Influential Factors of Emotional Display Rules in Chinese Adolescents

doi:10.4236/psych.2012.36072

Paper Menu >>

Journal Menu >>

Psychology

2012. Vol.3, No.6, 504-506

Published Online June 2012 in SciRes (http://www.SciRP.org/journal/psych) http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/psych.2012.36072

504

Influential Factors of Emotional Display Rules in Chinese

Adolescents*

Yifang Wang#, Xue Liu, Lixia Cui

Beijing Key Laboratory of Learning and Cognition, Department of Psychology,

Capital Normal University, Beijing, China

Email: #[email protected]

Received March 16th, 2012; revised April 9th, 2012; accepted May 11th, 2012

To explore the influential factors of emotional display rules in Chinese adolescents, 119 participants

(male 66, female 53) were selected from a junior high school in Beijing. Ten life events associated with

emotional display rules were used to comprehensively examine the effects of emotional type (positive/

negative), interactive partners (parents/peers), other-involved/self-involved and gender. Results indicated

that in the positive contexts, adolescents applied more EDR in front of peers than parents, while in the

negative contexts their performances were similar in front of the two kinds of interactive partners. All the

participants used more EDR in negative contexts than positive contexts. Compared with other-involved

situations, they applied more EDR in self-involved situations. Girls used more EDR than boys.

Keywords: Adolescents; Emotional Display Rules; Emotional Types; Interactive Partners;

Other-/Self/Involved; Gender

Introduction

The expression of emotion is likely to vary depending on so-

cial expectation in specific social environment, which is called

“emotional display rules (EDR)” proposed firstly by Ekman

and Friesen (See Hou & Yu, 2006). The findings indicated that

there was a good relationship between individuals’ ability to

apply EDR and social abilities (Jones, Abbey, & Cumber 1998;

McDowell & Parke, 2000). Underwood (1992) found that com-

pared with non-aggressive primary students, aggressive indi-

viduals used less EDR to disguise their anger.

The application of EDR started from preschool age and rap-

idly developed during primary school age. Cole (1986) found

through natural observation that 4 year-old girls could apply

EDR in upset situations. The findings of Shipman and Zeman

(2001) indicated that 6 year-old children were skilled at distin-

guishing facial expressions and inner experiences. The indi-

viduals’ knowledge on EDR increased from age 6 to 10 (Gnepp

& Hess, 1986). Underwood (1992) also demonstrated that 10

year-olds performed better than 8 year-olds on regulating outer

emotional expressions, but there were no differences between

10 year-olds and 13 year-olds. These results suggested that in-

dividuals’ knowledge of EDR increased with age and stabilized

in high grade of primary school.

The development of EDR was influenced by many factors

including gender, emotional ty pes and interactive partners. Ma ny

researchers found that girls’ ability to apply EDR was better

than boys of the same age (Underwood, Coie, & Herbsman,

1992; Jones, Abbey, & Cumberl, 1998; Garrett-Peters & Fox,

2007). Boys expressed more negative emotions when receiving

unflavored presents, while girls expressed more positive emo-

tions (Saarni, 1984). However, some researches demonstrated

no gender differences (Gnepp & Hess, 1986; McDowell & Par-

ke, 2000).

The types of emotion included positive and negative ones.

Most researchers focused on children’s application of EDR in

negative emotional contexts (Saarni, 1984; Zeman & Garber,

1996; Garrett-Peters & Fox, 2007). However, in real life, some-

times people need disguising their positive emotions. Harris

(1986) compared the performances of children on EDR in both

positive and negative emotional contexts, and found that chil-

dren applied EDR more frequently in negative contexts. How-

ever, the findings of McDowell and Parke (2000) demonstrated

no differences existed between the types of emotional contexts.

Children’s applying EDR varied with different interactive

partners. Underwood (1992) demonstrated that children were

more likely to disguise their angers facing teachers than peers.

Moreover, children adopted more emotional regulating beha-

viors facing peers than parents (Zeman & Garber, 1996). Be-

sides, the application of EDR included self-involved and other-

involved situations. Individuals were more sensitive to emo-

tions in self-involved situations (Wang & Su, 2008).

According to the findings of previous studies, children ac-

quired the knowledge of EDR at the age of 10. So adolescents

possessed a good ability of EDR. Then whether the perfor-

mances of adolescents on EDR were still influenced by those

factors was in doubt. The present research aimed at exploring

comprehensively the effects of these factors: gender, emotion

types (positive/negative), interactive partners (parents/peers)

and self-involved or other-involved situations on adolescents’

EDR.

Methods and Procedures

*This research was supported by Project of National Natural Science Foun-

dation of China [30900407 to Yifang Wang], Project of Humanities and Social

Science Fund of Chinese Education Ministry [09YJCXLX023 to Yifang Wang

and Project of Beijing Government [PHR201007109 to Ping Fang].

#Correspo n ding author.

Participants

The participants consisted of 119 students from a junior mi-

Y. F. WANG ET AL.

ddle school in Beijing (66 male, 53 female). One hundred and

sixteen students completed the measurement. The percentage of

validity was 97.48%.

Measures

We collected life events in adolescent period by interviews

and literature references. Ten typical life events including 5

positive and 5 negative emotional contexts associated with

EDR were selected and rewritten according to Josephs (1994)

and Jones, Abbey, and Cumberl (1998). Because of different in-

teractive partners (parents/peers) and other-involved or self-

involved situations, 10 typical contexts generated 40 situations

associated with EDR.

For example, Lin Ming’s birthday is coming. His dream pre-

sent from parents is a car model. However, he receives a pre-

sent which he does not like. What will Lin Ming do?

A. display sad facia l expression

B. feel sad, but display calm facial expression

C. feel sad, but display happy facial expression

D. others

If you were him, what would you do?

A. display sad facia l expression

B. feel sad, but display calm facial expression

C. feel sad, but display happy facial expression

D. others

If participants chose A, it represented that they didn’t use

EDR. If they chose B or C, it represented their use of EDR.

Participants who chose D were encoded into two categories by

two undergraduates majoring in psychology: participants with

the use of EDR or not. The kappa was .87***. Using EDR

scored 1, while not using EDR scored 0.

Results

The performance of applying emotional display rules in ado-

lescents was shown in Table 1. A 2 (emotional types) × 2 (in-

teractive partners) × 2 (other-involved/self-involved) × 2 (gen-

der) repeated measure ANOVA was conducted. It yielded sig-

nificant interactions among emotional types, interactive partners,

and other-involved/self-involved situations, F (1,114) = 8.33, p

< .01, η2 = .07, and between emotional types and interactive

partners, F (1,114) = 8.52, p < .01, η2 = .07. It also yielded

significant main effects of emotional types, F (1,114) = 188.53,

p < .01, η2 = .62, interactive partners, F (1,114) = 5.85, p < .05,

η2 = .05, other-involved/ self-involved situations, F (1,114) =

13.97, p < .01, η2 = .11, and gender , F (1,114) = 10.74, p < .01,

η2 = .09.

Simple effect analysis was done to explain the significant in-

teractions among emotion types, interactive partners and self-

involved or other-involved situations. In positive emotional co-

texts, participants applied more EDR in front of peers than

parents in self-involved situation, t (115) = –3.40, p < .01, and

in other-involved situation, t (115) = –2.16, p < .05. While in

negative emotional contexts, no significant differences existed

between two kinds of interactive partners both in self-involved

situations, t (115) = 1.19, p > .05, and in other-involved situa-

tions, t (115) = –1.43, p > .05.

Discussion

In the positive contexts, adolescents applied more EDR in

front of peers than parents, while in negative contexts, their

Table 1.

The performance of applying emotional display rules in adolescents

(M(SD)).

Parents Peers

Gender Emotion Other (0 - 5)Self (0 - 5) Other (0 - 5)Self (0 - 5)

N 3.30 (1.34)3.80 (1.29) 3.12 (1.54)4.01 (1.12)

B P 1.62 (1.53)2.19 (1.52) 1.83 (1.49)2.28 (1.49)

N 4.17 (1.05)4.24 (1.01) 4.12 (1.21)4.25 (1.11)

G P 1.86 (1.56)2.29 (1.74) 2.49 (1.38)2.78 (1.57)

performances were similar in front of the two kinds of interac-

tive partners. All the participants used more EDR in negative

contexts than in positive contexts. Compared with other-in-

volved situations, they applied more EDR in self-involved

situations. Girls used more EDR than boys.

The results indicated that the effects of interactive partners

on adolescent’s application of EDR were moderated by emo-

tional types. Zeman and Garber (1996) found individuals’ emo-

tional expressions were influenced by degree of familiarity and

sense of subordinating to elders or superiors. Although peers

are increasingly important to individuals in early adolescence,

the high familiarity and subordinate sense with their parents can

still not go beyond. Adolescents and their parents are the com-

munity of interests. When faced with positive events, they are

unconsciously willing to share with each other. However, peers

are different from parents though adolescents spend more time

with peers. Establishment and maintenance of peer relationship

is an important life event for them. To get a better peer rela-

tionship, sometimes they disguise their positive emotions in

front of peers in order to put little pressure on them. Take a

scenario for example. “In an athlete meeting, Lin Min won the

first prize, while his friends got nothing.” Lin Min would try to

apply EDR to disguise their positive emotions perhaps because

he worried about giving his peers too much pressures or get

peers jealous of him.

Zeman and Garber found that in angry and sad contexts,

primary students applied more EDR in front of peers than par-

ents, which was inconsistent with our results. Liu and Fang

(2007) demonstrated that 4 - 6 year-old children had a better

understanding of situations interacting with peers than old gen-

erations, regardless of the types of emotions. Perhaps the dif-

ferent ages of participants accounted for the inconsistency of

various findings. Seidel et al. (2010) indicated that happiness

positively correlated with approaching intendancy, while anger

positively correlated with avoidance intendancy. Individuals

applied EDR in order to communicate with others more effec-

tively. Adolescents expected receiving “respects like an adult”

and smooth interpersonal relationship, so they were more likely

to express positive feelings as well as deducting negative feel-

ings.

Consistent with previous findings, we also found that com-

pared with boys, girls were more likely to apply EDR. It could

be of large possibility due to socialization of different gender

roles. In most cultures, parents had different social expectations

towards boys and girls. Girls should be more quiet and consid-

erate. Thus, parents tolerated more boys’ emotional expressions

and asked girls to control their emotions. Cole (2005) suggested

that parents focused more on girls’ obedient emotions and

boy’s discordant emotions. The degree of parents’ selective

Y. F. WANG ET AL.

506

concentrations on specific emotions was related to children’s

later expression of specific emotions.

The results indicated that participants applied more EDR in

self-involved than other-involved situations. Wang and Su

(2008) demonstrated that individuals’ emotional experiences

were more sensitive in self-involved situations. Self-served

biased attribution existed widely in population of different cul-

tures (Mezulis, Abramson, Hy de, & Hankin, 2004). Hence, ado-

lescents made the judgments with different standards in self-

involved and other-involved situations. In self-involved situa-

tions, they would protect themselves, while in other-involved

situation, they would become more objective.

REFERENCES

Chaplin, T. M., Cole, P. M., & Zahn-Waxler, C. (2005). Parental so-

cialization of emotion expression: Gender differences and relations

to child adjustm ent. Emotion, 5, 80-88.

doi:10.1037/1528-3542.5.1.80

Cole, P. M. (1986). Children’s spontaneous control of facial expression.

Child Development, 57, 1309-1321. doi:10.2307/1130411

Garrett-Peters, P. T., & Fox, N. A. (2007). Cross-cultural differences in

children’s emotional reactions to a disappointing situation. Interna-

tional Journal of Behavioral Development, 31, 161-169.

doi:10.1177/0165025407074627

Gnepp, J., & Hess, D. L. (1986). Children’s understanding of verbal

and facial display rules. Developmental Psychology, 22, 103-108.

doi:10.1037/0012-1649.22.1.103

Harris, P. L., Donnelly, K., Guz, G. R., & Pitt-Watson, R. (1986). Chil-

dren’s understanding of the distinction between real and apparent

emotion. Child Development, 57, 895-909. doi:10.2307/1130366

Hou, R. H., & Yu, G. L. (2006). Children’s understanding of emotional

display rules and use of strategies. Psychological Science (in Chi-

nese), 29, 18-21.

Jones, D. C., Abbey, B. B., & Cumberl, A. (1998). The Development of

display rule knowledge: Linkages with family expressiveness and

social competence. Child Development, 69, 1209-1222.

Josephs, I. E. (1994). Display rule behavior and understanding in pre-

school children. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 18, 301-326.

doi:10.1007/BF02172291

Liu, Y. J., & Fang, F. X. (2007). Research on the development of un-

derstanding of the situation using emotion display rules in 4- to 6-

year-old children (in Chinese). Chinese Journal of Behavioral Medi-

cal Science (in Chinese), 16, 241-243.

McDowell, D. J., & Parke, R. D. (2000). Differential knowledge of

display rules for positive and negative emotions: Influences from

parents, influences on peers. Social Development, 9, 415-432.

doi:10.1111/1467-9507.00136

Mezulis, A. H., Abramson, L. Y., Hyde, J. S., & Hankin, B. L. (2004).

Is there a universal positivity bias in attribution? A meta-analytic re-

view of individual, developmental, and cultural differences in the

self-serving attri b utional bias. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 711-747.

doi:10.1037/0033-2909.130.5.711

Saarni, C. (1984). An observational study of children’s attempts to

monitor their expressive behavior. Child Development, 55, 1504-

1513. doi:10.2307/1130020

Seidel, E. M., Ute, H., & Michaela, K. (2010). The impact of facial

emotional expressions on behavioral tendencies in women and men.

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Per-

formance, 36, 500-507. doi:10.1037/a0018169

Shipman, K., & Zeman, J. (2001). Socialization of children’s emotion

regulation in mother-child dyads: A developmental psychopathology

perspective. Developmental psychology and Psychopathology, 13,

317-336.

Underwood, M. K., Coie, J. D., & Herbsman, C. R. (1992). Display

rules for anger and aggression in school-age children. Child Devel-

opment, 63, 366-380. doi:10.2307/1131485

Wan g, Y. F., & Su, Y. J. (2008). The developmental characteristics of 5 -

8-year-olds’ faux pas detection and understanding. Psychological

Science, 31, 324-327.

Zeman, J. & Garber, J. (1996). Display rules for anger, sadness, and

pain: It depends on who is watching. Child Development, 67, 957-

973. doi:10.2307/1131873