Socio-emotional regulation in children with intellectual disability and typically developing children in interactive contexts

ALTER, European Journal of Disability Research 6 (2012) 75–93

Disponible en ligne sur www.sciencedirect.com

et également disponible sur www.em-consulte.com

Original article

Socio-emotional regulation in children with intellectual disability and typically developing children in interactive contexts夽 Régulation socio-émotionnelle d’enfants présentant une déficience intellectuelle et d’enfants tout-venant en contextes interactifs Céline Baurain , Nathalie Nader-Grosbois ∗ Catholic University of Louvain, Chair Baron Frère in Special Education, Institute of Psychological Sciences, 10, place Cardinal-Mercier, 1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 2 May 2011 Accepted 18 January 2012 Available online 30 March 2012 Keywords: Emotion regulation Social behavior Dyadic play Intellectual disability

a b s t r a c t This study examined similarities versus differences in socioemotional regulation in 45 children with intellectual disabilities compared to 45 typically developing children, matched for developmental age (ranging from 3 to 6 years). The impact of children’s characteristics (chronological age and developmental age), of three types of dyadic context (neutral with an adult, competitive or cooperative with a peer) and of three temporal sequences in dyadic interactive play on socio-emotional regulation was studied. The results showed that the children with intellectual disabilities did not express or regulate their emotions less than the typically developing children but they displayed less social behavior. In both groups, socio-emotional regulation varied depending on the context, on the sequence and on some children’s characteristics. The mean scores of socio-emotional regulation in competitive and cooperative contexts (when the target-child played with a peer) were higher than the mean score in a neutral context (when the

夽 This study was supported by the Scientific Fund of Research of the Catholic University of Louvain and by the Fund of Chair Baron Frère in Special Education. ∗ Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (N. Nader-Grosbois). 1875-0672/$ – see front matter © 2012 Association ALTER. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.alter.2012.02.001

76

C. Baurain, N. Nader-Grosbois / ALTER, European Journal of Disability Research 6 (2012) 75–93

target-child played with an adult). In the group with intellectual disabilities, the children’s emotional expressions in a competitive context and their behavior towards social rules in a neutral context varied depending on their chronological age. In both groups, several behavioral categories of socio-emotional regulation in the different contexts varied depending on the children’s developmental age. © 2012 Association ALTER. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.

r é s u m é Mots clés : Régulation émotionnelle Comportement social Jeu dyadique Déficience intellectuelle

Cette étude a examiné les similitudes versus différences en régulation socio-émotionnelle de 45 enfants avec déficience intellectuelle comparés à 45 enfants tout-venant, appariés selon leur âge de développement (allant de trois à six ans). L’impact de leurs caractéristiques individuelles (âge chronologique et âge de développement), de trois types de contexte dyadique (neutre avec un adulte, compétitive ou coopérative avec un pair) et de trois séquences temporelles de résolution de problèmes en dyade sur la régulation socio-émotionnelle a été étudié. Les résultats ont montré que les enfants avec déficience intellectuelle n’expriment pas et ne régulent pas moins leurs émotions que les enfants toutvenant mais ils manifestent moins de comportements sociaux. Pour les deux groupes, la régulation socio-émotionnelle a varié selon les contextes, les séquences ainsi que parfois selon certaines caractéristiques des enfants. Les scores moyens en régulation socio-émotionnelle en contexte compétitif et coopératif (quand l’enfant-cible joue avec un pair) sont plus élevés que ceux obtenus en contexte neutre (quand l’enfant-cible joue avec un adulte). Dans le groupe avec déficience intellectuelle, leur expression émotionnelle en contexte compétitif et leur comportement à l’égard des règles sociales en contexte neutre ont varié selon leur âge chronologique. Pour les deux groupes, plusieurs catégories de régulation socio-émotionnelle dans différents contextes ont varié selon l’âge développemental des enfants. © 2012 Association ALTER. Publié par Elsevier Masson SAS. Tous droits réservés.

Introduction This study examined socio-emotional regulation in children with intellectual disabilities compared to typically developing children matched for developmental age (ranging from 3 to 6 years). Our research is based on a heuristic model of social skills in childhood developed by Yeates et al. (2007). Three levels are distinguished in this model: (1) social information processing; (2) social interactions; and (3) social adjustment in social relationships (Rubin et al., 2006). As children’s socio-emotional behaviors will be observed in this study during interactions with others and could vary depending on the context (competitive, cooperative or neutral) and the persons with whom they interact (adult or peer), we considered that socio-emotional regulation is situated at the level of social interactions in this model. According to Gross (2002) (p. 282), “Emotion regulation refers to the processes by which individuals influence which emotions they have, when they have them, and how they experience and express these emotions”. Emotion regulation includes the mobilization of various strategies that individuals use to modify the course and the expression of emotional experiences (Cole et al., 2004; Davidson et al., 2000; Dennis, 2007; Garber and Dodge, 1991; Gross, 1998; Schore, 1994; Thompson, 1994). In other words, these processes allow them to estimate, control and modify spontaneous emotional responses (verbal or non-verbal), their intensity and their duration in order to achieve

C. Baurain, N. Nader-Grosbois / ALTER, European Journal of Disability Research 6 (2012) 75–93

77

their prioritized goals (Eisenberg et al., 2001; Feng et al., 2008; Galyer and Evans, 2001; Tamir, 2011; Thompson, 2011). Emotion regulation represents an inter-individual process (Eisenberg and Fabes, 1992; Eisenberg et al., 1995, 1997, 2000; Fabes et al., 1999; Rydell et al., 2003; Walden and Smith, 1997) that facilitates adjustment to one’s social environment (Feng et al., 2008; Thompson, 1994), and also an intra-individual process which in particular involves control processes (Dumas and Lebeau, 1998; Garitte, 2003; Stein et al., 2008). As emotional regulation behaviors in different interactive contexts include both individual and social processes, and as we take into account how children regulate their emotional and social behavior, we designate these processes “socio-emotional regulation”. Concerning the children with intellectual disabilities, several reasons justify the interest of studying their socio-emotional regulation. First, according to the diagnostic criteria of the intellectual disability defined by American Association Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (AAIDD, 2009), there are limitations of intellectual and adaptive functioning. In order to gain a detailed understanding of social maladjustment in children with intellectual disabilities and to improve the intervention about their socialization, it is necessary to know how they develop their emotion regulation, how they use language to regulate their emotions and whether their development is delayed or different in comparison with typically developing children presenting similar developmental age (as suggested by McClure et al., 2009). It requires referring to the distinction between developmental delay hypothesis versus difference hypothesis about the development in children with intellectual disabilities compared to typically developing children (Flanagan et al., 2008; Hodapp et al., 1990; Zigler and Balla, 1982). Secondly, the recent literature about typically developing preschoolers emphasized the potential impact of their emotional regulation on the development of social interactive skills and the quality of social relationships with the peers and the adults. As early cognitive and communicative deficits in children with intellectual disabilities impede their opportunities of social interactions, their interpersonal relationships with peers and adults, they could have less opportunities to regulate their positive, negative emotions and to exercise skills of social adjustment. In brief, the study of these socio-emotional processes in children with intellectual disabilities functioning at a level of development corresponding to the preschool age, can be relevant to refine both the knowledge on the subject and to improve differential diagnosis, prevention of secondary incapacities and specialized intervention. As developmental delay has been reported in their understanding of causes and of consequences of emotions (Thirion-Marissiaux and Nader-Grosbois, 2008) and in some aspects of their emotional expression (Brun and Mellier, 2004; Fidler, 2006; Jahromi et al., 2008; Nader-Grosbois et al., 2006), it seems appropriate to examine whether they have abilities or deficits in regulating their socioemotional behaviors or responses. Their deficits in social information processing, including emotion recognition (Pochon et al., 2006; Wishart et al., 2007; Zabalia and Corfec, 2008) and their deficits in executive functions which imply difficulties with self-control, self-regulation and inhibition (Anderson et al., 2001; Edgin, 2003; Nader-Grosbois, 2007) could influence their emotion regulation. However, as children with intellectual disabilities show variable levels of distinct self-regulatory strategies in cognitive problem-solving and in play situations (e.g. interactive play with an adult, Nader-Grosbois, 2007; Nader-Grosbois and Lefèvre, 2011; or pretend play with peers, Vieillevoye and Nader-Grosbois, 2008, 2009; Nader-Grosbois and Vieillevoye, 2011) rather than an overall deficit in self-regulation, it could be also the case for their emotion regulation. Most of the studies on this process have centered on children with other developmental disorders such as autism spectrum disorders (Gulsrud et al., 2010), externalized or internalized behavior disorder (Eisenberg et al., 2001; Kim et al., 2007) and bipolar disorder (McClure-Tone, 2009). Too few studies have focused on socio-emotional regulation in children with intellectual disabilities particularly during social interactions (Baurain and Nader-Grosbois, 2009a, 2009b, 2011a, submitted). The case study led by Baurain and Nader-Grosbois (2009a) emphasized a lower socio-emotional regulation in a child with intellectual disabilities compared with a typically developing child (matched for developmental age), although they regulated their emotional and social behavior in variable way depending the interactive play contexts. In our present study, we focus on the manner in which children with intellectual disabilities and typically developing children regulate emotional expressions, responses and social behaviors (including behavior towards social rules, pro-social behavior, behavior

78

C. Baurain, N. Nader-Grosbois / ALTER, European Journal of Disability Research 6 (2012) 75–93

with respect to the task) when they play in a dyadic interactive game conceived to induce alternatively positive versus negative emotions in different temporal sequences in three types of contexts (cooperative, competitive, neutral) (see methodological details in Baurain and Nader-Grosbois, 2007, 2011b, 2011c). Moreover, this study targets typically developing children and children with intellectual disabilities who are functioning at the symbolic period of development, or presenting a developmental age from 3 to 6 years because it is possible to observe progression in socio-emotional regulation that leads to significant effects on their socio-adaptive behavior, particularly on positive interactions with peers (Cole et al., 2004, 2009; Dennis, 2006, 2007; Dennis and Kelemen, 2009a; Dennis et al., 2009b; Eisenberg and Fabes, 1992; Eisenberg et al., 1995, 1997; Fabes et al., 1999; Reider et al., 2007; Spinrad et al., 2006). From the age of 2 years, typically developing children begin to be aware of their own emotions and those of others, and by the age of about 4 years they discover effective strategies for emotional control for the benefit of their social interactions with peers and adults (Macklem, 2008; Perron and Gosselin, 2004, 2009). By the end of the symbolic period, typically developing children can use various strategies of emotion regulation, such as regulating the expression of emotions, comforting themselves, self-distracting by redirecting their attention away from whatever is stressing them or doing something else, managing their frustration, inhibiting socially inappropriate emotional behaviors, deferring their expectations, withdrawing from situations, negotiating with others, using language to communicate emotions, anticipating another person’s emotion, or talking comfortably about emotions (Dennis and Kelemen, 2009a; Kalpidou et al., 2004; Macklem, 2008; Scharfe, 2000; Stansbury and Sigman, 2000). The literature did not specify whether children with intellectual disabilities progress similarly in their socio-emotional regulation and whether the progression depends on their length of life experience, their chronological age or on their cognitive maturation, their developmental age (including their level of verbal intelligence). In order to investigate this question of similarities versus differences in socio-emotional regulation in children with intellectual disabilities in comparison with typically developing children, it is essential to differentiate the impact of their chronological and developmental ages respectively on this process and to examine its inter-contextual and inter-situational variability. Consequently, it needs to select adapted method to assess this ability in children with intellectual disabilities and typically developing children situating in this developmental period. Several studies focusing on emotion regulation have used questionnaires completed by parents and/or teachers of typically developing preschoolers (Adams Dillon, 2009; Eisenberg et al., 2001; Graziano et al., 2007; Kalpidou et al., 2004; Rydell et al., 2003). Such measurements take the form of a checklist of items to be scored according to a Likert scale, such as the Emotion Regulation Checklist (ERC, Shields and Cicchetti, 1997) or the Emotional Regulation Rating Scale (ERRS, Carlson and Wang, 2007). Other studies have involved direct observations of preschoolers’ behavior, focusing on persistence in problem-solving and both behavioral and emotional regulation during a task such as the “Transparent box task” or the “Impossibly perfect circles task” (Goldsmith and Rothbart, 1996) which induces frustration or anger (Cole et al., 2009; Dennis, 2006; Dennis and Kelemen, 2009a; Eisenberg et al., 2001; Feng et al., 2008; Hill et al., 2006; Kalpidou et al., 2004). Others still have performed direct observations in an interactive context (Baurain and Nader-Grosbois, 2009a, 2009b, 2011a, 2011b, 2011c, submitted; Galyer and Evans, 2001; Gulsrud et al., 2010; Herbé et al., 2007; Hughes et al., 2000; Mirabile et al., 2009). In some studies, emotion regulation in preschoolers has been observed in play contexts, such as pretend play with peers or parents, and the results have shown that emotion regulation and understanding of emotions contribute significantly to children’s emotional competences with peers (Adams Dillon, 2009; Fabes et al., 1999; Galyer and Evans, 2001; Lindsey and Colwell, 2003). Galyer and Evans (2001) reported that the level of involvement in pretend play by preschoolers with their parents was positively linked with their competence in emotion regulation. In order to observe emotion regulation, researchers have often designed situations eliciting negative emotions and analyzed the child’s persistence in problem-solving, frustration, and expressive behavior or emotion regulation strategies. However, most such studies have observed socio-emotional regulation in one type of context only, and this has limited the opportunity to consider its inter-contextual variability. As children’s goals for emotion regulation may differ depending on the context (Thompson, 2011) and as their goal may vary depending on the person with whom they are interacting (adult or peer) (Campos et al., 2011), it is

C. Baurain, N. Nader-Grosbois / ALTER, European Journal of Disability Research 6 (2012) 75–93

79

Table 1 Mean scores, standard deviation and ranges of chronological and developmental age in months. Groups

Chronological age Developmental age Verbal developmental age Non-verbal developmental age

With intellectual disabilities (n = 45)

Typically developing (n = 45)

M (SD)

Range

M (SD)

Range

110.02 (21.98) 56.41 (10.99) 56.95 (12.71) 55.41 (12.57)

[67; 163] [38.5; 77.6] [33; 83] [38.2; 85]

54.41 (11.28) 56.50 (13.2) 56.15 (13.16) 56.9 (15.24)

[37; 75] [39.2; 80.4] [38; 88.6] [34.3; 88]

M: mean; SD: standard deviation.

methodologically appropriate to observe emotional regulation in distinct contexts and with the adult and peers. The main objective of this study was to test the general hypotheses that socio-emotional regulation is subject to developmental delay or to developmental difference in children with intellectual disabilities compared to typically developing children matched for developmental age, by analyzing similarities versus differences in this process. Specifically, we investigated the following predictions: (1) we predicted that the children with intellectual disabilities should display similar abilities in socio-emotional regulation in comparison with typically developing children matched for their developmental age, supporting the hypothesis of developmental delay of socio-emotional regulation in children with intellectual disabilities. In each group, we expected inter-situational variability of socio-emotional regulation, depending on the type of context and depending on the sequence in dyadic interactive play; (2) we predicted inter-individual variability of socioemotional regulation in each group, depending on their chronological age and their developmental age: we expected that children presenting higher chronological or developmental age would have better socio-emotional regulation than children presenting lower chronological or developmental age. Method Participants The 90 participants were 45 children with intellectual disabilities (IDs) (26 girls, 19 males) and 45 typically developing (TD) children (23 girls, 22 males) who were recruited mainly from Frenchspeaking Belgian special schools and ordinary schools respectively. The participants’ characteristics are presented in Table 1, including mean scores, standard deviations and the ranges for their chronological age (CA) and developmental age (DA). There was no significant difference between the two groups with respect to DA, in spite of a higher mean CA in the group with IDs than in the TD group. These results showed that the participants were well matched for their DA, assessed by means of Differential Scales of Intellectual Efficiency-Revised edition (EDEI-R, Perron-Borelli, 1996). The etiologies of children with IDs were genetic syndromes (five children with Down’s syndrome, one child with Kabuki syndrome, one child with Dandy-Walker syndrome, one child with Williams syndrome, one child with palatine fissure), non-identifiable etiologies, and non-specific retardations due to environmental under-stimulation or pre-, peri- or post-natal complaints (fetal alcohol syndrome, premature birth or placenta praevia). Ninety other children who acted as partners in dyadic games were matched with the targeted children, on the basis on their similar level of school learning. Instruments Dyadic game of socio-emotional problem-solving (Baurain and Nader-Grosbois, 2007) This game aims to put the children in several problem-solving situations in different interactive contexts in order to observe their socio-emotional behaviors in a direct way. The child plays

80

C. Baurain, N. Nader-Grosbois / ALTER, European Journal of Disability Research 6 (2012) 75–93

in three interactive climates: neutral (the child plays only with an adult), competitive and cooperative (the child plays with another child-partner). This game is designed like a Snakes and Ladders game, but it involves socio-emotional problem-solvings (illustrated by pictures) divided up on four possible trajectories. The purpose is to resolve these problems in order to reach the end of the course (represented by a star). The game was designed in order to assess two aspects: (1) variation of socio-emotional regulation in children depending on the interactive context by applying the “coding grid of socio-emotional regulation by sequences” (Baurain and Nader-Grosbois, 2011c); and (2) their performance in socio-emotional problem-solvings (examined in another study, Baurain and NaderGrosbois, submitted). In every context, socio-emotional problem-solving corresponds to identifying the appropriate emotion among four basic emotions (joy, sadness, anger and fear) and identifying the appropriate social behavior from a free choice of possibilities. For each context, the game is divided into three sequences (three problem-solvings per sequence). The design is intended to elicit positive and negative emotions in the children during these distinct sequences of game: notably frustration when they fail or when their partner succeeds, and joy when they succeed or when they progress more than their partner in the game; it creates a situation where the children need to regulate their emotions, their emotional expressions and their socio-emotional behaviors. These behaviors could be managed in different ways by the children depending on the context and the sequence, and could be more or less adjusted depending on these situational aspects (Appendix A, explaining characteristics of the dyadic game of socio-emotional problem-solving, Baurain and Nader-Grosbois, 2011b, 2011c).

Coding grid of socio-emotional regulation by sequences This coding grid was created firstly with reference to behavioral categories in indirect measurements, such as the Emotion Regulation Checklist (ERC, Shields and Cicchetti, 1997), the Emotional Regulation Rating Scale (ERRS, Carlson and Wang, 2007), and the Emotion Regulation Subscale of the Social Competence Scale (Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group, 1999) and in direct measurements (Fabes et al., 1999; Flem et al., 1998; Linder, 1990; Rothbart and Bates, 1998). Secondly, the grid was also based on the analysis of socio-emotional behaviors in several videos showing children playing the dyadic game of socio-emotional problem-solving (Baurain and Nader-Grosbois, 2007). The objective of the coding grid (Appendix B) is to assess variability of socio-emotional regulation depending on three interactive contexts and on three temporal sequences (three problem-solvings per sequence). For example, in the cooperative context, the Sequence 1 induced negative emotions, while the Sequence 3 induced cooperation between children. The grid includes 26 items divided into four categories: Emotional Expressions and Emotional Adaptation; Behavior towards Social Rules; Social Behavior (pro-social behavior and behavior towards the task); and Consciousness and Evocation of Emotion. It takes into account three distinct contexts: the target-child plays with an adult-partner in the neutral context, and with a child-partner in the competitive and cooperative contexts. The coding grid enables behavior to be assessed according to two modalities: verbal and non-verbal. The scoring of 22 items in the first three categories corresponds to the frequency of behavior on a Likert scale (Appendix C). The coding grid is completed for each target-child and each context. Appendix C presents the scoring and the minimum and maximum scores that can be obtained in the coding grid. Category 4, Consciousness and Evocation of Emotion, is scored dichotomously: yes or no. The new methodological design underwent various validation phases, and statistical analyses were performed, firstly in order to verify concordance between judges and the internal structure and consistency of the coding grid, and secondly in order to verify the relevance of assessing performances in socio-emotional problem-solvings in an interactive game (Baurain and Nader-Grosbois, 2011c). For the consensus between the judges, the intra-class correlation coefficient of the total score of the coding grid was .973 (P < .01). A factorial analysis in principal components was forced to four factors, in order to estimate the internal structure of the grid; its corresponds to the categories of the grid. The validation results are detailed in a previous study (Baurain and Nader-Grosbois, 2011c).

C. Baurain, N. Nader-Grosbois / ALTER, European Journal of Disability Research 6 (2012) 75–93

81

Procedure Firstly, intellectual assessment was made in individual sessions in order to evaluate children’s DA. Secondly, dyadic sessions (lasted 20 minutes) were organized with a peer and with an adult in order to observe the children playing with the Dyadic Game of Socio-Emotional Problem-Solving (Baurain and Nader-Grosbois, 2007). The dyadic sessions took place in a quiet room at school and were filmed by a camera placed in front of the child. The examiner/researcher began the first session within a neutral context, then randomly proposed two other sessions (competitive or cooperative with a peer). Thirdly, the examiner/researcher filled the Coding Grid of Socio-Emotional Regulation by Sequences looking at the videos for each target-child and each context. Previously, the examiner was trained to identify verbal and non-verbal cues of emotional expression and the socio-emotional and emotion regulation behaviors described in instruments in the literature and in the grid and had practice to play the game. Results Inter-group and inter-situational variability of socio-emotional regulation Preliminary tests of normality, homogeneity and variance were performed for each score obtained in the coding grid, as well as Mauchly’s sphericity test for each context and sequence. For all contexts, Mauchly’s sphericity test showed significant results (ranging from .74 to .90, P < .001, P < .05). Specifically, for the analyses, Category 1 was divided into Emotional Expressions and Emotional Adaptation. To estimate variability and differences in socio-emotional regulation (for each category) in both groups of children, per context and sequence, repeated measures analyses were conducted. For Emotional Expressions, there is a main effect of contexts (F(2) = 44.32, P < .001). For Social Behavior, there are a main effect of groups (F(1) = 4.75, P < .05), of contexts (F(2) = 75.51, P < .001) and of sequences (F(1.97) = 9.71, P < .001), and an interaction effect for contexts and sequences were obtained (F(3.8) = 4.16, P < .05). Comparisons of paired-sample t-test analyses of socio-emotional regulation scores in each context and each sequence in both groups (Tables 2 and 3) made it possible to specify in which context and in which sequence socio-emotional regulation was better or lower. For Emotional Expressions and Social Behavior, in both groups, the mean scores in competitive and cooperative contexts were higher than the mean score in the neutral context; and the mean score in the cooperative context was higher than the mean score in the competitive context. Only, for Social Behavior, in both groups in the neutral context, the mean score in Sequence 1 was lower than the mean score in Sequence 3. In the group with intellectual disabilities (IDs), in the competitive context, the mean score in Sequence 1 was lower than the mean score in Sequence 2, and in the cooperative context, the mean score in Sequence 2 was higher than the mean score in Sequence 3. In the typically developing (TD) group, in the cooperative context, the mean scores in Sequence 1 were lower than the mean scores in Sequence 2, and the mean scores in Sequence 2 were higher than the mean scores in Sequence 3. For Emotional Expressions and Behavior towards Social Rules, the mean scores in both groups did not differ significantly between sequences (Table 3). To examine the difference between groups in terms of the children’s adaptation of their expressed emotion (joy, sadness, frustration and anger) and in their externalized behavior moderation, the crosstabs command and the exact test of Fisher were conducted. As Table 4 shows, the group with IDs did not adapt less their emotions less or moderate less their externalized behavior than the TD group (P < .05). For Consciousness and Evocation of Emotion, 33% of the TD group evoked negative emotions, compared with 15% of the group with IDs. As Table 5 shows, the intensity of emotions during the game was no greater in the group with IDs than in the TD group. Nevertheless, in both groups, the intensity of emotions changed depending on the context (stronger in competitive and cooperative contexts). Independent-sample t-test analyses were performed to test variability and difference between the two groups for verbal versus non-verbal modalities of socio-emotional regulation, for Emotional Expressions, and for Social Behavior. Only for Social Behavior was a significant difference obtained for

82

Group with IDs

TD group

Neutral context

Competitive context

Neutral context

Competitive context

Categories

M

SD

t (df)

M

SD

M

SD

t (df)

M

SD

Emotional expressions Behavior towards social rules Social behavior

4.29 42.34 17.83

3.79 6.06 2.9

t (40) = 6.18* t (40) = .41 t (40) = −5.71*

8.34 42 21.78

4.8 3.86 3.98

3.58 41.48 18.68

3.49 5.43 6.57

t (39) = 6.22* t (39) = −.55 t (39) = −6.64*

7.65 42.08 24.23

6.2 5.37 4.3

Neutral context

Emotional expressions Behavior towards social rules Social behavior

Neutral context

Cooperative context

M

SD

t (df)

M

SD

M

SD

t (df)

M

SD

4.34 42.33 17.87

3.77 5.88 2.85

t (44) = 5.9* t (44) = .39 t (44) = −9.54*

8.11 42.09 24.87

3.43 4.68 4.93

3.62 41.64 18.69

3.42 5.35 4.19

t (41) = −6.67* t (41) = −.63 t (41) = −7.28*

7.98 42.14 27.62

5.37 4.58 7.81

Competitive context

Emotional expressions Behavior towards social rules Social behavior

Cooperative context

Cooperative context

Competitive context

M

SD

t (df)

M

SD

M

SD

t (df)

M

SD

8.55 42 21.78

4.67 3.86 3.98

t (40) = 1.44 t (40) = .04 t (40) = −4.49*

7.88 42.02 24.8

3.36 4.88 4.931

7.65 42.23 23.81

5.98 5.21 6.51

t (42) = −.13 t (42) = −.03 t (42) = −3.16**

8.12 42.21 27.12

5.31 4.54 7.73

*P < .001; **P < .05; IDs: intellectual disabilities; TD: typically developing; M: mean; SD: standard deviation; t (df): t-student.

Cooperative context

C. Baurain, N. Nader-Grosbois / ALTER, European Journal of Disability Research 6 (2012) 75–93

Table 2 Paired-sample t-test analyses of socio-emotional regulation between context in both groups.

C. Baurain, N. Nader-Grosbois / ALTER, European Journal of Disability Research 6 (2012) 75–93

83

Table 3 Paired-sample t-test analyses of category 3 of socio-emotional regulation between sequences of game in both groups. Category 3: the child’s social behavior while playing Group with IDs

TD group Sequence 2

Sequence 1

Context

Sequence 1 M

SD

t (df)

M

SD

M

SD

t (df)

M

SD

1 2 3

5.64 6.85 8.16

1.04 1.85 2.14

t (44) = −1.95 t (40) = −2.29* t (44) = −1.67

6.04 7.83 8.86

1.22 2.46 2.52

5.81 7.44 8.76

1.59 2.4 2.83

t (41) = −1.67 t (42) = −1.21 t (44) = −2.82*

6.29 7.98 9.87

1.78 2.32 3.75

Sequence 3

Sequence 1

M

SD

t (df)

M

SD

M

SD

t (df)

M

SD

5.64 6.85 8.16

1.04 1.85 2.14

t (44) = −2.6* t (40) = .69 t (44) = .66

6.24 7.1 7.83

1.43 1.53 2.42

5.81 7.44 8.76

1.59 2.4 2.83

t (41) = −2.53* t (42) = −1.99 t (44) = .38

6.6 8.42 8.58

2.01 3.33 2.55

Sequence 1

1 2 3

Sequence 2

Sequence 2

1 2 3

Sequence 3

Sequence 2

Sequence 3

Sequence 3

M

SD

t (df)

M

SD

M

SD

t (df)

M

SD

6.04 7.83 8.86

1.22 2.46 2.52

t (44) = −1.02 t (40) = 1.77 t (44) = 2.17*

6.24 7.1 7.83

1.43 1.53 2.42

6.29 7.98 9.87

1.78 2.32 3.75

t (41) = −.96 t (42) = −1.21 t (44) = 2.75*

6.6 8.42 8.58

2.01 3.33 2.55

*P < .05; IDs: intellectual disabilities; TD: typically developing; M: mean; SD: standard deviation; t (df): t-student; Context 1: neutral; 2: competitive; 3: cooperative. Table 4 Crosstabs command: adaptation of expressed emotions in both groups. Joy

Sadness

Frustration

Anger

Groups

A

NA

A

NA

A

NA

A

NA

With intellectual disabilities Typically developing

42 44

3 1

42 42

3 3

36 37

9 8

38 39

7 5

A: adapted; NA: not adapted. “Not adapted” concerns all emotions not adapted throughout the duration of the game (in all three contexts).

the verbal modality in favor of the TD group (M = 12.75; SD = 9.39) in comparison with the group with IDs (M = 8.15; SD = 4.93), t(58.67) = 2.75, P < .05. Variability of socio-emotional regulation depending on individual characteristics To estimate variability and differences depending on the developmental age (DA) of both groups, repeated measures analyses were conducted. A preliminary Mauchly’s sphericity test was performed Table 5 Intensity of emotions during the game, in percentage terms, in ID and TD groups. ID group

TD group

Contexts

Contexts

Intensity of emotions

Neutral

Competitive

Cooperative

Neutral

Competitive

Cooperative

Weak Moderate Strong

91.11 8.88 0

60.46 30.23 9.3

62.2 28.88 8.88

93.33 6.66 0

75 22.72 2.27

68.8 24.44 6.66

c: context; ID: intellectual disability; TD: typically developing.

84

C. Baurain, N. Nader-Grosbois / ALTER, European Journal of Disability Research 6 (2012) 75–93

for each context and sequence. In the group with IDs, for all contexts, Mauchly’s sphericity test showed no significant results, except for Behavior towards Social Rules, W(2) = .84, P < .05. In the TD group, for all contexts, Mauchly’s sphericity test showed significant results (ranging from .73 to .82, P < .001, P < .05), except for Emotional Expressions. In this group, it was only for Behavior towards Social Rules, for the sequences, that Mauchly’s sphericity test showed significant results, W(2) = .64, P < .001. More specifically, for each group, multiple comparisons (Bonferroni) were performed to identify in which children’s DA range socio-emotional regulation was better or lower, across contexts and categories and in terms of verbal or non verbal modalities. We divided each group into three DA subgroups: 3–4 years, 4–5 years and 5–6 years. In the group with IDs, in the neutral context, for Behavior towards Social Rules, the DA subgroups differed significantly [F(2) = 3.4, P < .05]: the mean score in 3–4 years DA subgroup (M = 39.4; SD = 8.75) was lower than the mean score in 5–6 years DA subgroup (M = 44.6; SD = 1.05). For Social Behavior, the DA subgroups differed significantly [F(2) = 5.72, P < .05]: the mean score in 3–4 years DA subgroup (M = 16.07; SD = 3.08) was lower than the mean score in 4–5 years DA subgroup (M = 19.13; SD = 2.64). In the competitive context, for Emotional Expressions, the DA subgroups differed significantly [F(2) = 4.59, P < .05]: the mean score in 3–4 years DA subgroup (M = 6.54; SD = 3.17) was lower than the mean score in 4–5 years DA subgroup (M = 11.38; SD = 5.1). For modalities, no significant difference between DA subgroups was obtained. In the TD group, in the neutral context, for Emotional Expressions, the DA subgroups differed significantly [F(2) = 4.76, P < .05]: the mean score in 3–4 years DA subgroup (M = 1.8; SD = 2.6) was lower than the mean score in 4–5 years DA subgroup (M = 5.46; SD = 3.2). For Behavior towards Social Rules, the DA subgroups differed significantly [F(2) = 8.67, P < .001]: the mean score in 3–4 years DA subgroup (M = 37.73; SD = 7) was lower than in the other two DA subgroups (M = 43.38; SD = 2.98, in 4–5 years; M = 44.21; SD = 1.18, in 5–6 years). In competitive and cooperative contexts, for Emotional Expressions, the DA subgroups differed significantly [F(2) = 6.94, P < .05, in competitive context; F(2) = 4.87, P < .05, in cooperative context]: the mean score in 3–4 years DA subgroup (M = 3.93; SD = 3.7, in competitive context; M = 4.93; SD = 4.11, in cooperative context) was lower than the mean score in 4–5 years subgroup (M = 8.07; SD = 3.87, in competitive context; M = 9.4; SD = 4.56, in cooperative context) and in 5–6 years DA subgroup (M = 11.21; SD = 7.45, in competitive context; M = 9.93; SD = 5.65, in cooperative context). For modalities, a significant difference between DA subgroups was obtained: for Emotional Expressions, in favor of 4–5 and 5–6 years DA subgroups [F(2) = 8.12, P < .001] and for Social Behavior, in favor of 5–6 years DA subgroup [F(2) = 4.96, P < .05]. Crosstabs command was performed: the adaptation of expressed emotions (joy, sadness, frustration and anger) in both groups did not differ depending on the children’s DA. In the group with IDs, the compared mean scores (Bonferroni) were also used to identify in which children’s chronological age (CA) range the socio-emotional regulation was better or lower, across categories and contexts, and in terms of verbal or non-verbal modalities. We divided the group with IDs into three CA subgroups: 5–8 years, 8–10 years, and 10–13 years. For the categories, no significant difference between these CA subgroups was found, except in the competitive context for Emotional Expressions, where these CA subgroups differed significantly [F(2) = 3.53, P < .05]: the mean score in 5–8 years CA subgroup (M = 5.11; SD = 3.69) was lower than the mean score in 10–13 years CA subgroup (M = 9.88; SD = 4.71); and in the neutral context, for Behavior towards Social Rules, where these subgroups differed significantly [F(2) = 3.72, P < .05]: the mean score in 5–8 years CA subgroup (M = 38; SD = 10.34) was lower than the mean score in 10–13 years CA subgroup (M = 43.93; SD = 1.44). For the modalities, no significant difference between these CA subgroups was found, except for Social Behavior for the non-verbal modality, where these subgroups differed significantly [F(2) = 5.03, P < .05]: the mean score in 5–8 years CA subgroup (M = 53.56; SD = 4.85) and 10–13 years CA subgroup (M = 54.14; SD = 5.94) was lower than the mean score in 8–10 years CA subgroup (M = 59.63; SD = 5.53). For the TD group, we considered their CA as equivalent to their DA.

C. Baurain, N. Nader-Grosbois / ALTER, European Journal of Disability Research 6 (2012) 75–93

85

Discussion Inter-group and inter-situational variability of socio-emotional regulation Our main objective was to examine similarities versus differences in socio-emotional regulation in children with intellectual disabilities and typically developing children, matched for their developmental age, in order to test developmental delay or difference hypotheses. This study found similar frequencies of socio-emotional behaviors, including behavior toward social rules, emotional expressions and adaptation of emotions, in both groups of children. During the game, the children with intellectual disabilities did not express their emotions in a less or more intensive way, they were no less able to adapt their emotions (joy, sadness, frustration and anger) and they did not moderate their externalized behavior less than the typically developing children. Concerning verbal versus non-verbal modalities of socio-emotional regulation, the results showed that the typically developing group did not use the verbal modality more to express and regulate their emotions than the group with intellectual disabilities did: this could be due to the close matching for verbal and non-verbal developmental age. These results correspond to observations about preschoolers who have the ability to modify and control the intensity of their emotional expressions according to the situation and social rules (Saarni, 1999), and who use language as a strategy to regulate their emotions (Cole et al., 1994), notably to distract themselves in frustrating situations (Stansbury and Zimmerman, 1999). All these results support the delay hypothesis of socio-emotional regulation development in the group with intellectual disabilities, in comparison with the typically developing group matched for developmental age (as observed by Baurain and Nader-Grosbois, 2009b, 2011a). The children with intellectual disabilities seem to develop their abilities in socio-emotional regulation more slowly, but they do not display any difference of development compared with younger typically developing children. It contrasts with the observation of a deficit in emotion regulation in two other studies in a limited sample of children with intellectual disabilities (Baurain and Nader-Grosbois, 2009a; Brun and Mellier, 2004). However, specific partial differences or deficits were found in this present study to the disadvantage of the group with intellectual disabilities. The group with intellectual disabilities had less social behavior (socio-extravert behavior) than the typically developing group. Although the group with intellectual disabilities used language to express and to regulate their emotions, they used the verbal modality less in their social behaviors than the typically developing group. Unlike the children with intellectual disabilities examined in this study, children with specific language impairment have been found to display difficulties in emotion regulation (Fujiki et al., 2004). Our results with respect to social behavior were consistent with the findings obtained by Serafica (1990), who emphasized that, in children with intellectual disabilities, their low cognitive abilities underlying their social skills slow down their initiation and maintaining of exchanges with their peers. According to Guralnick (1999), children with intellectual disabilities have altered social capacities, including difficulties in establishing a relationship of friendship with their peers. Concerning the evocation of emotions at the end of game, the group with intellectual disabilities evoked less negative emotions than the typically developing group; this may be explained by problems of short-term memory in children with intellectual disabilities. As proposed by Thompson (2011) and Campos et al. (2011), there was some inter-situational variability of socio-emotional regulation in both groups depending on the three contexts and the different sequences inducing alternatively positive or negative emotions in the dyadic game. Firstly, each group expressed and adapted their emotions better and displayed more social behavior in both competitive and cooperative contexts where the child-target played with a partner-peer than in the neutral context where the child-target played only with the assessor. Some authors have suggested that dyads of children situated at the same level of cognitive development may coordinate and cooperate more together (Beaudichon et al., 1988). When interaction among preschoolers is strong, they develop a high level of social skills, allowing them to decrease their level of negative emotions (Fabes et al., 1999). Positive links have been highlighted between their emotion regulation examined in other play contexts (e.g. in pretend play with peers or parents) and their interactions with others (peers or parents) (Adams Dillon, 2009; Fabes et al., 1999; Galyer and Evans, 2001; Lindsey and Colwell, 2003). According to Galyer and Evans (2001), a deficit in emotion regulation has been associated with common

86

C. Baurain, N. Nader-Grosbois / ALTER, European Journal of Disability Research 6 (2012) 75–93

emotional and behavioral difficulties, including poor adjustment to school, poor peer relationships and poor social competence. Graziano et al. (2007) also reported that children with better skills in emotion regulation had a slightly more positive relationship with their teachers and were less likely to have behavioral disorders. Specifically concerning the intensity of emotions in children in the present study, this changed depending on the context, with greater intensity being displayed in competitive and cooperative contexts with peers: the children expressed their emotions more intensively when they were in interaction with peers than in a neutral context with an adult. In terms of positive emotions, smiling offers the possibility of maintaining exchanges (Brun, 2008). Furthermore, cooperation between preschoolers is based on social interactions during the problem-solving and is characterized by emotionally expressive and positive exchanges and reflecting more expressions of joy (smiling and laughter) (Herbé et al., 2007). In our study, the game took place in three different contexts, and we distinguished three sequences inducing negative emotions (such as frustration) versus positive emotions, in order to observe the variation of socio-emotional regulation according to both contexts and sequences. Concerning these sequences, in the neutral context where the children played alone, in both groups, they displayed less social behavior in Sequence 1 at the beginning of the game than in the last sequence at the end of game. This can be explained by the fact that the children felt more comfortable at the end of game than at the beginning. In both groups, in the cooperative context, the socio-emotional regulation score differed between sequences. In Sequence 1, the target-child lost (he could feel negative emotion), in Sequence 2, he won as much as the partner-child (he could feel positive emotion) and in Sequence 3 the two children cooperated. In Sequence 2, the target-child displayed more social behavior than in Sequence 3; this can be explained by the fact that the target-child in Sequence 3 had opportunities for cooperation. Only in the typically developing group, in Sequence 2, did the target-child display more social behavior than in Sequence 1; this can be explained by the fact that the target-child was not losing any more in Sequence 2. Variability of socio-emotional regulation depending on individual characteristics Concerning the impact of children’s developmental age (DA): several domains of socio-emotional regulation improved as their developmental age increased. In general, for both groups, in interactive contexts where the target-child played with a peer, the lower DA subgroups expressed their emotions less than the higher DA subgroups; however, in this type of context, the lower DA subgroups did not display less social behavior or poorer behavior towards social rules than the higher DA subgroups. This also partly confirms our hypothesis. The higher DA subgroups mobilized their skills in socio-emotional regulation (including emotional expression) more easily than the lower DA subgroups. According to Dennis (2006), the child’s ability to conform to the adult’s requests confirms good emotional selfregulation. This ability is believed to develop gradually, so we expected that the lower DA subgroups would follow social rules less (in response to the adult’s requests) than the higher DA subgroups. In both groups, in the context where the child played alone, the lower DA subgroups followed social rules less than the higher DA subgroups. This also confirms our hypothesis. For social behavior, only in the group with intellectual disabilities, in the context where the child played alone, did the lower DA subgroups display less social behaviors than the higher DA subgroups. For the verbal modality, the higher DA subgroups used the verbal modality more in social behaviors than the lower DA subgroups. By the end of the preschool period, it is possible for emotional regulation to be helped by linguistic development (Maklem, 2008). Although emotional language acquisition develops early, children begin to consolidate their speech by the age of three (Mellier et al., 2008). In the group with intellectual disabilities, the chronological age (CA) had a partial impact on socioemotional regulation. As CA increased, several domains of socio-emotional regulation improved, such as following social rules in the neutral context where the child played alone; expressing their emotions in the competitive context; moderating their externalized behavior; and using the non-verbal modality in social behavior. This partly confirms our hypothesis asserting that higher CA subgroups would have better socio-emotional regulation than lower CA subgroups. Higher CA subgroups of children with intellectual disabilities have had longer life experience and consequently, more opportunities to exercise their skills in socio-emotional regulation than the lower CA subgroups.

C. Baurain, N. Nader-Grosbois / ALTER, European Journal of Disability Research 6 (2012) 75–93

87

To conclude, this study has revealed more similarities of socio-emotional regulation between the group with intellectual disabilities and the typically developing group, matched for their developmental age (situated in the symbolic period of development), than deficits specific to the group with intellectual disabilities; supporting more the delay hypothesis of socio-emotional regulation. In addition, inter-situational variability of socio-emotional regulation was identified in both groups, with better socio-emotional regulation in cooperative and competitive contexts with peers than in the neutral context with the adult-examiner. These results justify to continue, in future research, the investigation of socio-emotional regulation in various contexts and situations that create diverse opportunities to feel negative or positive emotions. In addition, in future research, we propose to examine whether direct observations of socio-emotional regulation in children with intellectual disabilities in distinct interactive contexts versus solitary contexts and measures of emotion regulation (such as Emotion Regulation Checklist, ERC) reported indirectly by third parties are convergent or divergent with respect to the children’s abilities or inabilities in socio-emotional regulation. Moreover, with reference to the model of Yeates et al. (2007), we suggest to study the link or the impact of their socio-emotional regulation on their social information processing, including theory of mind about emotions (the understanding of causes and of consequences of one’s own emotions and those of others) and the ability to solve socio-emotional problems; and also its potential impact on the others’ perception of their social adjustment (parents, teachers, peers) (Baurain and Nader-Grosbois, submitted). In addition, some inter-individual variability of socio-emotional regulation in this study appeared depending on children’s developmental age in both groups, and chronological age (or the length of life experience) in specific categories of socio-emotional regulation in the group with intellectual disabilities. In research and in intervention, the consideration of both cognitive developmental competences and the length of life experience seem essential when socio-emotional regulation is assessed and trained in persons with intellectual disabilities. More specifically, we could not examine in this study, inter-individual variability depending on etiologies of children with intellectual disabilities because we could not divide up our sample with intellectual disabilities in homogeneous subgroups by type of syndrome. It would be relevant to examine delay and difference hypothesis on socio-emotional regulation in children presenting specific genetic syndromes. This study seems to give light to the process of socio-emotional regulation of children with intellectual disabilities and shows that it’s relevant to vary their opportunities to regulate their emotions in interactive contexts, so as to diversify their experiences of social interactions (as suggests by McClure et al., 2009).

88

Appendix A. Characteristics of the dyadic game of socio-emotional problem-solving

4 stories Enjoyment/sadness/anger/fear 9 situations-problems* 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Instructions

Condition Material

Neutral context (yellow table) Dyad child - adult sequence 1 sequence 2 sequence 3

Competitive context (green table) Dyad child - child sequence 1 sequence 2 sequence 3

Aleatory

Cooperative context (blue table) Dyad child - child sequence 1 sequence 2 sequence 3

Aleatory

X

Aleatory X

X X

X

X X

X

X X X

X

X

X

X X

X X

X

X

X X

X Goal: To reach the star with Dora/Diego by following the instructions of the adult with 17 illustrated yellow cards

X Goal: To reach the star with Dora/Diego before his(her) partner

1 envelope with 9 illustrated counter provided with velcro and 1 assistant card

2 envelopes for every child with 9 illustrated counter provided with velcro and 1 assistant card

X X

X Goal: To reach the star with Dora/Diego by following the instructions of the adult but in time 3 cooperate with his(her) partner to reach the star Induction of negative emotions to Induction of negative emotions to Induction of negative emotions to the child in case of difficulties resolving the child if he is behind his partner the child in time 1 by making win the the challenges and if he loses other child Quiet places. Camera to facilitate the notation of the answers and allow the experimenter to fill the coding grid The child plays only with the adult The child plays with a partner The child plays with a partner 4 stories maked up of labels presenting the inductive situation of one basic emotion A support of answers illustrated with 9 situations problems, provided with velcro

17 yellow illustrated cards of the pictures of the plates

2 envelopes, 1 for target child with 7 illustrated counter provided with velcro; 1 assistant card and 1 card "gout out of prison"; 1 for other child with 4 illustrated counter and 1 assistant card

2 packages of 13 blue cards, 1 for each child and 1 package of 5 cards for the both children 2 pawns to move on the plates, 2 photos of Dora and Diego to lead the play and 4 figurines of the emotional facial basic expressions

C. Baurain, N. Nader-Grosbois / ALTER, European Journal of Disability Research 6 (2012) 75–93

13 challenges

C. Baurain, N. Nader-Grosbois / ALTER, European Journal of Disability Research 6 (2012) 75–93

89

*(1) A little boy breaks a window-pane with his ball, (2) a little boy throws his jacket on the ground, (3) a little boy crushes a snail, (4) two children quarrel to go on a slide, (5) a girl cries alone on a bench, (6) a girl tears up a flower, (7) two children quarrel in a car, (8) two children “collide” with their scooters, (9) a girl throws a piece of paper on the ground. Appendix B. Coding grid of socio-emotional regulation by sequences Interactive game/dyad: child-adult Socio-emotional regulation

V

NV

Category 1: Emotional expressions felt by the child while playing and adaptation of the emotion S1 S2 S3 S1

S2 S3

Emotional expressions The child expresses joy The child expresses sadness The child expresses frustration/disappointment The child expresses anger The child expresses fear The child expresses anxiety Emotional expressions adapted to created situations The emotion expressed (“joy”) is adapted to created situations The emotion expressed (“sadness”) is adapted to created situations The emotion expressed (“frustration”) is adapted to created situations The emotion expressed (“anger”) is adapted to created situations The emotion expressed (“fear”) is adapted to created situations The emotion expressed (“anxiety”) is adapted to created situations Category 2: The child’s behavior towards social rules The child listens to the instructions The child follows the instructions The child is patient (he waits his turn) The child displays listening behavior (in general) The child moderates his or her externalized behavior Category 3: The child’s social behavior while playing Prosocial behavior The child displays socio-extravert behavior (Socio-communicative behavior, he or she participates in the interaction) The child displays empathy behavior (He or she puts him/herself in the place of others, link with the theory of mind) The child displays attentive behavior (He or she pays attention to the other person, he or she responds to joint attention) Behavior towards the task The child perseveres to reach his or her goals (He or she maintains his or her motivation, self-effort) The child controls difficulty (self-control) Category 4: Consciousness and evocation of emotion at the end of game The child is conscious of having felt joy and evokes it The child is conscious of having felt sadness and evokes it The child is conscious of having felt anger and evokes it The child is conscious of having felt fear and evokes it

+: very frequent scored 3; /: moderately frequent scored 2; −: infrequent scored 1; 0: non-existent scored 0; V: verbal; NV: non-verbal; S: sequences (S1, sequence 1: challenges 1, 2, 3; S2, sequence 2: challenges 4, 5, 6; S3, sequence 3: challenges 7, 8, 9).

90

C. Baurain, N. Nader-Grosbois / ALTER, European Journal of Disability Research 6 (2012) 75–93

Table 5 Minimum and maximum scores in the coding grid of socio-emotional regulation by sequences. Contexts of interactive game Dyads

Child-Adult

Contexts

Neutral

Socio-emotional regulation

Minimum score

0 Category 1 Emotional expressions/adaptation Category 2 0 Child’s behaviour towards social rules Category 3 0 Child’s social behaviour Total cross-contexts Total coding grid %

Child-Child

Child-Child

Competitive

Cooperative

Maximum score

Minimum score

Maximum score

Minimum score

Maximum score

216

0

216

0

216

648

90

0

90

0

90

270

90

0

90

0

90

270

396

396

Total cross-cat.

%

396 1188

Cross-cat.: cross-categories.

Appendix C. Scoring of the coding grid of socio-emotional regulation by sequences Observation of 22 items Code + / − 0

Scores Very frequent Moderately frequent Infrequent Non-existent

3 2 1 0

References Adams Dillon, J. (2009). Play, creativity, emotion regulation and executive functioning. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis. Case Western Reserve University, from http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc num=case1259873634. American Association Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (AAIDD) (2009). http://www.aaidd.org/. Anderson, V., Anderson, P., Northam, E., Jacobs, R., & Catroppa, C. (2001). Development of executive functions through late childhood and adolescence in an Australian sample. Developmental Neuropsychology, 20(1), 385–406. Baurain, C., & Nader-Grosbois, N. (2007). Jeu interactif de résolution de problèmes à caractère socio-émotionnel. Manuel non publié. Louvain-la-Neuve: Université Catholique de Louvain. Baurain, C., & Nader-Grosbois, N. (2009). Évaluer la régulation émotionnelle, la résolution de problèmes socio-émotionnels et les compétences sociales d’enfants présentant une déficience intellectuelle : études de cas. Revue Francophone de la Déficience Intellectuelle, 20, 123–147. Baurain, C., & Nader-Grosbois, N. (2009b). Régulation émotionnelle en fonction du climat interactif chez des enfants tout-venant et avec une déficience intellectuelle. In N. Nader-Grosbois (Ed.), Résilience, régulation et qualité de vie : concepts, évaluation et intervention. UCL Presses universitaires de Louvain. Baurain, C., & Nader-Grosbois, N. (2011a). Compétences émotionnelles, régulation émotionnelle en contextes interactifs et ToM-émotion chez des enfants typiques et avec déficience intellectuelle. In N. Nader-Grosbois (Ed.), Théorie de l’esprit : entre cognition, émotion et adaptation sociale. Bruxelles: Édition De Boeck Université. Baurain, C., & Nader-Grosbois, N. (2011b). Élaboration et validation d’un dispositif méthodologique pour l’observation de la régulation socio-émotionnelle chez l’enfant. Enfance, 2, 179–211. Baurain, C., & Nader-Grosbois, N. (2011c). Validation of a method of assessment of the socio-emotional regulation in preschoolers. European Review of Applied Psychology, 61, 185–194. Baurain, C., & Nader-Grosbois, N. (submitted). Socio-emotional regulation, theory of mind and socio-emotional problem-solving in children with intellectual disability and typically developing children. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. Beaudichon, J., Verba, M., & Winnykamen, F. (1988). Interactions sociales et acquisitions des connaissances chez l’enfant : une approche pluridimensionnelle. Revue Internationale de Psychologie Sociale, 1, 129–141.

C. Baurain, N. Nader-Grosbois / ALTER, European Journal of Disability Research 6 (2012) 75–93

91

Brun, P. (2008). Nommer et comprendre les états d’esprit émotionnels : une lente évolution des compétences chez l’enfant. In D. Mellier, P. Brun, & H. Tremblay (Eds.), Le langage émotionnel, le comprendre et le parler (pp. 37–54). France: Publication des universités de Rouen et du Havre. Brun, P., & Mellier, D. (2004). Régulation émotionnelle et retard mental : étude chez l’enfant trisomique 21. Handicap-Revue des Sciences Humaines et Sociales, 101-102, 19–31. Campos, J. J., Walle, E. A., Dahl, A., & Main, A. (2011). Reconceptualizing emotion regulation. Emotion Review, 3(1), 26–35. Carlson, S. M., & Wang, T. S. (2007). Inhibitory control and emotion regulation in preschool children. Cognitive Development, 22, 489–510. Cole, M. P., Dennis, T. A., Smith-Simon, K. E., & Cohen, L. H. (2009). Preschoolers’ emotion regulation strategy understanding: relations with emotion socialization and child self-regulation. Social Development, 18(2), 324–352. Cole, M. P., Martin, S. E., & Dennis, T. A. (2004). Emotion regulation as a scientific construct: methodological challenges and directions for child development research. Child Development, 75(2), 317–333. Cole, M. P., Michel, M. K., & Teti, L. O. (1994). The development of emotion regulation and dysregulation: a clinical perspective. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 59(2/3), 73–102. Davidson, R. J., Jackson, D. C., & Kalin, N. H. (2000). Emotion, plasticity, context, and regulation: perspectives from affective neuroscience. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 890–909. Dennis, T. A. (2006). Emotional self regulation in preschoolers: the interplay of temperamental approach reactivity and control processes. Developmental Psychology, 42, 84–97. Dennis, T. A. (2007). Interaction between emotion regulation strategies and affective style: implications for trait anxiety versus depressed mood. Motivation and Emotion, 31, 200–207. Dennis, T. A, & Kelemen, D. A. (2009). Preschool children’s views on emotion regulation: functional associations and implications for social-emotional adjustment. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 33, 243–252. Dennis, T. A., Malone, M., & Chen, C. (2009). Emotional face processing and emotion regulation in children: an ERP study. Developmental Neuropsychology, 34, 85–102. Dumas, C., & Lebeau, S. (1998). Le changement représentationnel affectif chez les enfants d’âge préscolaire. Revue Canadienne de Psychologie Expérimentale, 52(1), 25–33. Edgin, O. J. (2003). A neuropsychological model of the development of the cognitive profiles in mental retardation syndrome: evidence from Down syndrome and William syndrome. Colorado: Faculty of Social Science, University of Denver. Eisenberg, N., Cumberland, A., Spinrad, T. L., Fabes, R. A., Shepard, S. A., Reiser, M., Murphy, B. C., Losoya, S. H., & Guthrie, I. K. (2001). The relations of regulation and emotionality to children’s externalizing and internalizing problem behavior. Child Development, 72(4), 1112–1134. Eisenberg, N., & Fabes, R. A. (1992). Emotion, regulation, and the development of social competence. In M. S. Clark (Ed.), Emotion and Social Behavior (Vol. 14) (pp. 119–150). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Guthrie, I. K., & Reiser, M. (2000). Dispositional emotionality and regulation: their role in predicting quality of social functioning. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(1), 136–157. Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Murphy, B., Maszk, P., Smith, M., & Karbon, M. (1995). The role of emotionality and regulation in children’s social functioning: a longitudinal study. Child Development, 66, 1360–1384. Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Shepard, S. A., Murphy, B. C., Guthrie, I. K., Jones, S., Friedman, J., Poulin, R., & Maszk, P. (1997). Contemporaneous and longitudinal prediction of children’s social functioning from regulation and emotionality. Child Development, 68, 642–664. Fabes, R. A., Eisenberg, N., Jones, S., Smith, M., Guthrie, I., Poulin, R., Shepard, S., & Friedman, J. (1999). Regulation, emotionality, and preschoolers’ socially competent peer interactions. Child Development, 70(2), 432–442. Feng, X., Shaw, D. S., Kovacs, M., Lane, T., O’Rourke, F. E., & Alarcon, J. H. (2008). Emotion regulation in preschoolers: the roles of behavioral inhibition, maternal affective behavior, and maternal depression. The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 49(2), 132–141. Fidler, D. J. (2006). The emergence of a syndrome-specific personality profile in young children with Down Syndrome. Down Syndrome Research and Practice, 10(2), 53–60. Flanagan, T., Russo, N., Flores, H., & Burack, J.A. (2008). The developmental approach to the study of Down syndrome: contemporary issues in historical perspective. doi:10.3104/reviews.2081. Flem, A., Thygesen, R., Valas, H., & Magnes, E. (1998). A social skills intervention program for kindergarten children at risk of developing behavioural problems. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 13(2), 208–215. Fujiki, M., Spackman, M. P., Brinton, B., & Hall, A. (2004). The relationship of language and emotion regulation skills to reticence in children with specific language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 47, 637–646. Galyer, K. T., & Evans, I. M. (2001). Pretend play and the development of emotion regulation in preschool children. Early Child Development and Care, 166, 93–108. Garber, J., & Dodge, K. A. (1991). The development of emotion regulation and dysregulation. New York: Cambridge University Press. Garitte, C. (2003). La reconnaissance des expressions faciales chez des enfants de 8 ans d’âge réel et/ou mental : processus cognitifs ou sociaux ? Approche Neuropsychologique des Apprentissages chez l’Enfant, 71, 48–52. Goldsmith, H. H., & Rothbart, M. K. (1996). The laboratory temperament assessment battery (LabTAB): locomotor version 3.0. Technical Manual, department of Psychology. Madison: University of Wisconsin. Graziano, P. A., Reavis, R. D., Keane, S. P., & Calkins, S. D. (2007). The role of emotion regulation in children’s early academic success. Journal of School Psychology, 45, 3–19. Gross, J. J. (1998). The emerging field of emotion regulation: an integrative review. Review of General Psychology, 2(3), 271–299. Gross, J. J. (2002). Emotion regulation: affective, cognitive, and social consequences. Psychophysiology, 39, 281–291. Gulsrud, A. C., Jahromi, L. B., & Kasari, C. (2010). The co-regulation of emotions between mothers and their children with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 40(2), 227–237. Guralnick, M. J. (1999). Family and child influences on the peer-related social competence of young children with developmental delays. Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews, 5, 21–29. Herbé, D., Tremblay, H., & Mallet, P. (2007). La coopération dyadique entre enfants de 5–6 ans : effets de la complexité cognitive et de l’activité motrice sollicitées pas les situations de résolution de problème. Enfance, 59, 393–413.

92

C. Baurain, N. Nader-Grosbois / ALTER, European Journal of Disability Research 6 (2012) 75–93

Hill, A. L., Degnan, K. A., Calkins, S. D., & Keane, S. P. (2006). Profiles of externalizing behavior problems for boys and girls across preschool: the role of emotion regulation and inattention. Developmental Psychology, 42(5), 913–928. Hodapp, R. M., Burack, J. A., & Zigler, E. (1990). Issues in the developmental approach to mental retardation. New York: Cambridge University Press. Hughes, C., White, A., Sharpen, J., & Dunn, J. (2000). Antisocial, angry, and unsympathetic: “hard-to-manage” preschoolers’ peer problems and possible cognitive influences. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 41(2), 169–179. Jahromi, L., Gulsrud, A., Kasari, C., & Dykens, E. (2008). Emotional competence in children with Down syndrome: negativity and regulation. American Journal of Mental Retardation, 113, 32–43. Kalpidou, M. D., Power, T. G., Cherry, K. E., & Gottfried, N. W. (2004). Regulation of emotion and behavior among 3- and 5-yearolds. The Journal of General Psychology, 131(2), 159–178. Kim, G., Walden, T., Harris, V., Karrass, J., & Catron, T. (2007). Positive emotion, negative emotion, and emotion control in the externalizing problems of school-aged children. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 37, 221–239. Linder, T. W. (1990). Transdisciplinary Play-Based Assessment: a functional approach to working with young children. Maryland: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co. Lindsey, E. W., & Colwell, M. J. (2003). Preschoolers’ emotional competence links to pretend and physical play. Child Study Journal, 33(1), 39–52. Macklem, G. L. (2008). Practitioner’s guide to emotion regulation in school-aged children. Manchester: Springer. McClure-Tone, E. B. (2009). Socioemotional functioning in bipolar disorder versus typical development: behavioral and neural differences. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 16(2), 98–113. McClure, K. S., Halpern, J., Wolper, P. A., & Donahue, J. J. (2009). Emotion regulation and intellectual disability. Journal on Developmental Disabilities, 15(2), 38–44. Mellier, D., Brun, P., & Tremblay, H. (2008). Le langage émotionnel, le comprendre et le parler. France: Publication des universités de Rouen et du Havre. Mirabile, S. P., Scaramella, L. V., Sohr-Preston, S. L., & Robison, S. D. (2009). Mothers’ socialization of emotion regulation: the moderating role of children’s negative emotional reactivity. Child Youth Care Forum, 38, 19–37. Nader-Grosbois, N. (2007). Régulation, autorégulation, dysrégulation. Wavre: Mardaga. Nader-Grosbois, N., & Lefèvre, N. (2011). Self-regulation and performance in problem-solving using physical materials or computers in children with intellectual disability. Research in Developmental Disabilities doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2011.01.020. Nader-Grosbois, N., Milusheva, R., & Manolova, H. (2006). Profils multidimensionnels de jeunes enfants trisomiques bulgares. Psychologie Franc¸aise, 51, 391–411. Perron-Borelli, M. (1996). Échelles différentielles d’efficiences intellectuelles. Forme révisée (EDEI-R). Paris: Éditions et Applications Psychologiques. Perron, M., & Gosselin, P. (2004). Le développement de l’évocation des émotions. Enfance, 2(56), 133–147. Perron, M., & Gosselin, P. (2009). Difficulté des jeunes enfants à comprendre la dissimulation des émotions. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63(4), 276–286. Pochon, R., Brun, P., & Mellier, D. (2006). Développement de la reconnaissance des émotions chez l’enfant avec trisomie 21. Psychologie Franc¸aise, 51, 381–390. Reider, S., Perrez, M., Reicherts, M., & Horn, A. (2007). Interpersonal emotion regulation in the family: a review of assessment tools. In A. M. Fontaine, & M. Matias (Eds.), Family, works and parenting: international perspectives (pp. 17–45). Porto: Legis/livpsic. Rothbart, M., & Bates, J. (1998). Temperament. In W. Damon, & N. Eisenberg (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3. Social, emotional, and personality development (5th ed, pp. 105–176). New York: Wiley. Rubin, K. H., Bukowski, W., & Parker, J. (2006). Peer interactions, relationships, and groups. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: social, emotional, and personality development (6th ed, pp. 571–645). New York: Wiley. Rydell, A.-M., Berlin, L., & Boblin, G. (2003). Emotionality, emotion regulation, and adaptation among 5- to 8-year-old children. Emotion, 3(1), 30–47. Saarni, C. (1999). The development of emotional competence. New York: Guilford Press. Scharfe, E. (2000). Development of emotional expression, understanding, and regulation in infants and young children. In R. Bar-On, & J. D. A. Parker (Eds.), The handbook of emotional intelligence: theory, development, assessment, and application at home, school, and in the workplace (pp. 244–262). California: Jossey-Bass Inc. Publishers. Schore, A. N. (1994). Affect regulation and the origin of the self: the neurobiology of emotional development. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Serafica, F. C. (1990). Peer relations of children with Down syndrome. In D. Cicchetti, & M. Beeghly (Eds.), Children with Down syndrome: a developmental perspective (pp. 369–397). New York: Cambridge University Press. Shields, A., & Cicchetti, D. (1997). Emotion regulation in school-aged children: the development of a new criterion Q-sort scale. Developmental Psychology, 33, 906–916. Spinrad, T. L., Eisenberg, N., Cumberland, A., Fabes, R. A., Valiente, C., Shepard, S. A., Reise, M., Losoya, S. H., & Guthrie, I. K. (2006). Relation of emotion-related regulation to children’s social competence: a longitudinal study. Emotion, 6(3), 498–510. Stansbury, K., & Sigman, M. (2000). Responses of preschoolers in two frustrating episodes: emergence of complex strategies for emotion regulation. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 161(2), 182–202. Stansbury, K., & Zimmerman, L. K. (1999). Relations among child language skills, maternal socializations of emotion regulation, and child behavior problems. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 30, 121–142. Stein, N. C., Trabasso, T., & Liwag, M. (2008). Advances in modeling emotion and thought: the importance of developmental, online, and multilevel analyses. In M. Lewis, J. M. Haviland, & L. F. Barret (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (pp. 574–586). New York: Guilford Press. Tamir, M. (2011). The maturing field of emotion regulation. Emotion Review, 3(1), 3–7. Thirion-Marissiaux, A. F., & Nader-Grosbois, N. (2008). Theory of Mind “emotion”, developmental characteristics and social understanding in children and adolescents with intellectual disability. Research in Develomental Disabilities, 29(5), 414–430.

C. Baurain, N. Nader-Grosbois / ALTER, European Journal of Disability Research 6 (2012) 75–93

93

Thompson, R. A. (1994). Emotion regulation: a theme in search of definition. In N.A. Fox (Ed.), The development of emotion regulation: biological and behavior considerations. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 59(2/3), 25–52. Thompson, R. A. (2011). Emotion and emotion regulation: two sides of the developing coin. Emotion Review, 3(1), 53–61. Vieillevoye, S., & Nader-Grosbois, N. (2008). Self-regulation during pretend play in children with intellectual disability and in normally developing children. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 29(3), 256–272. Vieillevoye, S., & Nader-Grosbois, N. (2009). Régulation inter- et intra-individuelle d’enfants à déficience intellectuelle et toutvenant en contexte de jeux symboliques dyadiques. Revue Francophone de la Déficience Intellectuelle, 20, 65–89. Nader-Grosbois, N. & Vieillevoye, S. (2011). Variability of self-regulatory strategies in children with intellectual disabilities and typically developing children in pretend play situations. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research doi:10.1111/j.13652788.2011.01443. Walden, T. A., & Smith, M. C. (1997). Emotion Regulation. Motivation and Emotion, 21(1), 7–25. Wishart, J. G., Cebula, K. R., Willis, D. S., & Pitcairn, T. K. (2007). Understanding of facial expressions of emotions by children with intellectual disabilities of differing aetiology. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 51(7), 552–563. Yeates, K. O., Dennis, M., Rubin, K. H., Taylor, H. G., Bigler, E. D., Gerhardt, C. A., Stancin, T., & Vannatta, K. (2007). Social outcomes in childhood brain disorder: a heuristic integration of social neuroscience and developmental psychology. Psychological Bulletin, 133(3), 535–556. Zabalia, M., & Corfec, S. (2008). Reconnaissances des émotions et évaluation de la douleur chez des enfants et adolescents porteurs de trisomie 21. Enfance, 60(4), 357–369. Zigler, E., & Balla, D. (1982). Mental retardation: the developmental-difference controversy. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.