeier, W., & Mayer, B. (2007). Sympathy, distress, and prosocial behavior of

preschool children in four cultures. International Journal of Behavioural Development, 31,284-

293.

Trommsdorff, G., Mishra, R. C, von Suchodoletz, A., Heikamp, T., & Merkel, F. (2006). Emotion regulation

of Indian and German preschool children. Unpublished raw data.

Trommsdorff, G., Rothbaum.F. (2008). Development of Emotion Regulation in Cultural Context.

Regulating Emotions: Culture, Social Necessity, and Biological Inheritance / Marie

Vandekerckhove. (Eds). Malden: Blackwell, pp. 85-120

Trosper, S.E., Buzzella, B.A., Bennett, S.M., & Ehrenreich, J.T. (2009). Emotion regulation in youth with

emotional disorders: Implications for a Unified approach. Clin Child Fam Psychol Rev, 12(3), 234-

54.

Tweed, R. G., White, K., & Lehman, D.R. (2004). Internally- and externally- targeted control strategies of

European Canadians, East Asian Canadians and Japanese. Journal of Cross- Cultural Psychology,

35, 652-668.


Vahedi, S., Mostafafi, F., & Mortazanajad, H. (2009). Self-Regulation and dimensions of parenting styles

predict psychological procrastination of undergraduate students. Iranian Journal of Psychiatry,

4:147-154.

Van Wijk-Herbrink M., Andrea H., & Verhuel R. (2011). Cognitive coping and defense styles in

patients with personality disorders. Journal of Personality Disorders, 25(5), 634-644.

Verhulst, F. C, Achenbach,T. M., van der Ende, J., Erol, N., Lambert, M. C., Leung, P. W. L., Silva, M.A .,

Zilber, N ., & Zubrick, S. R. (2003). Comparisons of problems reported by youths from seven

countries. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 160, 1479-1485.

doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.160.8.1479.

Verhulst. F.C.,& van der Ende. J. (1992). Agreement between parents’ reports and adolescents’ self-

reports of problem behavior. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 33, 1011–1023.

Warren, S. L., Huston, L., Egeland, B., & Sroufe, L. A. (1997). Child and adolescent anxiety disorders and

early attachment. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 36, 637–

644.

Wegner, D. M., & Bargh, J. A. (1998). Control and automaticity in social life. In D. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G.

Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (4th ed., pp. 446--496). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Weisz, J.R., McCarty, C. A., Eastman, K.L., Chaiyasit, W., & Suwanlert, S. (1997). Developmental

psychopathology and culture: Ten lessons from Thailand. In S. Luthar, J. Burack, D. Cicchetti, and

J.Weisz. (Eds), Developmental Psychopathology: Perspectives and adjustment, risk, and disorder

(pp, 568-92) Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Wicks-Nelson, R., & Israel, A. C. (1997). Behavior disorders of childhood (3rd ed.). USA: Prentice Hall.


Wong Kai Yan, M. (2009). A cultural comparison of cognitive emotion regulation strategies: Moderation

of Cultural Values on Psychological Well-Being. City university of Hong Kong: Submitted in

Department of Social Science.

Wood, J. J., McLeod, B. D., Sigman, M., Hwang, W., & Chu, B. C. (2003). Parenting and childhood anxiety:

Theory, empirical findings, and future directions. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 44,

134–151. doi: 10.1111/1469-7610.00106

Yousefi, Z., Bahrami, F., Mehrabi, H. A. (2008). Rumination: beginning and continuous of depression.

Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 2 (1), 67-73.

Zahn-Waxler, C., Shirtcliff, E. A., & Marceau, K. (2008). Disorders of childhood and adolescence. Gender

and psychopathology. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 4, 275–303.

Zeman, J., Shipman, K., & Suveg, C. (2002). Anger and Sadness Regulation: Predictions to Internalizing

and Externalizing Symptoms in Children. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 31,

393–398.

Zhu, X., Auerbach, R., Yao, S., Abela, J, R, Z., & Tong, X. (2008). Psychometric properties of the Cognition

Emotion Regulation Questionnaire: Chinese version. Cognitive & Emotion, 22, 288-307.

Žukauskienė, R., Pilkauskaitė-Valickienė, R., Malinauskienė1, O., & Kratavičienė, R. (2004). Evaluating

behavioral and emotional problems with the Child Behavior Checklist and Youth Self-Report

scales: cross-informant and longitudinal associations. MEDICINA 40 (2).


Appendix

Index of Appendixes 1. Parenting Scale (PS)

2. Cognitive Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (CERQ)

3. Children Emotion Management Scale (CEMS)

4. Youth Self Report (YSR)

5. Child Behavior Check List (CBCL)

6. Children Depression Inventory (CDI)

are dysfunctional strategies in emotion regulation, risk

Documents