Age-related differences in emotional reactivity, regulation, and rejection sensitivity in adolescence

Abstract

Although adolescents' emotional lives are thought to be more turbulent than those of adults, it is unknown whether this difference is attributable to developmental changes in emotional reactivity or emotion regulation. Study 1 addressed this question by presenting healthy individuals aged 10-23 with negative and neutral pictures and asking them to respond naturally or use cognitive reappraisal to down-regulate their responses on a trial-by-trial basis. Results indicated that age exerted both linear and quadratic effects on regulation success but was unrelated to emotional reactivity. Study 2 replicated and extended these findings using a different reappraisal task and further showed that situational (i.e., social vs. nonsocial stimuli) and dispositional (i.e., level of rejection sensitivity) social factors interacted with age to predict regulation success: young adolescents were less successful at regulating responses to social than to nonsocial stimuli, particularly if the adolescents were high in rejection sensitivity. Taken together, these results have important implications for the inclusion of emotion regulation in models of emotional and cognitive development.

Figure 1

Age distributions for participants in (a) Study 1 and (b) Study 2.

Figure 2

Visual depiction of trials for (a) Study 1 and (b) Study 2. Note that on actual trials, only one instructional cue and one picture was shown.

Figure 3

(a) Negative affect increased when looking (look) at negative (neg) stimuli in comparison with looking at neutral (neu) stimuli and was diminished by reappraising (reap) in Study 1. Analyses were performed using continuous measures of age, but for graphical purposes three age groups were constructed (each representing a 3- to 4-year period). Individual subject data points and the regression equations are plotted as a function of age for (b) emotional reactivity (emotional reactivity = –0.50 × age² +] 17.34 × age – 4.28) and (c) regulation success (regulation success = –0.33 × age² + 12.13 × age – 81.74). Neither linear (p = .33) nor quadratic (p = .35) effects of age were observed for emotional reactivity, but both linear (p = .03) and quadratic (p = .05) effects were observed for regulation success.

Figure 4

(a) Negative affect increased when immersing (close) with negative (neg) stimuli in comparison with immersing with neutral (neu) stimuli and was diminished by distancing (far) in Study 2. Analyses were performed using continuous measures of age, but for graphical purposes three age groups were constructed (each representing a 3- to 4-year period). Individual subject data points and the regression equations are plotted as a function of age for (b) emotional reactivity (emotional reactivity = – 0.81 × age² + 30.23 × age – .13 × GAI – 47.04) and (c) regulation success (regulation success = – 0.23 × age² + 9.01 × age +.07 × GAI – 69.53). Neither linear (p = .13) nor quadratic (p = .17) effects of age were observed for emotional reactivity, but significant linear (p = .045) and marginally significant quadratic (p = .09) effects were observed for regulation success.

Figure 5

Affective responses during regulation of emotional responses to aversive stimuli in Study 2 are shown above. Data are presented as a function of age group, stimulus social content (soc), and rejection sensitivity (RS). Analyses were performed on continuous measures of RS and age, but for graphical purposes a median split was performed on RS scores so as to create high and low RS groups, and three age groups were constructed (each representing a 3- to 4-year period).