569

The
British
Psychological
British Journal of Developmental Psychology (2005), 23, 569–586
q 2005 The British Psychological Society
Society

www.bpsjournals.co.uk

Development of the Levels of Emotional

Awareness Scale for Children (LEAS-C)

Jane Bajgar1*, Joseph Ciarrochi1, Richard Lane2

and Frank P. Deane1
1
University of Wollongong, Australia
2
University of Arizona, USA

A performance-based assessment of the structure and complexity of emotional

awareness was developed, the Levels of Emotional Awareness Scale for Children
(LEAS-C). A pilot study (N ¼ 6, ages 9–12, Mage ¼ 10:2 years) was conducted to
construct, trial, and select scenarios suitable for the scale. A larger validity study
(N ¼ 51, ages 10–11, Mage ¼ 10:3 years) examined the relationship between the LEAS-
C and two emotion knowledge tasks: emotion expressions and emotion
comprehension; two verbal tasks: vocabulary and verbal productivity; and a cognitive
developmental measure: the Parental Descriptions Scale (PDS). Gender differences in
LEAS-C performance were also examined. The LEAS-C was significantly related to
emotion comprehension, and the verbal tasks. Consistent with adult studies, females
reported significantly higher LEAS-C scores compared with males. Gender effects
remained when controlling for the two verbal tasks. Preliminary support for the validity
of the LEAS-C as an objective assessment of emotional complexity in children is found
in this study. Results also suggest that gender differences in emotional awareness occur
at a young age.

Emotional awareness (EA), may be the skill most fundamental to emotional intelligence
(Lane, 2000). Lane and Schwartz (1987) have defined EA as the ability to identify and
describe one’s own emotions, and those of other people. The construct is derived from
the developmental levels of emotional awareness (LEA) model, and focuses on the
structure and complexity of emotion representations. That is, the capacity to
differentiate emotions from one another, and the level of emotion complexity inherent
in the description of emotion experiences.
EA is viewed as a cognitive skill that undergoes a developmental process similar to
that described by Piaget for cognition in general (Flavell, 1963). According to the LEA
model, emotional awareness is structured from cognitive schemata. The complexity of
the schemata (the degree of integration and differentiation) differs between individuals,

* Correspondence should be addressed to C. Jane Bajgar, Illawarra Institute for Mental Health, Building 22, University
of Wollongong, NSW 2522, Australia (e-mail: [email protected]).
570 Jane Bajgar et al.

and reflects an individual’s past experience with the language of emotion. The function
of the schemata is to filter and process external and internal emotional information.
An individual’s conscious awareness or experience of emotions is founded on this
structural organization. Five levels of experience are described in the model: bodily
sensations, action tendencies, single emotions, blends of emotion, and combination of
blends (Lane & Schwartz, 1987).
The Levels of Emotional Awareness Scale (LEAS) was developed to measure individual
differences in the complexity of emotional awareness among adults (Lane, Quinlan,
Schwartz, & Walker, 1990). Support for the LEA model has grown over the past decade.
Systematic differences in the emotional awareness of adults have been identified
(for normative data see Lane et al., 1996). Consistent gender differences have also
emerged, with females reporting higher levels of EA than males (Barrett, Lane, Sechrest, &
Schwartz, 2000). EA has been found to correlate with other areas of emotional
functioning, such as the ability to recognize and categorize emotional stimuli (Lane, 2000;
Lane et al., 1996). EA has also been found to correlate negatively with mood congruent
bias, that is, individuals high in emotional awareness are more aware of their moods and
are consequently more likely to prevent their mood from biasing their judgment when
compared with individuals low in emotional awareness (Ciarrochi & Forgas, 2000).
Support for the claim that the LEAS taps the structure of emotion, as opposed to
emotional content, has been found in several studies. For example, EA does not
correlate significantly with the tendency to experience emotions intensely, nor with
measures of negative affect, for example, the Taylor Manifest Anxiety Scale or the Beck
Depression Inventory (Lane, 2000; Lane et al., 1990, 1996). The relationship between
emotional awareness and brain function has also been examined. Lane and colleagues
found a strong relationship between right hemispheric dominance in the perception of
facial emotion, and the ability to perceive complexity in the processing of emotional
information (Lane, Kivley, Du Bois, Shamasundara, & Schwartz, 1995). Other studies
have focused on the brain regions associated with emotion awareness implicating,
among other areas, the anterior cingulate cortex (Lane et al., 1998).
To date, examination of the LEA model has been undertaken with adult samples only.
Support for the model would be enhanced if the generalizability of the construct could
be extended to other populations. Given the developmental emphasis of the LEA model,
establishing the validity of the construct among children is an important progression.
The development of children’s emotion knowledge is an extensive and
complex research field, involving numerous, and frequently overlapping, domains.
A comprehensive review of this literature is not central to this paper (for more
background information, see Eisenberg & Moore, 1997; Halberstadt, Crisp, & Eaton,
1999). However, a brief overview allows us to place the EA construct in context.
Research domains have included children’s conceptualization of emotion
(Harris & Olthof, 1982), their explanations for emotional states (Carroll & Steward,
1984; De Rosnay & Harris, 2002), their understanding of the influence of emotion
(Bennett & Galpert, 1992), their understanding of emotion expressions, for example,
their ability to encode and/or decode facial expressions (Custrini & Feldman, 1989; De
Sonneville et al., 2002), and their understanding of, and ability to control, emotion
expression (Garber, Braafladt, & Weiss, 1995; Kopp, 1989; Saarni, 1984; Saarni & von
Salisch, 1993; Underwood, Coie, & Herbsman, 1992). The influence of broader factors
on children’s emotional development, such as parental socialization (Denham,
Mitchell-Copeland, Strandberg, Auerbach, & Blair, 1997) and family expressiveness
(Bowling, 1993; Denham & Grout, 1992; Halberstadt, 1986) have also gained increasing
 Levels of Emotional Awareness Scale for Children 571

attention. Explaining age- and gender-related patterns in emotion development has been
the focus of many of these studies.
Evidence of age-related development in emotion understanding is ubiquitous. Older
children are more accurate at recognizing and labelling emotions in self and others, and
viewing their emotions from the perspective of others (Carroll & Steward, 1984). Older
children can provide more complex explanations for their emotions (Carroll & Steward,
1984; Casey, 1993). They demonstrate greater insight into the impact of emotion on
other areas of functioning, such as motivation and performance (Bennett & Galpert,
1992). Older children are more accurate in their understanding of emotion dimensions
such as intensity, multiplicity, valence, and ambivalence (Donaldson & Westerman, 1986;
Harter & Buddin, 1987; Wintre & Vallance, 1994). They show greater understanding of
emotion complexity (Rotenberg & Eisenberg, 1997; Terwogt, Koops, Oosterhoff, &
Olthof, 1986), and are more skilled at emotional dissemblance, that is, when feelings are
shown indirectly or deceptively (Denham et al., 1997; Rotenberg & Eisenberg, 1997).
Age-related trends such as these have also been confirmed in cross-cultural research
(Koike, 1997; Markham & Wang, 1996; Smith & Walden, 1998; Tsukamoto, 1997).
Gender differences in children’s emotion development have been somewhat difficult
to establish, and are likely to involve a complex interplay of biological, interpersonal,
and socio-cultural factors (Brody, 1985). Differences in behavioural enactment and
expression of emotions have found strongest research support (Saarni, 1999). Evidence
suggests that females are more emotionally expressive and more accurate in reporting
initial facial expressions, compared with males (Casey, 1993). They appear more skilled
at encoding and decoding facial expression (Hall, 1984). Females also appear more
adept at emotional dissemblance, substituting a full positive expression to mask
disappointment, compared with the neutral expression more often taken by males
(Cole, 1986). Differences in other domains have also been reported, including
communication of emotion (Zeman & Shipman, 1996) and expression of emotions, such
as anger and sadness (Clay, Hagglund, Kashani, & Frank, 1996; Underwood et al., 1992).
Evidence of gender effects in children’s emotion understanding has been more
equivocal. Past research has suggested there is little relationship between these variables
(Terwogt & Olthof, 1989; Thompson, 1989). However, some contrary findings have
emerged in recent studies; for example, gender effects in children’s understanding of
multiple or contradictory emotions (Wintre & Vallance, 1994), and affective labelling
and affective perspective taking abilities (Brown & Dunn, 1996). Gender differences in
emotion understanding also appear related to broader relational factors. Custrini and
Feldman (1989) found females high in social competence were more skilled at encoding
and decoding facial expressions, whereas emotion skill did not relate to social
competence for males. Brown and Dunn (1996) found relations between understanding
of emotions and quality of sibling relationships was stronger for females than for males.
Evidence that females develop verbal language, including emotion vocabulary, earlier
than males (Brody, 1993) is consistent with these findings. It also highlights the need to
assess verbal skills when examining gender effects in emotion skills. This is particularly
the case when assessment tasks are reliant on vocabulary, as with the LEAS-C. Support
for the validity of a measure of EA would be provided if differences between males and
females in EA remain when verbal abilities are controlled.
Developmental progressions in children’s cognitive and emotion domains appear
closely intertwined (Banerjee, 1997; Brenner & Salovey, 1997; Saarni, 1999). Models of
emotion understanding, such as Donaldson and Westerman’s (1986) four-stage
developmental sequence in children’s understanding of ambivalence, and Harter
572 Jane Bajgar et al.

and Buddin’s (1987) developmental model of children’s understanding of the

simultaneity of two emotions, emphasize stage-like progressions in competence and
comprehension, as found in Piaget’s theory of cognitive development (Flavell, 1963).
On the basis of models such as these, and including the LEA model, we would expect
that development in complexity of emotion understanding would increase with
increasing cognitive development (age). For instance, evidence suggests that children’s
understanding of the simultaneity of two or more emotions, particularly when of
differing valence, occurs in mid-to-late childhood, around 10 years of age (Harter, 1980).
Further, older children demonstrate a greater understanding of more differentiated
emotion terms compared with younger children (Harter & Buddin, 1987). These
findings are consistent with expectations arising from the LEA model. Specifically, we
would expect the emotion descriptions of older children to reflect more complex
experience, for example, a greater range of emotion responses and/or degrees of
ambivalence. We would expect the emotion descriptions of younger children to reflect
less emotion range and less complex experience, for example, somatic and action
tendencies, or unidimensional emotions.
The usual approach to the assessment of emotion understanding in children requires
subjects to identify discrete emotions, for example, express a named emotion, name an
expressed emotion, and receptively demonstrate a particular emotion, (e.g. ‘show me
the face when John feels happy’), and/or to generate emotion responses appropriate to
a given context or situation. Examples of such assessments include Denham’s (1986)
affective labelling and affective perspective-taking tasks (Brown & Dunn, 1996; Dunn,
Cutting, & Demetriou, 2000; Hughes & Dunn, 1998; McElwain & Volling, 2002), Cassidy,
Parke, Butkovsky, and Braungart’s (1992) assessment of the causes of emotions in self
and others (Dunn et al., 2000; Hughes & Dunn, 1998), and Gordis, Rosen, and Grand’s
(1989) storytelling interview (Brown & Dunn, 1996). In assessments such as these, level
of emotion understanding is reflected in the percentage of correct responses provided.
In contrast, the LEAS-C assesses individual differences in how emotion would be
experienced in hypothetical situations. The LEAS-C differs from other assessments of
emotion experience, for example, Children’s Depression Inventory (Kovacs, 1985), and
the Revised Child Manifest Anxiety Scale (Reynolds, 1980), because it requires children
to generate their own descriptive responses, providing information on their ability to
monitor emotion states, as well as the structural complexity of that experience
(e.g. somatic response, action response, discrete emotion, blended emotions).
The Kusche Affective Interview – Revised (KAI-R; Kusche, Beilke, & Greenberg, 1988)
is perhaps closest to the LEAS-C in that it distinguishes between the emotions of self and
other, and acknowledges differences in the complexity of emotions. However, while the
LEAS-C conceptualizes emotion complexity on five levels, and in relation to structural
organization, the KAI-R conceptualizes emotion complexity on only two conceptual
levels, simple and complex (e.g. angry vs jealousy). Similar to the abovementioned
assessments, KAI-R scoring is also based on correct responses to predetermined prompts.
The present study involved two stages. Firstly, a pilot study was conducted to develop,
trial, and select scenes suitable for the LEAS-C. The second stage examined the
preliminary psychometrics and validity of the LEAS-C. Gender effects for all dependent
variables and age affects in EA were also examined.
When examining the validity of the LEAS-C, measures that were the same or similar to
those used in Lane’s et al. (1990) validation study with adults were adopted. Construct
validity was examined using a cognitive developmental measure, the Parental
Descriptions Scale (PDS; Blatt, 1974) and two conventional measures of emotion
 Levels of Emotional Awareness Scale for Children 573

knowledge: emotion expressions (Izard, 1971), and emotion comprehension

(Cermele, Ackerman, & Izard, 1995). The PDS examines the cognitive complexity of
children’s representations, based on written open-ended descriptions of their mother and
father. With the inclusion of this measure, we were able to assess the developmental basis
to the LEAS-C. A positive correlation was expected between the LEAS-C and PDS. The
emotion expressions task assesses emotion decoding skill and requires children to
recognize and label the emotion expression posed by adults. The emotion
comprehension task examines children’s perspective-taking abilities. This latter task
also shares some similarity to the LEAS-C. In both tasks, children are presented with a
series of scenarios and are required to indicate how the main character might feel in the
given situation. That is, both tasks tap some dimension of emotion understanding.
However, the measures differ in two key aspects. Firstly, the LEAS-C focuses on two
perspectives (self, other) while the emotion comprehension task examines one
perspective (other). More importantly, the LEAS-C requires subjects to generate
responses to each scenario, while the emotion comprehension task requires subjects to
select a suitable response from a given list of options. Furthermore, LEAS-C responses are
scored on the basis of the structural complexity in emotion responses, not on the
appropriateness of the response. Scoring of emotion comprehension is based on correct
responses. The inclusion of the emotion expressions and emotion comprehension tasks
allowed us to test the premise that the LEAS-C also taps a dimension of emotion
knowledge/intelligence. A positive correlation was expected between the LEAS-C and the
emotion knowledge tasks. Given that the emotion expression task is more closely
oriented to emotion recognition skill, and the LEAS-C and the emotion comprehension
task to emotion understanding, the relationship between the latter two measures was
expected to be stronger.
Two verbal measures were also included in the battery; vocabulary (WISC-III:
vocabulary subscale) and verbal productivity (VP, the total number of words used in
constructing LEAS-C responses). Prior research suggests children’s verbal skills are
strongly related to their emotion abilities (Cutting & Dunn, 1999; De Rosnay & Harris,
2002). The inclusion of these variables allowed us to identify and control the
contribution of factors such as verbosity and vocabulary skills to LEAS-C performance.
Gender effects on the dependent variables were also examined. Of primary interest
were gender differences in LEAS-C performance. On the basis of adult LEAS findings, and
evidence of gender effects in many domains of children’s emotion skills (e.g. Casey, 1993;
Wintre & Vallance, 1994; Zeman & Shipman, 1996), we predicted that females would
report higher levels of emotional awareness than males. We expected gender effects in
LEAS-C performance to remain when the influence of verbal skill was controlled. We
also predicted females would outperform males on the emotion knowledge and verbal
tasks. Past research would suggest that females outperform males in emotion expression
tasks, including emotion decoding tasks (Hall, 1984). While gender effects in children’s
emotion understanding are far less clear, evidence that females perform better than
males in perspective-taking tasks has been found (Brown & Dunn, 1996). Given prior
findings (e.g. Brody, 1993), we also expected that females would report higher verbal
scores than males. Gender effects in the PDS were not expected.
The limited age range in this study restricted the potential for examining age effects
within-sample. However, given the developmental basis to the LEA model, it would be
expected that adults report higher levels of EA than children. While the EA scores
obtained in this child study could be compared with Lane’s et al. (1996) normative adult
data, a direct comparison such as this comes with notable limitations. The instruments
574 Jane Bajgar et al.

used to assess EA in adults and in children are not identical. While over 80% of LEAS-C
scenarios are derived from the LEAS, slight modifications have been made to all
shared scenarios. In addition, the LEAS-C contains two new scenarios. The LEAS
comprised 20 scenarios, while the LEAS-C has 12. However, the scenarios serve the
general function of eliciting emotion descriptions and the scoring system for both adult
and child versions are identical. This means that in theory, scores utilize the same
metric, although derived from slightly different prompts. With these caveats in mind, EA
scores were compared between adult and child data. We predicted that adults would
report higher EA scores than children. Given prior evidence of significant gender
differences in EA, we also explored whether age effects varied on the basis of gender.
In summary, the reports of two studies follow. The first of these involved the
development and selection of LEAS-C items. The second examined the preliminary
psychometric and validity testing of the LEAS-C. Given prior evidence of gender and age
related patterns in children’s emotion skills, we examined these factors in relation to the
LEAS-C. On the basis of prior research, gender differences in emotion knowledge and
verbal skills were also of interest.

Pilot study
Item development
Initial steps involved the generation of a pool of potential LEAS-C scenarios. Where
possible, items from the adult-based LEAS were used; 13 of these were selected. Slight
modifications, vocabulary, grammatical, or contextual, were necessary with all 13,
reflecting the adaptation of an adult instrument to a measure appropriate for use with
children. Some vocabulary modifications reflected cultural differences (e.g. ‘fire engines’
replaced ‘fire trucks’ in scenario #2). LEAS scenarios not selected for the pilot study were
excluded on the basis of content or theme inappropriateness (e.g. loyalty to one’s
country, suicide), or because they were generally not amenable to minor modification.
To extend the selection pool further, an additional nine scenarios were developed to
reflect school/peer themes (e.g. teacher handing out test results, an accident in the
playground, sharing food, getting picked for the team). Consistent with the organizing
theme used in the generation of LEAS scenarios, these items were developed to pull for
one of four emotions: anger, fear, happiness, or sadness. This process resulted in a pool of
22 potential LEAS-C scenarios; 60% of these were modified LEAS scenarios.

Pilot study
The pilot study was conducted with a small group of six children (3 males, age range
10–11 years, M age ¼ 10:3; 3 females, age range 9–12 years, M age ¼ 10:0).
These children were known to the first author and did not have any social/academic
delay or disability. Of the six children, four completed the 22 scenarios in a 1:1 test
situation with the first author. Two children completed the measure at home in their
own time. The average time to complete the 22 scenarios was 1 hour. Children were
encouraged to ask questions as they arose. A brief discussion followed completion of the
LEAS-C, where children’s responses to, and perceptions of the task, were probed
(e.g. level of interest, clarity and ease of response).

Item selection
On the basis of children’s written and verbal responses, items that appeared ambiguous
or redundant were discarded. Other factors including children’s interest and the desire
 Levels of Emotional Awareness Scale for Children 575

to maintain thematic balance (school vs home contexts, types of targeted emotions)

were also considered. The decision to retain only 10 of the 22 scenarios was guided by
the desire to preserve the maximum number of scenarios with least risk of task demands
negatively impacting on children’s performance (e.g. a 1 hour written task negatively
impacting on motivation). On the basis of pilot study time trials, we anticipated 12
scenarios could be completed in approximately 20 minutes. This was judged a
reasonable task requirement. The fact that a 10-item version of the LEAS had been used
successfully in adult research (Barrett et al., 2000) also suggested that a 12-item measure
was feasible. Of the final 12 scenarios, 10 were modified LEAS items. Two scenarios
were new and reflected school/peer issues.

Psychometric study
In this study we examined the psychometric properties of the 12-item LEAS-C among a
larger group of school children.

Method
Participants
A group of 51 children between the ages of 10 and 11 participated in the project.
There were 25 females (10 years, N ¼ 18; 11 years N ¼ 7; M age ¼ 10:3, SD ¼ 0:46)
and 26 males (10 years, N ¼ 17; 11 years, N ¼ 9; M age ¼ 10:3, SD ¼ 0:49).
Participants were recruited from two private schools in a regional city with a
population of 180,000. The city has a mix of heavy industrial and university based
employment. All children were of middle-class background and identified as
competent English speakers. A letter describing the study and its aims was distributed
to all students in Grades 5 and 6. Student and parental permission to participate was
obtained for 49% of these children. Two children who had returned consent forms
were unable to participate on the day of data collection, and the data for two
children who fell outside of the targeted age range were not included (one aged 9
and another aged 12 years).

Measures
Emotional awareness
The LEAS-C comprises 12 evocative interpersonal scenarios. Each scenario is described
in two to four sentences, and involves two people. Subjects are asked to describe the
feelings of self and of the other person for each scenario. Two scenarios are presented
per page, each scenario followed by two questions: ‘How would you feel?’, and,
‘How would the other person feel?’
The scoring procedure for the LEAS-C is identical to that followed by the LEAS.
Scoring is aimed at determining the degree of differentiation or specificity in the
emotions described, and the range of emotions reported. Each scenario is designed to
elicit one of four types of emotion (happiness, anger, sadness, or fear; three samples
each). In departure from other emotion knowledge assessments (e.g. Denham’s
affective labelling and affective perspective-taking tasks, 1986), this format serves an
organizational purpose only, and the particular emotions targeted in the scenarios are
not relevant to the scoring of the LEAS-C. The primary purpose of the LEAS-C is to
examine the emotion complexity inherent in the responses children generate to each of
the scenarios, therefore the correctness of their response is not relevant to the scoring.
576 Jane Bajgar et al.

Complexity of emotional awareness is assessed on five levels (see Table 1). A low
awareness Level 1 response may stress somatic features (e.g.‘I would feel sick’), or may
directly state a lack of emotional response (e.g. ‘I would feel nothing’). A Level 2
response reflects action (e.g. ‘I would feel like smashing the wall’), or a more global and
generalized state not indicative of a specific emotion (e.g.‘I would feel good’). Level 3
responses reflect specific unidimensional emotions (e.g. ‘I would feel happy’), Level 4
and 5 responses show greater complexity in awareness with emotion blends evident
(e.g. ‘I would feel angry but maybe a little bit sad as well’). Where there is no response,
or the response reflects cognition (e.g. ‘I would feel like she did it deliberately’), a score
of 0 is given.
For each scenario, 3 scores are allocated: a score for self-awareness, other-
awareness, and for total-awareness. The total-awareness score is taken as the higher
of the self- and other-awareness scores.1 Self- and other-awareness scores range from
0 to 4. Where both self- and other-awareness are scored 4, and there is differentiation
between the emotion terms used for self and other, a Level 5 score is allocated (see
Table 1). Total self-awareness scores and total other-awareness scores range from 0 to
48 (e.g. for each scenario a range from 0 to 4). However, the maximum possible total
awareness score is 60 (e.g. a total awareness score for one scenario can be scored 5).
The glossary of emotion words used for scoring the LEAS was also used to guide the
scoring of the LEAS-C. A copy of the measure and scoring criteria are available from
the first author.

Parental Descriptions Scale

Investigation of children’s cognitive developmental level was provided by the
Assessment of Qualitative and Structural Dimensions of Object Representation Scales
(Blatt, Chevron, Quinlan, Schaffer, & Wein, 1992). Of interest to this research were
children’s open-ended descriptions of their parents, referred to as the Parental
Descriptions Scale (PDS; Blatt, 1974). The PDS has several assessment components
including qualitative characteristics evident in descriptions, verbal fluency, degree of
ambivalence, and conceptual level. The conceptual dimension only was assessed here,
as our interest lay in examining the developmental relationship between the PDS and
LEAS-C.
Subjects were asked to ‘describe your mother’ and half-way down the page
‘describe your father’. At the request of the University Human Ethics Committee,
these instructions were modified with the inclusion that another significant adult in
the child’s life could be described (e.g. grandmother), if describing one’s mother or
father was not appropriate to the child’s home situation. Students were asked to
indicate whom they were describing. A 9-point scale is used to guide scoring, ranging
from a Level 1 response, a concrete description lacking self-other differentiation, to a
Level 9 response, where complex and differentiated psychological characteristics are
used to convey the uniqueness of the individual. A somewhat truncated range of PDS
scores was expected in children’s responses, compared with that found in adult
studies (Priel, Myodovnik, & Rivlin-Beniaminy, 1995). In adult studies, inter-rater

1
While there were some indications that children’s self-EA was higher than other-EA, the difference between self- and other-
awareness scores was ns, especially when considered gender separate (gender combined: tð50Þ ¼ 1:54, p ¼ :06; males:
tð25Þ ¼ 1:40, p ¼ :09, females: tð24Þ ¼ :81, p ¼ :21, one-tailed). In addition, we sought to maintain the scoring
procedures used with the LEAS to facilitate comparisons between adult and child emotional awareness research.
 Levels of Emotional Awareness Scale for Children 577

Table 1. The 5 levels of emotional awareness with response examples: LEAS-C Scenario #7. The dentist
tells you that you have some problems with your teeth that need to be fixed immediately.
The dentist makes an appointment for you to come back the next day. How would you feel? How would
the dentist feel?

Level Ability to describe emotions Example of response

0 No response/cognitions I would feel like I should have brushed my

teeth more often than I did. The dentist
would feel like I didn’t brush my teeth
enough.
1 Bodily sensation I would feel it would hurt. I don’t know how
the dentist would feel.
2 Global hedonic state I would feel alright because we had it done
before. He would feel good.
3 Unidimensional emotion We would both feel angry of course!
4 Differentiated emotions I would feel scared and worried. The dentist
would probably feel worried and happy
to fix me and get money.
5 More complex & differentiated states I would feel a bit worried for my teeth but
excited because I don’t know what will
happen. The dentist would feel hopeful
and sorry.

reliability for the PDS has been reported between .83 and .88 (Blatt, Wein, Chevron,
& Quinlan, 1979; Blatt, Wiseman, Prince-Gibson, & Gatt, 1991; Bornstein, Galley, &
Leone, 1986). In Priel’s et al. (1995) child study, inter-rater reliability for the PDS
ranged from .76 to .89. For the conceptual component alone, inter-rater reliability
was r ¼ :89 and test–retest reliability for the conceptual component was .90. Data for
inter-rater reliability was not available in the present study. Mother and father scores
were significantly correlated, r ¼ :94, p , :001, providing some support for the
internal consistency of the PDS.

Verbal skills
Vocabulary
The vocabulary subtest of the Weschler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC-III)
provides an index of verbal intelligence (Barrett et al., 2000). For the purposes of this
study, the measure was group administered (Barrett et al., 2000; Subic-Wrana, Thomas,
Huber, & Koehle, 2001). A series of 15 words were read aloud to the students.
The starting-point for the word list was taken using the lowest age of the participating
students as a guide (Sattler & Dumont, 2004). Students were directed to write down the
meaning of each word. Total vocabulary scores ranged from 0 to a maximum possible of
30. The internal consistency of the vocabulary subtest was Cronbach’s a ¼ :71.

Verbal productivity
Replicating Lane’s et al. (1990) validation study of the LEAS, the total number of words
used to respond to all LEAS-C scenarios were summed to provide a VP score for each
subject.
578 Jane Bajgar et al.

Emotion knowledge
The emotion expressions and emotion comprehension tasks have been used in prior
research as conventional measures of emotion knowledge (Garner, Jones, & Miner,
1994; Ribordy, Camras, Stefani, & Spaccarelli, 1988). They assess recognition of
emotion cues, in faces and situations, respectively. In the present study, the emotion
expression measure (Izard, 1971) was presented as a production task, requiring
children to recognize emotion cues in faces, and to generate their own responses.
Internal consistency of the emotion expressions task has been reported at a ¼ :52
(Schultz & Izard, 1998a), and in combination with the emotion comprehension task,
a ¼ :65 (Schultz, Izard, Ackerman, & Youngstrom, 2001; Schultz, 2001). In this study,
the internal consistency of the emotion expression task was a ¼ :52 and in
combination with the emotion comprehension task, a ¼ :54. The emotion
comprehension task required students to recognize emotion cues in different
situations and following certain behaviours, and to select a suitable response from a
given list of choices (Cermele et al., 1995). Internal consistency of the emotion
comprehension task has been reported at a ¼ :58 (Schultz & Izard, 1998b), with a
similar result in the present study, a ¼ :59.

Emotion expressions
Students were presented with photos of adults posing one of six emotions
(anger, surprise, sadness, disgust, joy, or fear; Glenn, 1974). These photos were
presented to the group in sequence. Following each photo presentation, students were
asked to generate a response to the question, ‘How is this person feeling?’. Responses
were scored according to the following format: score 2 ¼ correct answer or synonym,
score 1 ¼ incorrect answer but correct valence, and score 0 ¼ incorrect answer and
incorrect valence.

Emotion comprehension
This task was divided into two parts. Part I comprised 18 scenes, and students were
asked to identify how the protagonist felt in each situation (happy, sad, mad, scared,
interested, or ashamed). Part II comprised nine scenes and students were asked to
identify how the protagonist felt after behaving in a particular manner (happy, mad,
proud, guilty, ashamed, or looking down on someone). Responses were scored using the
same procedure as that for the emotion expression task.

Procedure
All measures were administered in a group setting during regular class time. Data was
collected from two separate groups of children; the protocol followed for the two
groups was the same. Children completed the LEAS-C, PDS and emotion expressions
task before taking a short break. The vocabulary and the emotion comprehension task
followed. All administration was carried out by the first author. Students participated
anonymously.

Results
Consistent with adult-based LEAS research, EA results are reported in terms of total-
LEAS-C scores (see Method for scoring details). However, in departure from convention,
 Levels of Emotional Awareness Scale for Children 579

we also reported self- and other- LEAS-C scores. This decision was guided by
developmental research suggesting that differences in self- and other-emotional
awareness may themselves be informative (Carlo, Knight, Eisenberg, & Rotenberg,
1991; Carroll & Steward, 1984; Denham, 1986). Comments in relation to overall
emotional awareness, or LEAS-C scores, will refer to total- LEAS-C scores, unless specific
reference to LEAS-C subscales is made.
The results are reported in four sections. We present the reliability analysis for the
LEAS-C first. To examine the validity of the LEAS-C, Pearson correlations are reported
between the LEAS-C, the emotion knowledge tasks, the verbal tasks and the PDS.
Gender differences in the LEAS-C, the emotion knowledge tasks, the verbal tasks and the
PDS are then examined with a one-way ANOVA. A one-way ANCOVA explores gender
effects on LEAS-C scores controlling for verbal skill. We then report age effects in EA,
comparing the child data obtained in this study to Lane’s et al. (1996) adult normative
data. An alpha level of .05 and directional testing was used throughout.

Reliability
Each LEAS-C scenario was coded and scored independently of the remaining scenarios.
Two raters scored 22 of the protocols. Inter-rater reliability using Pearson’s correlation
was, for self-LEAS-C scores, r ¼ :93, for other-LEAS-C scores, r ¼ :86, and for total-LEAS-
C scores, r ¼ :89. Internal consistency using Cronbach’s alpha was a ¼ :71 for self
scores, a ¼ :64 for other-scores, and a ¼ :66 for total scores (N ¼ 51). Given that the
LEAS-C comprises 12 items, a slight attenuation of reliability was expected when
compared with the 20-item version for adults.

Correlations with the LEAS-C

Relations between the LEAS-C (self-, other-, and total-scores), and the emotion
knowledge tasks, the verbal tasks, and the PDS, were then examined (see Table 2). The
Pearson product-moment correlation was used. Total-LEAS-C scores were significantly
correlated with emotion comprehension, and vocabulary and VP. Other-LEAS-C scores
were significantly related with emotion expression and emotion comprehension. Self-
LEAS-C scores were not significantly related to any of the variables ( p . :1).

Gender effects
A one-way ANOVA was conducted to examine gender effects for the three emotion
tasks, the two verbal tasks, and the cognitive developmental task (see Table 3). Females
reported significantly higher scores for the LEAS-C: self-, other-, and total-scores, the
emotion comprehension task, vocabulary and VP. Gender effects on the emotion
expression task were weaker, and were ns (p ¼ :06). Gender differences for the PDS
were also ns. A one-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) examined whether the gender
effects on LEAS-C performance were maintained with the contributions of vocabulary
and VP removed. The relationship between both covariates and the LEAS-C were ns
(p . :05). The main effect of gender was significant for total LEAS-C scores,
Fð1; 47Þ ¼ 8:44, p ¼ :01, and for other-LEAS-C scores, Fð1; 47Þ ¼ 5:12, p ¼ :03.
Gender effects on self-LEAS-C scores were ns, Fð1; 47Þ ¼ 3:10, p ¼ :09.
580 Jane Bajgar et al.

Table 2. Pearson correlations between the LEAS-C, emotion knowledge tasks, verbal skills and the PDS

LEAS-C PDSa

Self Other Total Expressb Compreh.c Vocab.d VPe Mother Father

LEAS-C
Self –
Other .55** –
Total .76** .79** –
Expression 2.03 .30* .15 –
Compreh. .17 .25* .28* .01 –
Vocab. .17 .19 .31* .22 .41** –
VP .13 .05 .30* .23* .34** .32* –
PDS
Mother 2.10 2.04 .02 2.05 2.08 .18 2 .06 –
Father 2.07 .04 .04 2.01 2.11 .08 2 .08 .94** –

*p , :05, **p , :001.

a
Parental Descriptions Scale.
b
Emotion expressions.
c
Emotion comprehension.
d
Verbal subtest, WISC-III.
e
Verbal productivity.

Table 3. Gender differences in emotion skills, verbal skills and cognitive development

Males Females

Measures Mean SD Mean SD F

LEAS-C
Self 30.65 6.20 33.88 4.53 4.48*
Other 29.31 6.10 32.96 4.00 6.35**
Total 34.15 4.32 38.20 3.60 13.15**
Emotion expressions 24.92 4.24 26.68 3.48 2.60
Emotion comprehension 43.38 3.56 45.16 3.02 3.68*
Vocabulary 16.46 4.84 19.08 5.10 3.54*
Verbal productivity 207.54 63.83 240.96 72.60 3.06*
PDS
Mother 3.60 1.58 3.92 1.29 0.62
Father 3.64 1.78 3.88 1.24 0.31

*p , :05, **p , :001.

Age effects
As noted earlier, the restricted age range available in this study did not allow us to
examine age effects within sample. However, preliminary steps were taken in this
direction by examining the EA scores from this child sample, and EA scores from
Lane’s et al., normative adult data. LEAS-C scores were pro-rated to facilitate
comparisons. The descriptives for child and adult EA data are presented in Table 4.
We used contrast analysis using Welch’s procedure (Welch, 1947), which provides
 Levels of Emotional Awareness Scale for Children 581

Table 4. Within gender comparisons of child and adult EA data: means and standard deviations

Males Females

Women
Boys (N ¼ 26) Men (N ¼ 190) Girls (N ¼ 25) (N ¼ 197)

Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD

EAa 56.9 4.3 58.5 11.0 63.7 4.4 64.3 10.2

a
Total LEAS-C scores for child data (mean scores prorated); Total LEAS scores for adult data

reasonable protection against Type I error when variances are heterogeneous and
sample sizes are unequal (Kirk, 1982). Both age and the interaction of age and gender
were ns (p . :1).

Discussion
This study reports the development, and preliminary psychometric and validity testing
of the LEAS-C. Results suggest that reliability of the LEAS-C is acceptable. Inter-rater
reliability was high, while preliminary evidence for internal consistency of the LEAS-C
was fair in view of the small sample size and the fact only 12 items comprise the LEAS-C.
Validity testing results were promising, and gender effects were generally supported.
We predicted that the LEAS-C would be related to the emotion knowledge tasks and
specifically, that the LEAS-C would be more strongly related to emotion comprehension
than to emotion expression. The relationship between the LEAS-C and emotion
comprehension was stronger, the latter measure being significantly correlated to both
other- and total-LEAS-C scores. The predicted relationship between the LEAS-C and
emotion expressions was only partially supported. The relationship between emotion
expressions and total-LEAS-C scores was not significant, however emotion expressions
was significantly related to other-LEAS-C scores. This relationship is intuitively
appealing. While presentation formats between the two tasks differ, children are
required to identify the emotions felt by others with both measures. They are also
required to generate their responses in both tasks.
Prior research suggests children’s verbal abilities relate strongly to their emotion
skills (Cutting & Dunn, 1999; De Rosnay & Harris, 2002). The findings from this study
were consistent with these expectations. Both vocabulary and VP were significantly
related to the LEAS-C. The strength of the relationship between each verbal skill and the
LEAS-C were comparable, suggesting both volume and specificity of words contribute to
LEAS-C performance.
Contrary to expectations, there was no relationship between the LEAS-C and the
PDS. Given that the two measures are based on cognitive models which emphasize
developmental stage progressions, the relationship between the two measures may be
better demonstrated with a greater age range and larger sample size. However, these
results do raise the question of the development time course of object representation
and emotional awareness. Perhaps by adulthood these domains are stably related, while
in childhood, in this age group there may be significant time lags in the development of
these domains that is not yet well understood. These results do appear to suggest that
these different domains develop at different rates in different children (horizontal
décalage).
582 Jane Bajgar et al.

Consistent with adult findings, we found strong gender differences in EA using the
LEAS-C. Females outperformed males on self-, other-, and total-LEAS-C scores. Most
importantly, with the contribution of vocabulary and VP removed, gender effects in EA
remained. These results provide support for the claim that the LEAS-C taps the structure
and complexity of emotions, independent of language. As predicted, females
outperformed males on the emotion comprehension task, vocabulary and VP. While
evidence of gender differences in children’s emotion understanding has been equivocal,
these results support previous findings of gender effects in children’s perspective-taking
ability (Brown & Dunn, 1996). From a broader perspective, these results also support
gender differences in some dimension of children’s emotion understanding. On the
basis of previous results (e.g. Casey & Schlosser, 1994; Hall, 1984) we predicted females
would achieve significantly higher emotion decoding scores compared with males. Our
results were weaker than predicted with this task with gender effects not reaching
significance ( p ¼ :06). Consistent with expectations, gender effects in cognitive
development were not evident.
Preliminary steps to examine age effects were also taken. Within-gender means were
in the expected direction, with both male and female children reporting lower EA
scores compared with adult males and females. Contrary to expectations, age effects
were ns. Methodological limitations in the comparison between child and adult EA data
were noted earlier, and may have had some bearing on these results. Developmental
progressions in EA may be more clearly demonstrated with the involvement of younger
age groups. Evidence suggests children as young as 3 years of age understand the terms
sad, mad, happy, and scared, and can relate events and experiences that may evoke such
emotions (Harter, 1982). Future research involving age groups such as 3–5 years and 6–8
years will be necessary to thoroughly investigate developmental progressions in EA.
While the discrepancy between child and adult scores was greater for males than for
females, the Age £ Gender interaction was also ns. The child data was based on a
relatively small sample size, especially when considered within gender. Further research
using larger samples may more adequately test the extent to which rates of
developmental progression in EA differ between males and females.
In conclusion, the findings of the present study are encouraging and suggest that
individual differences in complexity of emotional awareness may be meaningfully
measured in children. Importantly, we found that the sex differences that have been
observed in EA among adults also emerge in children as young as 10 years old.
In addition to the above, several directions for future research are recommended.
A larger sample size would increase the stability of many of the coefficients
(e.g. internal consistency). Test–retesting and/or the inclusion of self-reports of
emotion experiences measures would provide opportunities to test that the LEAS-C
taps the structure, not experience, of emotion. Evidence of gender differences in
relations between emotion and social variables (e.g. Brown & Dunn, 1996; Custrini &
Feldman, 1989) may be further explored with the LEAS-C. For example, it would be
of value to examine with larger samples if the LEAS-C relates to other indices of
children’s social/emotional functioning, such as social competence and social
behaviour.

Acknowledgements
We thank Professor Carroll Izard for his helpful suggestions in the development stage of the LEAS-C
study.
 Levels of Emotional Awareness Scale for Children 583

References
Banerjee, M. (1997). Peeling the onion: A multilayered view of children’s emotional development.
In S. Hala (Ed.), The development of social cognition. Studies in developmental psychology
(pp. 241–272). East Sussex, UK: Psychology Press.
Barrett, L. F., Lane, R. D., Sechrest, L., & Schwartz, G. E. (2000). Sex differences in emotional
awareness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(9), 1027–1035.
Bennett, M., & Galpert, L. (1992). Developmental changes in understanding the influence of
emotion upon cognitive performance and motivation. Motivation and Emotion, 16(2),
103–115.
Blatt, S. J. (1974). Levels of object representation in anaclitic and introjective depression.
Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, 29(10), 7–157.
Blatt, S. J., Chevron, E. S., Quinlan, D. M., Schaffer, C. E. & Wein, S. J. (1992). The assessment of
qualitative and structural dimensions of object representations (Rev. ed.). Unpublished
manual, Yale University.
Blatt, S. J., Wein, S. J., Chevron, E. S., & Quinlan, D. M. (1979). Parental representations and
depression in normal young adults. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 88(4), 388–397.
Blatt, S. J., Wiseman, H., Prince-Gibson, E., & Gatt, C. (1991). Object representations and change in
clinical functioning. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 28(2), 273–283.
Bornstein, R. F., Galley, D. J., & Leone, D. R. (1986). Parental representations and orality. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 50(1), 80–89.
Bowling, B. J (1993). Learning to use display rules: Family expressiveness and display rule
knowledge. Dissertations Abstracts International, 53 (8-B).
Brenner, E. M., & Salovey, P. (1997). Emotion regulation during childhood: Developmental,
interpersonal, and individual considerations. In P. Salovey & D. J. Sluyter (Eds.), Emotional
development and emotional intelligence: Educational implications (pp. 168–195).
New York: Basicbooks.
Brody, L. R. (1985). Gender differences in emotional development: A review of theories and
research. Journal of Personality, 53(2), 102–149.
Brody, L. R. (1993). On understanding gender differences in the expression of emotion: Gender
roles, socialization, and language. In S. L. Ablon, D. Brown, E. J. Khantzian & J. E. Mack (Eds.),
Human feelings: Explorations in affect development and meaning (pp. 87–121). Hillsdale,
NJ: Analytic Press.
Brown, J. R., & Dunn, J. (1996). Continuities in emotion understanding from 3–6 yrs. Child
Development, 67(3), 789–802.
Carlo, G., Knight, G. P., Eisenberg, N., & Rotenberg, K. J. (1991). Cognitive processes and
prosocial behaviors among children: The role of affective attributions and reconciliations.
Developmental Psychology, 27(3), 456–461.
Carroll, J. J., & Steward, M. S. (1984). The role of cognitive development in children’s
understandings of their own feelings. Child Development, 55(4), 1486–1492.
Casey, R. J. (1993). Children’s emotional experience: Relations among expression, self-report, and
understanding. Developmental Psychology, 29(1), 119–129.
Casey, R. J., & Schlosser, S. (1994). Emotional responses to peer praise in children with and
without a diagnosed externalizing disorder. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 40(1), 60–81.
Cassidy, J., Parke, R. D., Butkovsky, L., & Braungart, J. M. (1992). Family-peer connections: The
roles of emotional expressiveness within the family and children’s understanding of emotions.
Child Development, 63(3), 603–618.
Cermele, J. A., Ackerman, B. P. & Izard, C. E. (1995). Children’s Emotion Situation Knowledge.
Unpublished manuscript, University of Delaware at Newark, DE.
Ciarrochi, J., & Forgas, J. P. (2000). The pleasure of possessions: Affective influences and
personality in the evaluation of consumer items. European Journal of Social Psychology,
30(5), 631–649.
584 Jane Bajgar et al.

Clay, D. L., Hagglund, K. J., Kashani, J. H., & Frank, R. G. (1996). Sex differences in anger
expression, depressed mood, and aggression in children and adolescents. Journal of Clinical
Psychology in Medical Settings, 3(1), 71–92.
Cole, P. M. (1986). Children’s spontaneous control of facial expression. Child Development, 57(6),
1309–1321.
Custrini, R. J., & Feldman, R. S. (1989). Children’s social competence and nonverbal encoding and
decoding of emotions. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 18(4), 336–342.
Cutting, A. L., & Dunn, J. (1999). Theory of mind, emotion understanding, language, and family
background: Individual differences and interrelations. Child Development, 70(4), 853–865.
De Rosnay, M., & Harris, P. L. (2002). Individual differences in children’s understanding of
emotion: The roles of attachment and language. Attachment and Human Development, 4(1),
39–54.
De Sonneville, L. M. J., Vershoor, C. A., Njiokiktjien, C., Veld, V. O. H., Toorenaar, N., & Vranken, M.
(2002). Facial identity and facial emotions: Speed, accuracy and processing strategies in
children and adults. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 24(2), 200–213.
Denham, S. A. (1986). Social cognition, prosocial behavior, and emotion in preschoolers:
Contextual validation. Child Development, 57(1), 194–201.
Denham, S. A., & Grout, L. (1992). Mothers’ emotional expressiveness and coping: Relations with
preschoolers’ social-emotional competence. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology
Monographs, 118(1), 73–101.
Denham, S. A., Mitchell-Copeland, J., Strandberg, K., Auerbach, S., & Blair, K. (1997). Parental
contributions to preschoolers’ emotional competence: Direct and indirect effects. Motivation
and Emotion, 21(1), 65–86.
Donaldson, S. K., & Westerman, M. A. (1986). Development of children’s understanding of
ambivalence and causal theories of emotions. Developmental Psychology, 22(5), 655–662.
Dunn, J., Cutting, A. L., & Demetriou, H. (2000). Moral sensibility, understanding others, and
children’s friendship interactions in the preschool period. British Journal of Developmental
Psychology, 18(2), 159–177.
Eisenberg, N., & Moore, B. S. (1997). Emotion regulation and development. Motivation and
Emotion, 21(1), 1–6.
Flavell, J. H. (1963). The developmental psychology of Jean Piaget. London: D. Van Nostrand
Company.
Garber, J., Braafladt, N., & Weiss, B. (1995). Affect regulation in depressed and nondepressed
children and young adolescents. Development and Psychopathology, 7(1), 93–115.
Garner, P. W., Jones, D. C., & Miner, J. L. (1994). Social competence among low-income
preschoolers: Emotion socialization practices and social cognitive correlates. Child
Development, 65(2), 622–637.
Glenn, R. (1974). The glenn pictures – 36: African American faces of emotion (photographs).
A & M University, Tallahassee, FL.: Rogers Glenn, Florida.
Gordis, F. W., Rosen, A. B. & Grand, S. (1989). Young children’s understanding of simultaneous
conflicting emotions. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in
Child Development, Kansas City, MO.
Halberstadt, A. G. (1986). Family socialization of emotional expression and nonverbal comm-
unication styles and skills. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(4), 827–836.
Halberstadt, A. G., Crisp, V. W., & Eaton, K. L. (1999). Family expressiveness: A retrospective and
new directions for research. In P. Philippot & R. Feldman (Eds.), The social context of
nonverbal behavior. Studies in emotion and social interaction (pp. 109–155). New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Hall, J. A. (1984). Nonverbal sex differences: Communication accuracy and expressive style.
Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.
Harris, P., & Olthof, T. (1982). The child’s concept of emotion. In G. Butterworth & P. Light (Eds.),
Social cognition: Studies of the development of understanding. Sussex, UK: The Harvester
Press.
 Levels of Emotional Awareness Scale for Children 585

Harter, S. (1980). A cognitive-developmental approach to children’s use of affect and trait labels.
In F. Serafica (Ed.), Social cognition and social relations in context (pp. 27–61). New York:
Guilford Press.
Harter, S. (1982). Children’s understanding of multiple emotions: A cognitive-developmental
approach. In W. Overton (Ed.), The relationship between cognitive and social development
(pp. 147–194). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Harter, S., & Buddin, B. J. (1987). Children’s understanding of the simultaneity of two emotions:
A five-stage developmental acquisition sequence. Developmental Psychology, 23(3), 388–399.
Hughes, C., & Dunn, J. (1998). Understanding mind and emotion: Longitudinal associations with
mental-state talk between young friends. Developmental Psychology, 34(5), 1026–1037.
Izard, C. E. (1971). The face of emotion. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Kirk, R. (1982). Experimental design: Procedures for the behavioral sciences. Pacific Grove, CA:
Brooks/Cole Publishing.
Koike, W. (1997). A developmental study on depiction of emotions in children’s drawings.
Japanese Journal of Educational Psychology, 45(4), 1–11.
Kopp, C. B. (1989). Regulation of distress and negative emotions: A developmental view.
Developmental Psychology, 25(3), 343–354.
Kovacs, M. (1985). The children’s depression inventory (CDI). Psychopharmacology Bulletin, 21,
995–998.
Kusche, C. A., Beilke, R. L. & Greenberg, M. T. (1988). Kusche Affective Interview – Revised.
Unpublished measure, University of Washington at Seattle, Washington.
Lane, R. D. (2000). Levels of emotional awareness: Neurobiological, psychological and social
perspectives. In R. Bar-On & J. Parker (Eds.), Handbook of emotional intelligence: Theory,
development, assessment and application at home, school, and in the workplace
(pp. 171–191). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Lane, R. D., Kivley, L. S., Du Bois, M. A., Shamasundara, P., & Schwartz, G. E. (1995). Levels of
emotional awareness and the degree of right hemispheric dominance in the perception of
facial emotion. Neuropsychologia, 33(5), 525–538.
Lane, R. D., Quinlan, D. M., Schwartz, G. E., & Walker, P. A. (1990). The Levels of Emotional
Awareness Scale: A cognitive-developmental measure of emotion. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 55(1–2), 124–134.
Lane, R. D., Reiman, E. M., Axelrod, B., Yun, L. -S., Holmes, A., & Schwartz, G. E. (1998). Neural
correlates of levels of emotional awareness: Evidence of an interaction between emotion and
attention in the anterior cingulate cortex. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 10(4), 525–535.
Lane, R. D., & Schwartz, G. E. (1987). Levels of emotional awareness: A cognitive-developmental
theory and its application to psychopathology. American Journal of Psychiatry, 144(2),
133–143.
Lane, R. D., Sechrest, L., Reidel, R., Weldon, V., Kasniak, A. W., & Schwartz, D. E. (1996). Impaired
verbal and nonverbal emotion recognition in alexithymia. Psychosomatic Medicine, 58(3),
203–210.
Markham, R., & Wang, L. (1996). Recognition of emotion by Chinese and Australian children.
Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology, 27(5), 616–643.
McElwain, N. L., & Volling, B. L. (2002). Relating individual control, social understanding, and
gender to child-friend interaction: A relationships perspective. Social Development, 11(3),
362–385.
Priel, B., Myodovnik, E., & Rivlin-Beniaminy, N. (1995). Parental representations among preschool
and fourth-grade children: Integrating object relational and cognitive developmental frame-
works. Journal of Personality Assessment, 65(2), 372–387.
Reynolds, C. R. (1980). Concurrent validity of what I think and feel: The Revised Children’s
Manifest Anxiety Scale. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 48(6), 774–775.
Ribordy, S. C., Camras, L. A., Stefani, R., & Spaccarelli, S. (1988). Vignettes for emotion recognition
research and affective therapy with children. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 17(4),
322–325.
586 Jane Bajgar et al.

Rotenberg, K. J., & Eisenberg, N. (1997). Developmental differences in the understanding of and
reaction to others’ inhibition of emotional expression. Developmental Psychology, 33(3),
526–537.
Saarni, C. (1984). An observational study of children’s attempts to monitor their expressive
behavior. Child Development, 55(4), 1504.
Saarni, C. (1999). The development of emotional competence. New York: Guilford Press.
Saarni, C., & von Salisch, M. (1993). The socialization of emotional dissemblance. In M. Lewis &
C. Saarni (Eds.), Lying and deception in everyday life (pp. 106–125). New York: Guilford
Press.
Sattler, J. M., & Dumont, R. (2004). Assessment of children: WISC–III and WPPSI–R supplement.
San Diego: Author.
Schultz, D. A. (2001). Emotion attributions, behavioral functioning, and sociometric status.
Dissertation Abstracts International, 61 (8-B).
Schultz, D., & Izard, C. E. (1998a). The Assessment of Children’s Emotion Skills: Facial
Expressions subtest. Unpublished raw data, University of Delaware at Newark, DE.
Schultz, D., & Izard, C. E. (1998b). The Assessment of Children’s Emotion Skills: Social Behaviors
and Social Situations subtests. Unpublished raw data, University of Delaware at Newark, DE.
Schultz, D., Izard, C. E., Ackerman, B. P., & Youngstrom, E. A. (2001). Emotion knowledge in
economically disadvantaged children: Self-regulatory antecedents and relations to social
difficulties and withdrawal. Development and Psychopathology, 13(1), 53–67.
Smith, M., & Walden, T. (1998). Developmental trends in emotion understanding among a diverse
sample of African-American preschool children. Journal of Applied Developmental
Psychology, 19(2), 177–198.
Subic-Wrana, C., Thomas, W., Huber, M., & Koehle, K. (2001). Levels of Emotional Awareness Scale
(LEAS): The German version of a new alexithymia test. Psychotherapeut, 46(3), 176–181.
Terwogt, M. M., Koops, W., Oosterhoff, T., & Olthof, T. (1986). Development in processing of
multiple emotional situations. Journal of General Psychology, 113(2), 109–119.
Terwogt, M. M., & Olthof, T. (1989). Awareness and self-regulation of emotion in young children.
In C. H. Saarni & P. Harris (Eds.), Children’s understanding of emotion (pp. 209–237).
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Thompson, R. A. (1989). Causal attributions and children’s emotional understanding. In C. Saarni &
P. Harris (Eds.), Children’s understanding of emotion (pp. 117–150). New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Tsukamoto, S. (1997). A developmental study on children’s understanding of emotion and
emotional self-control. Shinrigaku Kenkyu Japanese Journal of Psychology, 68(2), 111–119.
Underwood, M. K., Coie, J. D., & Herbsman, C. R. (1992). Display rules for anger and aggression in
school-age children. Child Development, 63(2), 366–380.
Welch, B. L. (1947). The generalization of student’s problem when several different population
variances are involved. Biometrika, 34, 28–35.
Wintre, M. G., & Vallance, D. D. (1994). A developmental sequence in the comprehension of
emotions: Intensity, multiple emotions, and valence. Developmental Psychology, 30(4),
509–514.
Zeman, J., & Shipman, K. (1996). Children’s expression of negative affect: Reasons and methods.
Developmental Psychology, 32(5), 842–849.

Received 28 April 2003; revised version received 1 October 2004