Child Abuse & Neglect 29 (2005) 10151029

Managing emotion in a maltreating context: A pilot study

examining child neglect
Kimberly Shipman a, , Anna Edwards b , Amy Brown b ,
Lisa Swisher c , Ernestine Jennings d
a
Kempe Childrens Center, University of Colorado Health Sciences Center, 1825 Marion Street, Denver, CO 80218, USA
b
University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA
c
University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, OK, USA
d
Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK, USA
Received 22 September 2003; received in revised form 30 December 2004; accepted 19 January 2005

Abstract

Objective: The primary goal of this pilot study was to examine emotion management skills (i.e., emotional under-
standing, emotion regulation) in children who had experienced neglect and a control group to determine the ways
that neglect may interfere with childrens emotional development.
Method: Participants included children 612 years of age and their mothers (neglect group, N = 24; control, N = 24).
Participants completed questionnaires and an interview that assessed childrens emotional understanding and emo-
tion regulation.
Results: Findings indicated that neglected children, compared to their nonmaltreated peers, demonstrated lower
understanding of negative emotions (i.e., anger, sadness) and fewer adaptive emotion regulation skills. Further,
neglected children expected less support and more conflict from mothers in response to displays of negative emotion
and reported that they were more likely to attempt to inhibit the expression of negative emotion.
Conclusions: Findings suggest that neglect may interfere with the normal acquisition of emotional understanding
and emotion regulation skills, highlighting the importance of addressing these skills in the context of clinical
intervention with neglected children.
2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Emotional understanding; Emotion regulation; Child neglect

The first author was supported by the National Institute of Mental Health (1R03 MH6028101A1) in the completion of this
project.

Corresponding author.

0145-2134/$ see front matter 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2005.01.006
1016 K. Shipman et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 29 (2005) 10151029

Introduction

Considerable recent attention has been directed toward understanding the development of emotion
management skills and the importance of these skills to childrens psychosocial functioning (Barrett &
Campos, 1987; Parke, Cassidy, Burks, Carson, & Boyum, 1992; Saarni, Mumme, & Campos, 1998).
Research in this area has focused primarily on skills within three emotion management categories: (a)
encoding and decoding of emotions, which involves the ability to recognize emotional expressions of
others and to produce clear, appropriate emotional displays; (b) emotional understanding, which involves
understanding the causes and consequences of emotional expression as well as appropriate responses
to emotional displays of others; and (c) emotion regulation, which involves the ability to regulate emo-
tional expression and emotional experience. According to functionalist theory (Barrett & Campos, 1987;
Saarni et al., 1998), these skills are fundamental to emotional competence because they enable children
to apply their knowledge about emotion strategically when responding to emotionally arousing situa-
tions, facilitating their adaptation to the social environment. As such, deficits in emotion management
skills may place children at risk for other adaptational failures in development (e.g., poor peer relations,
psychopathology). Consistent with these theoretical tenets, skills within these emotion management cate-
gories have been demonstrated to relate to social competence and psychological health (Cook, Greenberg,
& Kusche, 1994; Denham, McKinley, Couchoud, & Holt, 1990; Fabes, Leonard, Kupanoff, & Martin,
2001; Rogosch, Cicchetti, & Aber, 1995; Shipman, Schneider, & Brown, 2004).
Few studies have examined the development of emotion management skills in children whose life
experiences disrupt the normal course of emotional development. In particular, within the child neglect
literature (see Erickson & Egeland for review, 1996), researchers have focused on the psychosocial
outcomes of neglect (e.g., psychopathology, poor peer relations), with little attention to the developmental
processes that may underlie these outcomes. This is surprising given that research suggests that children
who experience neglect are at risk for psychosocial difficulties characterized by emotion dysregulation.
In particular, research indicates that neglected children are at risk for internalizing and externalizing
behavioral problems (e.g., depression, aggressive behavior) and peer rejection (Erickson & Egeland, 1996;
Erickson, Egeland, & Pianta, 1989; Gaudin, Polansky, & Kilpatrick, 1993). Further, neglectful parents
lack a number of characteristics thought to be important to the development of emotion management
skills. In particular, neglectful mothers provide less support and acknowledgement of their children,
show lower levels of emotional expression in the parent-child relationship, and provide little exchange of
emotional information (Aragona & Eyeberg, 1981; Bousha & Twentyman, 1984; Gaudin, Polansky, &
Kilpatrick, 1996). In addition, related research investigating physical and sexual abuse has demonstrated
that maltreating parents socialize emotion management skills differently than nonmaltreating parents (e.g.,
provide less support in response to childrens emotion, engage in less emotion-related discussion) and
that maltreated children show deficits in skills across all three emotion management categories (Camras,
Sachs-Alter, & Ribordy, 1996; Shipman & Zeman, 1999, 2001; Shipman, Zeman, Penza, & Champion,
2000). Increased understanding of the impact of neglect on emotional development is essential given that
neglect is the most common form of child maltreatment, with 552,000 children estimated to experience
neglect each year (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2002).
Taken together, this research suggests that neglected children are at risk for psychosocial difficulties
characterized by emotion dysregulation and that they develop in a context that is likely to interfere with
competent emotional development. To date, however, little research has examined the ways in which
neglect may interfere with normative emotional development. Research in this area will help identify
 K. Shipman et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 29 (2005) 10151029 1017

processes that underlie neglected childrens risk for adaptational failures in development. For example,
emotional understanding skills may facilitate childrens ability to establish and maintain constructive
peer relationships whereas deficits in emotional understanding may place them at risk for peer rejection.
Identifying processes in emotional development that may underlie neglected childrens risk for negative
outcomes will facilitate the development of prevention and intervention programs for neglected children
and their families by targeting skills essential to childrens socioemotional competence and psychological
adjustment.
To date, there has been little research that investigates emotion management skills in children who
have experienced neglect. One available study (Pollak, Cicchetti, Hornung, & Reed, 2000) examined
neglected childrens ability to decode facial expression in others as compared to a nonmaltreated control
group. Inclusionary criteria for the neglect group required that children had experienced physical neglect
(i.e., the childs minimum physical needs were not met) with no history of physical or sexual abuse. Find-
ings indicated that neglected children demonstrated difficulty identifying facial expressions of negative
emotion as well as a response bias in which they tended to misidentify facial expressions of other negative
emotions as expressions of sadness. Related research has examined the impact of child maltreatment on
emotional development more broadly by including samples of children who experienced different types
of maltreatment (e.g., emotional, physical, sexual abuse, and/or neglect). Findings from these studies
suggest that maltreated children demonstrate difficulties in the recognition and production of emotional
expression (Camras et al., 1996), difficulties identifying situational causes of emotion (Rogosh et al.,
1995), and emotion dysregulation (Shields & Cicchetti, 1997). Although these studies provide helpful
information, it is not possible to separate the effect of neglect from other types of maltreatment given that
the samples included children with different types of maltreatment experiences. Separation of maltreat-
ment type is important given that the quality of the maltreating environment differs in significant ways
for abused as compared to neglected children. Neglect involves acts of omission (e.g., lack of parental
involvement, inadequate care) whereas physical abuse involves acts of commission (e.g., hostility and
aggression directed at the child). As such, neglectful parents are unlikely to provide the support and
scaffolding necessary to facilitate their childrens emotional development.
The present study, investigated emotion management skills in children who had experienced physical
neglect in order to determine how developing within a neglectful context may interfere with competent
emotional development. In particular, this study examined emotional understanding and emotion regula-
tion skills in children as a function of maltreatment status (i.e., neglect, control) and type of emotion (i.e.,
anger, sadness). Anger and sadness were included because these emotions are commonly experienced in
childhood and, when managed appropriately, are thought to facilitate childrens adaptation to their social
environment by helping them effectively manage daily social interactions (e.g., resolving conflict with
parent or peer for anger, obtaining support for sadness). In addition, each of these emotions is posited to
serve a unique function for the child (e.g., overcoming an obstacle to goal attainment for anger, eliciting
support or assistance for sadness). In turn, they are expected to result in a different response from the
childs social partner. Normative research has demonstrated that different socialization histories exist
for anger and sadness and that childrens expectancies regarding the interpersonal outcomes of their
emotional expression vary by type of emotion (Casey & Fuller, 1994; Jenkins & Ball, 2000; Zeman &
Shipman, 1996).
Based on functionalist tenets and a review of the empirical literature, a set of hypotheses was devel-
oped. With regard to emotional understanding, normative research indicates the importance of parental
discussion of emotion and parental support in response to the childs emotion (Denham, 1998). Given
1018 K. Shipman et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 29 (2005) 10151029

the nature of the neglectful environment (e.g., parental unavailability to facilitate emotional discussion
and provide support and assistance; Erickson & Egeland, 1996), we hypothesized that neglected children
would demonstrate lower levels of emotional understanding than their nonmaltreated peers. With regard
to emotion regulation, normative research suggests the importance of parental scaffolding (e.g., support
in regulating emotional arousal) in the development of adaptive emotion regulation skills (Saarni, 1999;
Thompson, 1994). In addition, research suggests that neglected children are at risk for self-regulatory
difficulties (e.g., behavioral problems) (Egeland, Sroufe, & Erickson, 1983; Erickson & Egeland, 1996;
Reidy, 1977). Therefore, we hypothesized that neglected children, as compared to their nonmaltreated
peers, would demonstrate fewer adaptive strategies for managing emotional arousal and higher levels of
emotion dysregulation. In addition, we hypothesized that neglected children would expect to receive less
support and more conflict from their mothers in response to emotional displays and would be less likely
to show their emotion to their mothers. Finally, type of emotion (i.e., anger, sadness) was considered
given normative research that suggests that childrens emotion management strategies vary as a function
of the type of emotion experienced (e.g., Zeman & Shipman, 1996).

Method

Participants

Twenty-four neglected children between 6 and 12 years of age (M age = 9 years, 3 month, SD = 2
years) and their mothers were recruited from a parenting program for maltreating parents provided by
a mental health agency that was independent of Childrens Protective Services (CPS). Participants were
recruited during the orientation phase of the parenting program to avoid potential treatment confounds.
Inclusionary criteria for the neglect group required that the child had experienced physical neglect by
their mother in the past year that was substantiated by Childrens Protective Services, and that the child
had no history of physical or sexual abuse. Physical neglect was defined as failure of the mother to meet
the minimum physical needs of the child (e.g., lack of supervision of the child in potentially dangerous
situations, shelter not suitable for habitation, inadequate food). Mothers of children who met study criteria
were identified and contacted by a designated staff member who described the project to them. Designated
staff members were employees of the mental health agency who were familiar with the families history of
maltreatment but had no involvement in their CPS case. Families were clearly told that their participation
was voluntary and that decisions regarding participation would have no impact on parenting services
received or on their CPS case. For families interested in participating, consent was obtained from the
parent to give their name to research project staff. A research assistant then contacted interested families
directly to answer questions about the project and to schedule an interview.
Twenty-four nonmaltreated children (M age = 9 years, SD = 2 years, 2 months) and their mothers were
recruited from the community (e.g., Head Start Programs, job placement agency for low income families).
In order to recruit nonmaltreated children, mothers were contacted directly (e.g., when they brought their
younger children to Head Start) and asked if they would be interested in participating. Children in the
control group had no involvement with CPS as indicated by maternal report and review of CPS files.
Eighty-three percent of families who were approached regarding study participation actually partici-
pated in the project (75% for the neglect group, 92% for the control group). Of the families who did not
participate, four families indicated they did not want to participate, two families failed to meet criteria to
 K. Shipman et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 29 (2005) 10151029 1019

Table 1
Family composition at the time of participation of child participants as a function of group status
Family composition Group

Neglect % (N) Control % (N)

Mother and father 8 (2) 37 (9)
Mother only 55 (13) 33 (8)
Mother and stepfather 8 (2) 13 (3)
Mother and other family member 13 (3) 17 (4)
Grandmother 8 (2) 0 (0)
Foster parents 8 (2) 0 (0)
Note: Each of the children living in foster care or with their grandmother maintained consistent visitation with his/her biological
parents and were working toward reunification.

be placed in the control group due to past involvement with CPS, and four parents agreed to participate
but could not be scheduled given that the child lived with another caregiver (e.g., grandmother) who
was not willing to participate or had limited visitation with the parent. There were no significant group
differences with regard to family composition as measured by living in a single versus dual parent home
(see Table 1 for details on family composition).
Table 2 provides detail regarding demographic variables of the neglect and control groups. Groups
were matched on age, gender, and race and, as such, there were no significant group differences for
these variables. There were also no differences with regard to family income, family size, or maternal
age. There were, however, differences with regard to the number of years of education completed by
mothers and childrens verbal ability, with neglectful mothers having less education and neglected children
demonstrating lower verbal ability.

Measures

Vocabulary Subtest, WISC-III. The Vocabulary Subtest of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for
ChildrenThird Edition (WISC-III, Psychological Corporation, 1991) was administered to provide an esti-
mate of childrens overall intellectual functioning. The vocabulary subtest of the WISC-III was selected

Table 2
Means and standard deviations for demographic characteristics of participants
Characteristic Group

Neglect Control p-value (1, 46)

Child age in months 111.42 (23.81) 108.58 (26.33) NS
Family income $14,522 ($6322) $17,786 ($8839) NS
WISC-III vocabulary 6.75 (2.40) 8.44 (1.90) <.01
Years of maternal education 10.71 (2.26) 12.57 (1.50) <.01
Family sizeadults 1.54 (0.65) 1.83 (0.56) NS
Family sizechildren 2.58 (0.93) 2.57 (1.21) NS
Note: Family size was based on the number of adults and children who were living in the family home prior to any removal of
the child from the home by Childrens Protective Services.
1020 K. Shipman et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 29 (2005) 10151029

because research has demonstrated that this subtest has high reliability (r = .87) and provides the best
measure of the general intelligence factor of the entire scale (Sattler, 1992). Similarly, the vocabulary
subtest of the WISC-III demonstrates the highest correlation with the Full Scale IQ (r = .74) of any subtest
on the WISC-III (Sattler, 1992).

Emotional Understanding. The Emotional Understanding Interview (EUI; Cassidy, Parke, Butkovsky,
& Braungart, 1992) requires children to look at two pictures of a same-sex child who is expressing
an emotion (i.e., anger, sadness). Children then answer 12 open-ended questions for each emotion that
reflect their understanding of the causes and consequences of emotional experience and appropriate
responses to emotional displays as well as awareness of emotional experience. Emotions are adminis-
tered in random order and children are asked all questions about one emotion before proceeding to the
second emotion. Sample questions include Do you ever feel [emotion]? and What kind of things
make you feel [emotion]?. Questions are scored dichotomously (1 = reflective of emotional understand-
ing, 0 = not reflective of emotional understanding). For example, a response to Do you ever feel sad?
would be coded as reflective of emotional understanding if they indicated awareness of having expe-
rienced the emotion (e.g., yes, sometimes). Further, a response to What kind of things make you
feel sad? would be coded as reflective of emotional understanding if it identified a cause likely to lead
to a given emotional experience (Id be sad because my dad didnt come to my birthday party.). A
detailed description of the coding system is available from the first author. After questions are scored,
they are summed within emotion type, yielding a total understanding score for each emotion. Research has
demonstrated high internal consistency, interrater reliability, and construct validity with normative and
maltreated samples (Shipman & Zeman, 1999). Internal consistency (range, coefficient alpha = .70.81)
and interrater reliability (kappa = .88) were demonstrated for this sample. To establish interrater reli-
ability, two research assistants coded 30% of interviews that were randomly selected within each
group.

Emotion Regulation. Several measures were administered to assess different aspects of emotion regu-
lation. The Childrens Emotion Management Scales: Anger and Sadness (CEMS; Zeman, Shipman, &
Penza-Clyve, 2001) is a child-report measure that consist of 15-items for each emotion that yield the
following three factors: (a) Inhibition, associated with suppression of emotional expression (e.g., I hide
my sadness/anger.); (b) Dysregulated Expression, defined as the outward expression of emotion in a
dysregulated manner (e.g., I lose my temper when I am angry.; I whine/fuss about what is making me
sad.), and (c) Emotion Regulation coping, associated with attempts to cope with the emotion-eliciting
situation in a constructive manner through use of strategies such as behavioral distraction and social
support (e.g., I talk to someone until I feel better.). Children responded to items using a Likert scale
ranging from 1 = Hardly Ever to 3 = Often. Higher scores on these scales reflect higher levels of inhi-
bition, dysregulated expression, and coping, respectively. Internal consistency has been demonstrated
for the three factor structure for anger and sadness for normative and maltreated samples (coefficient
alphas = .59.79) (Zeman et al., 2001). In addition, construct validity has been established in relation to
self- and other-report measures of anger and sadness regulation, prosocial and aggressive behavior, and
childrens psychological functioning (Zeman et al., 2001). Adequate internal consistency was demon-
strated for the Inhibition and Coping scales in this study (coefficient alpha range from .60 to .71), but not
for the Dysregulated Expression Scale. Thus, the Dysregulated Expression Scale is not included in these
analyses.
 K. Shipman et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 29 (2005) 10151029 1021

The Emotion Regulation Checklist (ERC; Shields & Cicchetti, 1997) is a 24-item questionnaire that
uses a 4-point Likert scale to assess mothers perceptions of their childrens ability to regulate emotion.
This checklist yields two empirically derived scales: (a) Emotion Regulation, which assesses situational
appropriateness of affective displays, empathy, and emotional self-awareness (e.g., Is empathic towards
others.) and (b) Lability/Negativity, which assesses mood lability, lack of flexibility, dysregulated neg-
ative affect, and inappropriate affective displays (e.g., Is prone to angry outbursts.). Higher scores on
these scales reflect higher levels of adaptive emotion regulation and higher levels of lability/negativity,
respectively. Internal consistency has been established as well as support for construct validity for nor-
mative and maltreated samples (Shields & Cicchetti, 1997). Internal consistency was also demonstrated
for this sample (range, coefficient alpha = .78.84).
The Emotion Management InterviewChild Version (EMI-C; Shipman & Zeman, 2001) was adminis-
tered to investigate childrens emotion regulation and their expectancies about mothers reactions to their
emotional displays. Pilot testing has indicated that children 5 years of age and older understand interview
questions and provide responses that fit within the established coding system. Children were read four
vignettes that have been demonstrated in pilot testing and past research (Shipman & Zeman, 2001) to elicit
anger and sadness. In each vignette, the mother was responsible for causing the emotionally arousing
event (e.g., anger by breaking the childs toy, sadness by not attending to a special project the child had
made), and the emotion was labeled for the child. There were two vignettes for each type of emotion.
Each story was written in first-person narrative and specified the emotion that the child experienced as a
result of events in the story. Following each vignette, children were asked questions related to: (a) their
decisions to express or dissemble emotional expression (i.e., Would you show or not show your emotion
feelings to your mother?, 1 = definitely would not show, 4 = definitely would show) and (b) anticipated
consequences of emotional disclosure (i.e., What would your mother do if you showed your emotion feel-
ings?). The question regarding expectancies for maternal response was asked open-ended and was coded
for presence versus absence of maternal support and maternal conflict. Support was defined as a positive
interpersonal (e.g., understanding, sympathy, assistance) or instrumental response (e.g., replacement of
a broken toy), whereas conflict was defined as a negative interpersonal (e.g., ridicule, reject, or become
angry with the child) or instrumental response (e.g., removal of privileges). Total scores were created by
summing the number of responses indicative of the presence of maternal support and of maternal conflict,
respectively, across the two vignettes for each emotion. High interrater reliability (kappa = .97 for support
and for conflict) was established for the expectancy question in this study by using two raters for 30% of
the responses. Interviews used for interrater reliability were selected randomly within each group.

Procedure

Prior to data collection, participants were provided a detailed description of the nature of the project in
developmentally appropriate language. Parents provided informed consent, and children indicated verbal
assent for participation. After obtaining consent, participants were interviewed individually in their homes
by female graduate students in clinical psychology who were unaware of the group status of the child.
Parents/guardians in both groups were asked to sign a release form that enabled the principal investigator to
verify childrens maltreatment status through review of files at CPS and discussion with CPS caseworker.
The research protocol typically lasted one and a half hours. All measures were administered in random
order with emotion type counterbalanced across participants for each measure. The Institutional Review
Board at the University of Georgia granted approval for this project.
1022 K. Shipman et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 29 (2005) 10151029

Data Analysis Strategy

Repeated measures ANOVAS were conducted to assess group differences with regard to childrens
emotional understanding, emotion regulation, and expectations of maternal response to emotional displays
in situations in which emotion type served as a within-subjects factor. The between-subjects factor for
these analyses was group status (i.e., neglect, control), with a within-subjects factor of emotion type
(i.e., anger, sadness). A MANOVA was conducted to examine group differences (i.e., neglect, control)
for the Emotion Regulation Checklist (i.e., Emotion Regulation Scale, Lability/Negativity Scale) given
that there was no within-subjects variable for this measure. Given group differences in childrens verbal
ability as measured by WISC-III vocabulary subtest, analyses were also conducted using verbal ability
as a covariate for all child report measures. Since verbal ability did not significantly relate to outcome
measures, we have presented the results without the covariate included.

Results

Emotional Understanding

Emotional Understanding Interview (EUI). A main effect emerged for group, F(1, 46) = 5.57, p < .05, in
which neglected children had significantly lower emotional understanding scores than non-maltreated
children. This finding indicates that neglected children demonstrated more difficulty understanding
emotion (e.g., causes and consequences of emotion, appropriate response to emotions in others) than
non-maltreated children. There were no differences as a function of emotion type and no significant
interaction between group status and emotion type. Please refer to Table 3 for means and standard
deviations.

Table 3
Means and standard deviations for the Emotional Understanding Interview (EUI), Childrens Emotion Management Scales
(CEMS), Emotion Regulation Checklist scales (ERC) and the Emotion Management Interview questions (EMI) as a function of
group status
Characteristic Group

Neglect Control F-value

EUI 8.03 (2.12) 9.52 (2.23) 5.57*
CEMS-Coping 2.01 (0.37) 2.31 (0.61) 4.27*
CEMS-Inhibition 1.88 (0.55) 1.69 (0.40) 2.90
ERC-Emotion Regulation 22.08 (4.44) 25.71 (3.28) 10.35**
ERC-Lability 32.88 (6.71) 29.50 (5.89) 3.43
EMI-Emotion Display 5.45 (1.55) 6.70 (0.79) 12.13***
EMI-Support 1.04 (0.58) 1.59 (0.53) 10.76**
EMI-Conflict 0.66 (0.56) 0.22 (0.37) 9.01**
*
p < .05.
**
p < .01.
***
p < .001.
 K. Shipman et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 29 (2005) 10151029 1023

Emotion Regulation

Childrens Emotion Management Scales (CEMS): Emotion regulation coping factor

A group main effect emerged, F(1, 46) = 4.27, p < .05, in which neglected children demonstrated less
use of effective coping strategies as compared to controls. There was no difference as a function of emotion
type and no significant interaction between group status and emotion type. Please refer to Table 3 for
means and standard deviations.

Inhibition Factor

For the factor examining the inhibition of emotional expression, there were no significant differences
as a function of group or emotion type and no significant interaction between group status and emotion
type.

Emotion Regulation Checklist (ERC)

An overall main effect for group emerged, F(2, 45) = 5.28, p < .01. Univariate tests revealed a group
main effect for the Emotion Regulation Scale, F(1, 46) = 10.35, p < .01, in which neglected children
demonstrated fewer adaptive emotion regulation skills (e.g., situational appropriateness of affective dis-
plays, empathy, and emotional self-awareness) as compared to their nonmaltreated peers. Further, findings
indicated a trend toward group differences for the Negativity/Lability Scale, F(1, 46) = 3.43, p = .07, in
which neglected children showed more emotional lability (e.g., mood lability, dysregulated negative
affect, and inappropriate affective displays) as compared to their nonmaltreated peers. Please refer to
Table 3 for means and standard deviations.

Emotion Management Interview (EMI)

On the EMI, main effects were found for group with regard to childrens decision to display emotion,
F(1, 46) = 12.13, p < .001, childrens expectations of support, F(1, 42) = 10.76, p < .01, and childrens
expectations of conflict, F(1, 42) = 9.01, p < .01, respectively. In particular, neglected children, as com-
pared to their nonmaltreated peers, were less likely to show emotion to their mothers and expected
less support and more conflict from mothers in response to their emotional displays. Main effects also
emerged for type of emotion for expectations of support, F(1, 42) = 11.60, p < .001, and conflict, F(1,
42) = 21.16, p < .001, respectively. In particular, children expected less support following displays of anger
(M = .98, SD = .82) than sadness (M = 1.54, SD = .65), and expected more conflict following displays of
anger (M = .80, SD = .81) than sadness (M = .19, SD = .45). There were no significant interactions between
group status and emotion type.

Discussion

The present study examined emotional understanding and emotion regulation skills in neglected and
nonneglected children. In general, findings demonstrated that neglected children have lower levels of
emotional understanding, fewer adaptive emotion regulation skills, and less effective coping strategies
than their nonmaltreated peers. Further, neglected children expect less support and more conflict from
1024 K. Shipman et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 29 (2005) 10151029

their mothers in response to emotional displays and are more likely to dissemble emotional expression
with their mothers. Taken together, these findings suggest that child neglect may interfere with the normal
acquisition of emotional understanding and emotion regulation skills.

Emotional Understanding

As hypothesized, neglected children demonstrated lower levels of emotional understanding for both
anger and sadness as compared to their nonmaltreated peers. This finding suggests that neglected children
have more difficulty appraising the causes and consequences of emotionally arousing situations, fail to
respond to emotional displays of others in a culturally appropriate manner, and maintain lower levels
of awareness of their own emotional experience. When considered within the functionalist perspective
(Barrett & Campos, 1987; Saarni et al., 1998), neglected children may either misinterpret or fail to
process environmental information regarding emotion, placing them at risk for difficulties establishing and
maintaining interpersonal relationships. This is consistent with research that demonstrates that emotional
understanding is related to peer acceptance (Cassidy & Parke, 1991; Denham et al., 1990; Parke et al.,
1992; Underwood, 1997) and with research that indicates that neglected children demonstrate difficulties
developing healthy peer relationships (Hoffman-Plotkin & Twentyman, 1984).
When considering these findings, however, it is important to note that although neglected children
did not understand emotion in a manner consistent with cultural norms, their understanding of emotion
may be adaptive within the neglectful context. This possibility is best understood by examining the
content of neglected childrens answers on the Emotional Understanding Interview. For example, in
response to questions regarding self-awareness of emotional experience, neglected children, unlike their
nonmaltreated peers, tended to deny negative emotional experience (e.g., I never feel mad at any one.).
Although this decreased self-awareness may help neglected children cope with a home environment
that does not provide support for demonstrations of negative emotion, it may prevent these children
from learning about and utilizing emotional cues to understand emotionally arousing situations (Barrett
& Campos, 1987; Saarni et al., 1998). Further, in response to questions regarding how to respond to
negative emotional displays in others, neglected children frequently indicated that they would ignore the
emotional display and remove themselves from the situation (e.g., Id do nothing. Id run away.). In
some instances, they reported that they would feel happy in response to the negative display of others (e.g.,
Id feel happy that it wasnt me that was mad.). In contrast, nonmaltreated children generally indicated
that they would provide the other child with assistance or support (e.g., Id ask them what happened.;
Go over and try to help them.). The avoidance strategies used by neglected children appear to reflect a
belief in the importance of reliance on self as compared to others when handling emotional distress and
may help them to adapt within the neglectful environment (e.g., preventing conflict with caregivers). At the
same time, however, these strategies may interfere with their ability to establish successful interpersonal
relationships outside of the neglectful context, decreasing the likelihood that others will respond with
support to their emotional distress.

Emotion Dysregulation

Findings supported the hypothesis that neglected children would demonstrate fewer adaptive emo-
tion regulation skills than their nonmaltreated peers. In particular, findings from the Emotion Regulation
Checklist completed by mothers indicated that neglected children displayed fewer situationally appro-
priate emotional displays as well as lower levels of empathy and emotional self-awareness. In addition,
 K. Shipman et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 29 (2005) 10151029 1025

findings from the Childrens Emotion Management Scales indicated that neglected children reported
using fewer adaptive strategies for coping with emotional arousal than their nonmaltreated peers. Given
that neglectful parents often fail to meet the most basic needs of the child, it is likely that they also fail
to engage in behaviors that help children to learn adaptive emotion regulation strategies. For example,
neglectful parents may be unlikely to model or teach perspective-taking skills important to the develop-
ment of empathy or to provide the support and scaffolding necessary for the development of emotional
awareness. Further, coping strategies typically used by nonmaltreated children (e.g., distraction, help-
seeking) may not be viable in a neglectful context because they are ineffective for coping with intense
emotion and generalized distress (Cole, Michel, & ODonnell Teti, 1994a). In addition, these coping
strategies (e.g., help-seeking) may have little adaptational value in the neglectful environment given that
efforts to solicit help from a caregiver are likely to be ineffective. With regard to emotion dysregulation,
findings on the Emotion Regulation Checklist indicated a trend in which neglected children displayed
more lability and negativity (e.g., mood lability, inappropriate emotional displays, high levels of negative
emotion) as compared to their nonmaltreated peers. This is consistent with research that suggests that
neglected children are at-risk for emotional and behavioral difficulties characterized by emotion dysreg-
ulation (Erickson & Egeland, 1996; Erickson et al., 1989; Gaudin et al., 1993) as well as with findings
that they lack skills for managing emotional arousal in a constructive manner.

Emotion management and expectancies of outcomes of emotional displays

As hypothesized, neglected children, compared to their nonmaltreated peers, reported more negative
expectancies regarding the interpersonal outcome of emotional displays. In particular, neglected children
expected less support and more conflict from their mothers in response to their own displays of anger and
sadness. Consideration of childrens responses suggested that neglected children expect their mothers to
either ignore their emotional display (She would just lay in her bed., She would say she was busy.) or to
respond in a punitive or conflictual manner (She would spank or yell at me.). In contrast, nonmaltreated
children generally expected a supportive maternal response (She would talk to me about it. She would
try to help me get over it.). Further, findings indicated that children in both groups expected less support
and more conflict from mothers in response to their displays of anger than to their displays of sadness.
This finding is consistent with research indicating that all children are socialized from an early age to
dampen and control expressions of anger (Malatesta & Haviland, 1982) and that expressions of anger are
met with more negative consequences than are displays of sadness (Zeman & Garber, 1996; Zeman &
Shipman, 1996).
In relation to childrens decisions to manage emotional expression, neglected children, compared
to their nonmaltreated peers, reported that they would be less likely to express anger and sadness to
their mothers. This is consistent with findings that neglected children expected more negative outcomes
from their mothers following their emotional displays. That is, from a functionalist perspective, children
who anticipate a nonsupportive or denigrating response to their emotional displays are likely to restrict
emotional expressiveness (Cole, Zahn-Waxler, & Smith, 1994b).

Limitations and future directions

Although the findings of the present study provide a cohesive picture of childrens emotional under-
standing and emotion regulation in neglectful and nonneglectful environments, it is important to consider
1026 K. Shipman et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 29 (2005) 10151029

the limitations of the study. First, differences in child characteristics (i.e., gender, age) were not con-
sidered. Empirical evidence suggests that girls and boys report different expectations regarding parental
and peer responses to their emotional displays (Fuchs & Thelen, 1988; Zeman & Garber, 1996; Zeman
& Shipman, 1996), and that childrens ability to understand emotionally arousing situations increases
across early and middle childhood (Gross & Ballif, 1991). This study was not able to consider gender
and age differences because of the small sample size. Future studies incorporating larger sample sizes
would benefit from the inclusion of these factors. Larger sample sizes in future research will also increase
the generalizability of research findings. Research should also begin to consider other family and child
characteristics (e.g., parental psychopathology) in order to increase our understanding of the ways that
these factors may impact the development of childrens emotional understanding and emotion regulation
in neglectful families. Further, while anger and sadness were included in this study because of the cen-
trality of these emotions to childrens daily functioning (Barrett & Campos, 1987), future research should
examine other types of emotion (e.g., fear, happiness) given that these emotions may also be central to
these childrens atypical experiences.
With regard to measurement issues, future research should include additional measures of neglect and
other forms of maltreatment (e.g., checklists based on home observation, interviews with parents) to
provide objective information regarding the quality of care within the home. Additional measures will
provide more detailed information about the nature of the neglect experienced by the sample and will help
to identify any maltreatment in the control group that may have gone undetected by CPS. Future research
will also benefit from the inclusion of observational assessment of childrens emotion management skills,
in addition to reliance of parent and child interviews and self-report measures. Observational assessment
would not only provide an objective estimate of childrens behavior but also would enable researchers to
observe potential disparities in childrens knowledge of emotion management skills and their ability to
implement these skills effectively in emotionally arousing situations.
Finally, future research should begin to consider the role that parental socialization plays in neglected
childrens development of emotional understanding and emotion regulation skills. Studies investigat-
ing the socialization of emotional understanding (Shipman & Zeman, 1999) and emotion regulation
(Shipman & Zeman, 2001) in physically abused children indicate that maternal socialization behavior
(e.g., maternal discussion of emotion, generation of effective coping strategies for children) mediates the
relationship between physical abuse and emotional understanding and regulation, respectively. Neglect
provides a unique paradigm for studying the socialization of emotional development given that neglectful
parent-child interaction lacks several characteristics thought to promote childrens emotional compe-
tence. Research in this area will provide information important to the development of prevention and
intervention programs for neglectful parents and their children as well as information about factors in
parental socialization that are central to the development of emotional competence.

References

Aragona, J. A., & Eyeberg, S. M. (1981). Neglected children: Mothers report of child behavior problems and observed verbal
behavior. Child Development, 52, 596602.
Barrett, K. C., & Campos, J. J. (1987). Perspectives on emotional development. II. A functionalist approach to emotions. In J.
Osofsky (Ed.), Handbook of infant development (2nd ed., pp. 555578). New York, NY: Wiley.
Bousha, D. M., & Twentyman, C. T. (1984). Mother-child interactional style in abuse, neglect, and control groups: Naturalistic
observations in the home. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 93, 106114.
 K. Shipman et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 29 (2005) 10151029 1027

Camras, L., Sachs-Alter, E., & Ribordy, S. C. (1996). Emotion understanding in maltreated children: recognition of facial
expressions and integration with other emotion cues. In M. Lewis & M. Sullivan (Eds.), Emotional development in atypical
children (pp. 203225). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associated, Inc.
Casey, R., & Fuller, L. (1994). Maternal regulation of childrens emotions. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior. Special. Issue:
Development of Nonverbal Behavior. II. Social Development and Nonverbal Behavior, 18, 5789.
Cassidy, J., & Parke, R. D. (1991). Childrens emotional understanding and peer relations. Symposium presented at the Biennial
Meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Seattle, WA.
Cassidy, J., Parke, R. D., Butkovsky, L., & Braungart, J. M. (1992). Family-peer connections: the roles of emotional expressiveness
within the family and childrens understanding of emotions. Child Development, 63, 603618.
Cole, P. M. (1986). Childrens spontaneous control of facial expression. Child Development, 57, 13091321.
Cole, P. M., Michel, M. K., & ODonnell Teti, L. (1994). The development of emotion regulation and dysregulation: a clinical
perspective. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 59, 73102.
Cole, P. M., Zahn-Waxler, C., & Smith, K. D. (1994). Expressive control during a disappointment: variations related to preschool-
ers behavior problems. Developmental Psychology, 30, 835846.
Cook, E., Greenberg, M., & Kusche, C. (1994). The relations between emotional understanding, intellectual functioning,
and disruptive behavior problems in elementary-school-aged children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 22, 205
219.
Crittenden, P. (1981). Abusing, neglecting, problematic, and adequate dyads: differentiating by patterns of interaction. Merrill-
Palmer Quarterly, 27, 201218.
Denham, S. (1998). Emotional development in young children. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Denham, S. A., Mason, T., Caverly, S., Schmidt, M., Hackney, R., Caswell, C., & De Mulder, E. (2001). Preschoolers at play:
co-socialisers of emotional and social competence. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 25, 290301.
Denham, S., McKinley, M., Couchoud, E. A., & Holt, R. (1990). Emotional and behavioral predictors of preschool peer ratings.
Child Development, 61, 11451152.
Egeland, B., Sroufe, A., & Erickson, M. (1983). The developmental consequence of different patterns of maltreatment. Child
Abuse & Neglect, 7, 459469.
Eisenberg, N., Losoya, S., Fabes, R. A., Guthrie, I. K., Reiser, M., Murphy, B., Shepard, S. A., Poulin, R., & Padgett, S.
J. (2001). Parental socialization of childrens dysregulated expression of emotion and externalizing problems. Journal of
Family Psychology, 15, 183205.
Erickson, M. F., & Egeland, B. (1996). Child neglect. In J. Briere, L. Berliner, J. Bulkley, C. Jenny, & T. Reid (Eds.), The APSAC
handbook on child maltreatment (pp. 2151). London: Sage Publications.
Erickson, M. F., Egeland, B., & Pianta, R. (1989). The effects of maltreatment on the development of young children. In D.
Cicchetti & V. Carlson (Eds.), Child maltreatment: Theory and research on the causes and consequences of child abuse and
neglect (pp. 647684). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Fabes, R. A., Leonard, S. A., Kupanoff, K., & Martin, C. L. (2001). Parental coping with childrens negative emotions: Relations
with childrens emotional and social responding. Child Development, 27, 907920.
Fuchs, D., & Thelen, M. H. (1988). Childrens expected interpersonal consequences of communicating their affective state and
reported likelihood of expression. Child Development, 59, 13141322.
Gaudin, J. M., Polansky, N. A., & Kilpatrick, A. C. (1993). Loneliness, depression, stress, and social supports in neglectful
families. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 63, 597605.
Gaudin, J. M., Polansky, N. A., & Kilpatrick, A. C. (1996). Family functioning in neglectful families. Child Abuse & Neglect,
20, 363377.
Gross, J. J. (1998). Sharpening the focus: emotion regulation, arousal, and social competence. Psychological Inquiry, 9, 287290.
Gross, A. L., & Ballif, B. (1991). Childrens understanding of emotion from facial expressions and situations: a review. Devel-
opmental Review, 11, 368398.
Hoffman-Plotkin, D., & Twentyman, C. T. (1984). A multimodal assessment of behavioral and cognitive deficits in abused and
neglected preschoolers. Child Development, 55, 794802.
Jenkins, J. M., & Ball, S. (2000). Distinguishing between negative emotions: Childrens understanding of the social-regulatory
aspects of emotion. Cognition & Emotion, 14, 261282.
Malatesta, C. Z., & Haviland, J. M. (1982). Learning display rules: the socialization of emotion expression in infancy. Child
Development, 53, 9911003.
1028 K. Shipman et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 29 (2005) 10151029

Parke, R. D., Cassidy, J., Burks, V. M., Carson, J. L., & Boyum, L. (1992). Familial contributions to peer competence among
young children: the role of interactive and affective processes. In R. D. Parke & G. W. Ladd (Eds.), Family-peer relationships:
Modes of linkage (pp. 107134). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Pollak, S. D., Cicchetti, D., Hornung, K., & Reed, A. (2000). Recognizing emotion in faces: developmental effects of child abuse
and neglect. Developmental Psychology, 36, 679688.
Psychological Corporation (1991). Manual for the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for ChildrenThird ed. San Antonio, TX: Author.
Reidy, T. J. (1977). The aggressive characteristics of abused and neglected children. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 33,
11401145.
Rogosh, F. A., Cicchetti, D., & Aber, J. L. (1995). The role of child maltreatment in early deviations in cognitive and affective
processing abilities and later peer relationship problems. Development and Psychopathology, 7, 591609.
Saarni, C. (1999). The development of emotional competence. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Saarni, C., Mumme, D., & Campos, J. (1998). Emotional development: Action, communication and understanding. In N.
Eisenberg (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology, Social, emotion, and personality development: (Vol. 3, 5th ed., pp. 237309).
New York, NY: Wiley.
Sattler, J. M. (1992). Assessment of children: WISC-III and WWPSI-R Supplement. San Diego, CA: Jerome M. Sattler Publishing.
Shields, A. M., & Cicchetti, D. (1997). Emotion regulation among school-age children: the development and validation of a new
criterion Q-sort scale. Developmental Psychology, 33, 906916.
Shipman, K., Schneider, R., & Brown, A. (2004). Emotion dysregulation and psychopathology. In M. Beauregard (Ed.), Con-
sciousness, emotional self-regulation and the brain: Advances in consciousness research series (pp. 6186). Philadelphia,
PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Shipman, K. L., & Zeman, J. (1999). Emotional understanding: a comparison of physically maltreating and nonmaltreating
motherchild dyads. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 28, 407417.
Shipman, K. L., & Zeman, J. (2001). Socialization of childrens emotion regulation in motherchild dyads: a developmental
psychopathology perspective. Development and Psychopathology, 13, 317336.
Shipman, K. L., Zeman, J., Penza, S., & Champion, K. (2000). Emotion management skills in sexually maltreated and nonmal-
treated girls: a developmental psychopathology perspective. Development and Psychopathology, 12, 4762.
Thompson, R. (1994). Emotion regulation: A theme in search of a definition. In N. Fox (Ed.), The development of emotion
regulation (Vol. 59, pp. 2552). Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development.
Underwood, M. K. (1997). Peer social status and childrens understanding of the expression and control of positive and negative
emotions. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 43, 610634.
United States Department of Health and Human Services. (2002). Child Matreatment 2002. Retrieved May 25th, 2004 from the
US Department of Health and Human Services website via access: http://nccanch.acf.hhs.gov/pubs.
Zeman, J., & Garber, J. (1996). Display rules for anger, sadness, and pain: It depends on who is watching. Child Development,
67, 957973.
Zeman, J., & Shipman, K. L. (1996). Childrens expression of negative affect: Reasons and methods. Developmental Psychology,
32, 842849.
Zeman, J., Shipman, K. L., & Penza-Clyve, S. (2001). Development and initial validation of the childrens Sadness Management
Scale. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 25, 187205.

Resume

Objectif: Le but principal de cette etude pilote fut dexaminer combien habiles sont les enfants victimes
de negligence a gerer leurs emotions. Ils ont ete compares a un groupe controle. Lobjectif etait de voir
comment la negligence peut entraver le developpement emotionnel des enfants.
Methode: Letude comprenait des enfants ages de 6 a 12 ans, ainsi que leur mere (groupe denfants
negliges, N = 24; groupe controle, N = 24). Tous ont complete un questionnaire et ont ete interviewes afin
devaluer la comprehension quont les enfants de leurs emotions et la gestion de ces emotions.
Resultats: Les constats nous apprennent que les enfants negliges, compares aux enfants non maltraites,
manifestent une comprehension plus faible des emotions negatives telles que la rage et la tristesse, et
 K. Shipman et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 29 (2005) 10151029 1029

sont moins capables de moderer leurs emotions. De plus, lorsquils expriment des emotions negatives,
ils sont moins portes a sattendre que leur mere leur apporte un appui mais plutot le conflit. Ils avouent
etre portes a reprimer leurs emotions negatives.
Conclusions: Les constats portent a croire que la negligence pourrait bien entraver le developpement
normal de la comprehension des emotions et de leur controle. On souligne limportance de se pencher
sur ces competences lorsquon soccupe des enfants negliges.

Resumen

Objetivo: El objetivo principal de este estudio piloto fue examinar las habilidades para manejar la emocion
(por ejemplo comprension emocional, regulacion emocional) en ninos que haban vivido negligencia y
un grupo control para determinar las maneras en que la negligencia puede interferir en el desarrollo
emocional de los ninos.
Metodo: Los participantes incluyeron ninos de 6 a 12 anos de edad y sus madres (grupo con negligencia,
N = 24; grupo control, N = 24). Los participantes completaron cuestionarios y una entrevista que evaluaba
la comprension emocional y la regulacion emocional de los ninos.
Resultados: Los hallazgos indicaron que los ninos que sufrieron negligencia, comparados con sus
companeros no maltratados, demostraron mas baja comprension de emociones negativas (por ejemplo ira,
tristeza), y menos habilidades adaptativas de regulacion de la emocion. Ademas, los ninos que sufrieron
negligencia esperaban menos apoyo y mas conflicto de sus madres en respuesta a demostraciones de
emociones negativas y reportaron que tenan mas tendencia a exhibir la expresion de emocion negativa.
Conclusiones: Los hallazgos sugieren que la negligencia puede interferir en la adquisicion normal de
la comprension emocional y las habilidades de regulacion de la emocion, destacandose la importancia
de tomar en cuenta estas habilidades en el contexto de la intervencion clnica con ninos que han sufrido
negligencia.